AA and Anti Missile System

[777 fixer]

<_< ------- Go for it fixer! I'll give you a little incentive! The report doesn't use the word "missile"!

You are right, it does not. Then why do seem to think it was a missile since that IAM report does not give you much to support that theory? Also, did you read it all the way through? If you did you would have caught a couple things.

Here's one thing in the conclusions section of the IAM report that got my attention.

Due to circumstances beyond the aviation accident investigative team’s control,
witness statements are not reliable to help in the determination of this event that may
have happen outside of the aircraft in close proximity to the aircraft.

So I guess those witnesses you speak of that said they saw what they thought to be a missile are not reliable enough. At least according to the IAM report. Kind of puts you in a tight spot?

< http://twa800.com/iamaw/iamaw.htm >

Here's what someone wrote as to the reasons they think that TWA went along with the report.

TWA is highly regulated and subject to the NTSB and FAA oversight on a daily basis.

I would have thought that someone at the Association of Retired Aviation Professionals would know that the NTSB does not have any regulatory powers. The only thing they can do is make recommendations.

 

[eolesen]

Just watched "Seconds from Disaster" again on TW800, and the physical evidence speaks for itself, starting with the damage inside the fuel tank supports, and the electrical disruptions on the data & voice recorder.

According to people I know who have seen the reconstructed fuselage, there's no evidence of penetration from the outside. Don't believe it? Make an appointment to see it in DC.

 

[MCI transplant]

Just watched "Seconds from Disaster" again on TW800, and the physical evidence speaks for itself, starting with the damage inside the fuel tank supports, and the electrical disruptions on the data & voice recorder.

According to people I know who have seen the reconstructed fuselage, there's no evidence of penetration from the outside. Don't believe it? Make an appointment to see it in DC.

<_< ----- Eric, I'm not trying to change your mind on this. Or even Fixer's! I'm stating what I feel is just one of many government cover ups! It seems the media is vary good at producing programs based on information that has been spoon feed to them by the government. There is no dispute that the center fuel tank did explode. The dispute comes from what set it off, and could the force of a few inches of Kerosene have enough energy to cause that much destruction! The people who would have the most knowledgeable opinion on that say that a "high pressure event breached the fuselage, and the explosion was a "RESULT" of that event!" Their saying that "something", separate from, the tank explosion, happened to initiate it! Damage inside the fuel tank supports? Sure! No question! The tank exploded! Did they mention the damage to the keel beam? Or the forward bulkhead of the tank? ------- Data, and voice recorder! Did they mention the fact that the Data recorder recorded that three separate, and independent systems, recorded a spike at exactly the same time? The angle of attack indicator "flipper', located well forward on the left hand side of the fuselage, spiked up to twelve o'clock position, than back down to normal! The altimeter, which senses differential in pressure through metered orifices, located well forward on fuselage! And lastly the E.P.E.R. reading of number 2 engine also spiked at exactly the same second!------- So what am I saying? I'm saying the devil is in this detail! The only explanation to all this is that the only thing that could have caused this "anomaly" is a shook wave! So! You say! The center fuel tank exploded! Yes it did, but, the center fuel tank is located well aft of all three of the above sensors! And the Aircraft was traveling at what? 320kts? So in theory you should be able to measure the force of that shook wave by determining how long it took to get from the center fuel tank to those senors! Now I'm no Mathematician, but was this done?------ No! Not to my knowledge! Why bother?----- Problem here people is the dispute is that a lot of knowledgeable people don't believe that a few inches of "KEROSENE" could cause that much damage without a little help!----- The NTSB took an old 747 out to the desert and tried to duplicate the damage!----- Guess what? Even with a direct electrical spark, they couldn't do it!-------To answer your question about the credibility of the witness Fixer. The investigation team wasn't questioning the witness themselves. They were questioning the information given to them by the NTSB as to it's accuracy! The witness weren't even questioned by them. They were questioned by the FBI! (FED's)------ Eric read the report! I understand you talked to people who saw the wreckage. Did they have a technical background? I've talked to people here, who were on the IAM investigative team. One, or two are still here. I've been in a 747 center fuel tank! And I'm one of those people that says I don't believe the downing of Flt.800, killing 240 people, was an accident!

