What Downed The Airliner?

[APG85]

If theres one thing I learned from Aircraft Accident Mishap Investigation Couse it's this: eyewitnesses (no matter who they are) can be very unreliable and easily misinterpret what they see...

[Steve Nelson]

Any cop or prosecutor will tell you..eyewitness testimony is the least reliable evidence you can have.

SN

[mustangdriver]

I can believe all of that, but why change what the eye witnesses said? Which is what they did! The eye witnesses are on video saying that what they told them was changed. I am sorry but if a guy in flight saw the thing go straight down, then I would have to take his word for it. Eye witnesses are not reliable? Since when. If you saw a building blow up on tv and did not know where it was, and then a guy ran covered in dirt and dust and said that the building blew up ant the end of the street that he just saw it, are you going to say, no he must be wrong. To dismiss eye witness acounts is wrong and dangerous. Remember that the judge ruled in favor of reopening this case as the NTSB did what he said was "a horrible job". Tell me why there is no one that saw this "zoom climb", why when the plane was pieced back together, there was a huge hole forward of the wings, why debris was found outside of the area marked as what would be from a center fuel tank explosion, and then covered up, seats with rockets residue on them, and a ton of other things. I am not just a bystander on this one. The helicopter pilot that had him as traffic saw him, clear as day, and flashed his search light at him to show that he saw him and would see and avoid. The 747 flashed it's light back at him, exploded, and then went straight down. This was not some guy that just happen to see it, it was a fellow aviator at close distance. If that pilot says that he saw it, then he did.
The NTSB put out the report, and the people that had anything to do with it were shocked at what they saw. The NTSB says that the zoom climb took place after the nose blew off, and that describes what A TON OF EYE WITNESSES claim to be a missle shooting up toward the aircraft. The only problem with the zoom climb theory is that physics are on my side.
The only reason that I go off on this is because if you are not that interested in it, to the common eye it looks like what is said, but if you just even scratch the surface on this thing, it really takes another turn. By the way the 747 that was destroyed on Flight 800 was used in the backdrop for a movie. I can't remember which one. There is an airport scene, and it is in the background.

[Bill Greenwood]

I guess one reason that conspiracies stories abound is that someone wants to believe them and that they are likely.

[Bill Greenwood]

Ever see the classic movie TWELVE ANGRY MEN, about a jury trying a murder case which looks easy, a Father who is abusive to his Son pushes the boy until the kid stabs the old man . Seems airtight, even witnesses. The first vote is 11 to 1 for guilty. But Henry Fonda is a careful type, thinks the kid deserves at least a real trial, and as the eve goes on it is shown the "eyewitnes" could not have seen or heard as claimed. Eventually the son is acquitted.

[mustangdriver]

I am not usually one to bite on these types of things, but I did on this one. One reason I have is that many of the guys I work with were at one time 747 mechanics. One of them was the lead on fuel systems, and he said that the idea of the explosion taking place is "just stupid". Those are his words not mine.

[Bill Greenwood]

Just in the news last night or today, 2 tenagers blown to bits when jumpoing on the lid of an underground fuel tank near Granby, Co. Strange, but true.

[RyanShort1]

I am not usually one to bite on these types of things, but I did on this one. One reason I have is that many of the guys I work with were at one time 747 mechanics. One of them was the lead on fuel systems, and he said that the idea of the explosion taking place is "just stupid". Those are his words not mine.

You're not the only one that's heard those things... Also from some other folks. I know a prof. up there in the area that was scheduled to fly on that same flight a few weeks later. My mom was taking some classes from him at the time when it happened. He was REALLY shaken up. He knew some folks up there and later on told me that he was told that it WAS a missile, but that "they" (whoever that is) would NEVER admit it. This guy I know is no right-wing nut or conspiracy guy, either. That's why I tend to believe the folks who say it wasn't the fuel tank.

Ryan

[mustangdriver]

I by no means mean to say that a center fuel tank explosion is not possible, but there are alot of strange things that went on in this investigation.

[rwdfresno]

I tend to subscribe to Occam's razor.

[astixjr]

Slept on the couch Sunday evening. My wife gave me the boot so my 3 1/2 year old son (high fever, tossing cookies) could take my place. The idea was for me to get some sleep so I could be somewhat productive at work the next day. I was about to turn the tube off at 1:00 AM when a program came on that reviewed the TWA Flight 800 crash. Very interesting. Sorry I do not recall the cable network or the show's name but it was well done. Among the many interesting parts was a simulation of how much spark is needed to cause an explosion in a center fuel tank. They rigged a center fuel tank, salvaged from a Boeing 737, with a proportional amount of Jet A, heated the tank to the same aprox temp that the TWA 800 tank was at, and slowly increased the level of a supplied spark to simulate the "worn out wire" theory. When they got to the spark level that is about what you get by walking across new carpet and touching a door knob, the tank went bang. I mean it really went bang. Did anyone else see this show?

[mustangdriver]

The NTSB tried to conduct a similat test, but they used propane in the fuel tank, because they could not get the jet fuel to explode! True story.

[King]

The NTSB tried to conduct a similat test, but they used propane in the fuel tank, because they could not get the jet fuel to explode! True story.

Yes, they used a simulant fuel for some of the tests for research purposes. But saying what you stated above is not correct and used out of context . Below is extracted from the NTSB report of TWA 800:

....Seventy-two tests were conducted, in three separate test phases, over a 2-year period. The initial phase of testing was conducted using a simulant fuel (268). The second and third phases of testing were conducted using Jet A fuel. Variations in model configurations, ignition locations, and fuel vapor conditions were examined. Because the primary intent of these tests was to provide a validation database for computer model development (which required that the essential physical phenomena of the CWT combustion event be represented), researchers did not require experimental duplication of all of the conditions on board the accident airplane. Important distinctions between the 1/4-scale test model and the full-scale CWT and the limitations of the testing were the following:

• The complexities of the full-scale CWT were simplified in the 1/4-scale model. The features believed to be most significant-bay volumes and lengths and vent and passageway areas-were scaled from the full-scale CWT, with some simplifications. For example, variations in tank height and the finer geometric details of stiffeners and stringers were not included in the model.

• It is not clear if the results of the 1/4-scale model testing can scale directly to replicate full-scale results. The effects of scaling on some features (such as flow turbulence and flame quenching) are not well understood.

• The effects of temperature and fuel vapor concentration variations within a single bay and between bays could not be examined in this limited experimental program (269).

• Other simplifications of the 1/4-scale model included the even distribution of fuel between the bays and a smooth floor geometry. Thus, the role of liquid layer participation may not be accurately demonstrated.

• The testing did not attempt to simulate partition failures, representative of fullscale CWT structural dynamic behavior during the combustion event, and the effects of such failures upon the combustion dynamics. Because of the differences between the 1/4-scale test model and the full-scale CWT, the interpretations that could be made by directly comparing these experimental results to a full-scale explosion were limited. Within these limitations, however, analysis of the experimental results led the researchers to reach the following conclusions regarding direct application of the 1/4-scale test results to TWA flight 800:

• Jet A fuel ignited and combusted during every test using conditions approximating those that existed in the accident airplane's CWT at the time of the accident.

• The ignition of Jet A fuel in one bay of the 1/4-scale model resulted in transmission of the flame through the bay passageways and vent stringers and ignition in neighboring bays, illustrating the behavior of multicompartment flame propagation. Flamefront quenching was also observed to be a characteristic of flame propagation.

• After the combustion flamefront propagated from the ignition bay to a neighboring bay, the combustion process dramatically accelerated, allowing explosion pressures to increase rapidly.

• In certain tests, pressure levels in bay 1 (the bay between SWB2 and SWB3) of the 1/4-scale model exceeded those needed to fail SWB (as indicated by Boeing's structural analysis of the full-scale geometry).

268 - The simulant fuel (1.4 percent propane, 7 percent hydrogen, and 91.6 percent air) was developed and used in this test series to permit the observation of multicompartment fuel vapor explosions at the local ambient temperature and pressure conditions of the test site (near Denver, Colorado), simulating the combustion behavior of the Jet A fuel vapor in the accident airplane's CWT at the conditions that existed at the time of the accident. Using the simulant fuel greatly reduced the experimental effort required (compared to using Jet A fuel). Using Jet A fuel during the second and third phases of tests required significant modifications to the test model to elevate the temperature to between 104° and 122° F at a reduced pressure equivalent to an altitude of 13,800 feet msl.

269 - Temperature and vapor concentration variations within a single bay and between bays were observed in the JFK flight test results. Subsequent ground tests were conducted in Marana, Arizona, in which CWT temperatures and vapor concentrations were measured with higher resolutions than those measured during the JFK flight tests. These tests confirmed the existence of temperature and vapor concentration variations within a single bay and between bays. For additional information, see Summary Data Report: B-747-100 Center Wing Tank Ground Testing at Marana, Arizona, dated January 20, 2000, and the Flight Test Group Chairman's Factual Report, dated November 19, 1997.

Find the entire report here (Note it is a 8MB .pdf file): http://www.ntsb.gov/Publictn/2000/AAR0003.pdf

[Bill Greenwood]

King and Astix: We were having such a fun discussion here and you guys had to go and bring FACTS into the mix. Sure puts a damper on things, bet you guys don't even watch Twilght Zone. And Mustangdriver what is the sourceof your info?

[King]

King and Astix: We were having such a fun discussion here and you guys had to go and bring FACTS into the mix. Sure puts a damper on things, bet you guys don't even watch Twilght Zone. And Mustangdriver what is the sourceof your info?

If you ever want to do some interesting reading and have a few hours to loose, read that NTSB report on Flt 800. To understand what was done investigative wise over those many years the investigation was active is almost mindboggling.

They even launched a bunch of missiles and had witnesses describe what they saw. Missile lock-on testing was done on 747s to determine the hot spots for where a missile would go to.

And not to beat on mustangdriver, but if you read the report you will see a very good explanation for every point he made, except that almost every point he made was halk of the correct information or incorrect in detail. Like the pilot who flashed the light was an airline pilot, not the HH-60 pilot.