 

[Vortilon]

MCI,

I tend to lean towards something other than a fuel tank explosion caused by shorted wire in the ctr fuel tank as well. Are there even any high voltage wires running through the ctr tank? I believe tank probes and compensators are 28v - not enough to cause a sufficient spark to ignite the ctr fuel tank.

 

[MCI transplant]

MCI,

I tend to lean towards something other than a fuel tank explosion caused by shorted wire in the ctr fuel tank as well. Are there even any high voltage wires running through the ctr tank? I believe tank probes and compensators are 28v - not enough to cause a sufficient spark to ignite the ctr fuel tank.

<_< ------Your correct! Only wires are to the fuel probes.

 

[eolesen]

One of the people I know who has viewed the wreckage sits on ALPA's safety committee and graduated with his aero engineering degree, so I'd consider that a technical background.

There's no shock wave audible on the voice recorder, and I'd think a shock wave from an external impact would have manifested itself in more than just three random systems.

Is there a point where the wiring for all or some of the three of the systems you mention run parallel to the fuel tank wiring, and do any of those bundles also carry higher voltage wires? One of the non-missle theories is that the spiking showing on the recorders was actually short-outs, possibly due to higher voltage wiring arcing into lower voltage wires. There was enough evidence of cracked and chafed insulation on the wiring harnesses of other elderly 747's, so I don't think you can rule possibility out quite so easily. If higher voltage did manage to cross-feed into the tank wiring, it woud have been just as likely to cause arcing inside the tank (or anywhere else) as it tries to find a ground...

I've played with diesel enough to know it wont ignite easily at ramp temperatures, but heat it up a bit, and it will go up fast and furious. Diesel and Jet-A have similar flash points -- between 100F and 148F. The NTSB's testing did prove that running the packs for an hour on the ground most likely raised the temps in the fuel tank on TW800 enough that the fuel was at or near its flash point on takeoff. They did a test flight duplicating the ground delay and flying the same profile, and at the point in time where 800 went down, they found center fuel tank temperatures of approx 127F, which is right in the center of the flash point range. With a tank full of vapor, 28V @ 120F+ could have easily been enough to set off the tank.

Government cover up?... When we see where the goings on at Abu Ghraib or the Pat Tillman friendly-fire incident weren't able to be kept under wraps, I find it sad that anyone believes there'd really be a succesful cover-up of this magnitude, much less what the 9/11 Truthers still believe.

 

[MCI transplant]

One of the people I know who has viewed the wreckage sits on ALPA's safety committee and graduated with his aero engineering degree, so I'd consider that a technical background.

There's no shock wave audible on the voice recorder, and I'd think a shock wave from an external impact would have manifested itself in more than just three random systems.

Is there a point where the wiring for all or some of the three of the systems you mention run parallel to the fuel tank wiring, and do any of those bundles also carry higher voltage wires? One of the non-missle theories is that the spiking showing on the recorders was actually short-outs, possibly due to higher voltage wiring arcing into lower voltage wires. There was enough evidence of cracked and chafed insulation on the wiring harnesses of other elderly 747's, so I don't think you can rule possibility out quite so easily. If higher voltage did manage to cross-feed into the tank wiring, it would have been just as likely to cause arcing inside the tank (or anywhere else) as it tries to find a ground...

I've played with diesel enough to know it wont ignite easily at ramp temperatures, but heat it up a bit, and it will go up fast and furious. Diesel and Jet-A have similar flash points -- between 100F and 148F. The NTSB's testing did prove that running the packs for an hour on the ground most likely raised the temps in the fuel tank on TW800 enough that the fuel was at or near its flash point on takeoff. They did a test flight duplicating the ground delay and flying the same profile, and at the point in time where 800 went down, they found center fuel tank temperatures of approx 127F, which is right in the center of the flash point range. With a tank full of vapor, 28V @ 120F+ could have easily been enough to set off the tank.

Government cover up?... When we see where the goings on at Abu Ghraib or the Pat Tillman friendly-fire incident weren't able to be kept under wraps, I find it sad that anyone believes there'd really be a successful cover-up of this magnitude, much less what the 9/11 Truthers still believe.

<_< ------- Eric, The comparison between diesel fuel, and jetA is a good one. But the chances of three "separate, and independent systems," that are designed to measure differentials in pressure, to spike at exactly the same time, without a significant surge in pressure (shook wave) is nile, to none! The systems were working normally, before, and after, the spike! As for the wiring. Read the report Eric!----- No arking was found by the team! The theory of voltage transfer from another wire in a wire bundle is unlikely also because Boeing doesn't route the fuel probe wiring in the same wire bundles with high voltage wiring for that same reason! Remember we're talking 28 volts DC here! As for the high temps theory. What about all those 747's sitting for hours on the ramp in Jetta, Saudi Arabia in the summer time? No problem there!!! As to temp, of fuel tank "at time of the explosion". They were in the air for approx. thirty minutes? At 31,000 feet, going about 320 kts., and your telling me the "center fuel tank temp. was approx.127F"??------ I don't think so!!!-------- Sorry Eric! I just don't buy it! Besides, I believe the study you were refurring to was done on the ground! Not in the air!

 

[eolesen]

No arking was found by the team!

The team didn't find any evidence of a missle, either... Why is it you agree with the findings of the NTSB report on something that obscure, but you don't agree with it on something that's a lot more obvious?...

 

[MCI transplant]

The team didn't find any evidence of a missile, either... Why is it you agree with the findings of the NTSB report on something that obscure, but you don't agree with it on something that's a lot more obvious?...

<_< ----- Your right!------ The team didn't mention a missile! They just said there was more to the tragedy than just a simple center fuel tank explosion! The people who called it a missile were the witnesses on the ground, and in the air, at the time. A retired Air force pilot. Viet Nam veteran claims he saw a missile track from the ground to Flt.800! Of all people, he should know because he was fired upon when he was in the service! A Radar operator that swearers he saw two anomalies strike across his screen and hit Flt.800! And the list goes on! Yet the FBI just shrugged them off!!!-----Remember the government denied the team access to the crash sight for two weeks. If any incriminating evidence turned up, the government had ample time to dispose of it before they got on sight! Without parts of the missile itself, what could they say?------- Eric! Remind me again! What part of the NTSB report did I say I agreed with??? :huh:

 

[Garfield1966]

It is sad that we cannot trust our own government to tell us the truth. If they only lied to protect us that would be one thing but they lie to protect them self it would seem on a regular basis such as the Tilman and Abu-Grahib. It would seem the military is capable of keeping secrets if it really wants to. Take for example the Huges Glomar Explorer. That little expedition was keep under raps for quite some time. The development of the F117 is another example. They were flying it out of Groom AFB (which does not really exist :ninja: ) and was not announced till well after it went operational IIRC. Just because we have found out some of the governments secrets does not mean we know all of them or even most of them for that matter.

Having said that, I tend to believe that TWA happened the way the report said it did. Getting the military to cover something up is one thing. They have guns and people can get into a sh1t load of trouble if they do or say the wrong thing and it is not for the good. When you get other federal agencies involved like the NTSB and the FAA I think it becomes more and more unlikely that a cover up has occurred just due to the fact that you have just increased the number of people with access to the info my a very large magnitude and the more people you have with access to info the more unlikely that the info will stay secret.

As with other accidents of this magnitude, there are always those who will come up with something that sounds just plausible enough to be possible even though it is highly unlikely. Anyone for explosives set in one of the towers that were set off too implode the tower shortly after a plane hit it?

 

[777 fixer]

Having said that, I tend to believe that TWA happened the way the report said it did. Getting the military to cover something up is one thing. They have guns and people can get into a sh1t load of trouble if they do or say the wrong thing and it is not for the good.

Having spent four years in the Navy myself I can tell you that trying to get a ship full of sailors not to blab is an almost impossible task. Especially over something like TWA 800 where the deaths of civilians are involved.

 

[777 fixer]

<_< ----- The people who called it a missile were the witnesses on the ground, and in the air, at the time. A retired Air force pilot. Viet Nam veteran claims he saw a missile track from the ground to Flt.800! Of all people, he should know because he was fired upon when he was in the service!

Those witnesses are not reliable. According to the IAM report that you like to talk about so much.

4. Due to circumstances beyond the aviation accident investigative team’s control,
witness statements are not reliable to help in the determination of this event that may
have happen outside of the aircraft in close proximity to the aircraft.

 

[ThirdSeatHero]

Having spent four years in the Navy myself I can tell you that trying to get a ship full of sailors not to blab is an almost impossible task. Especially over something like TWA 800 where the deaths of civilians are involved.

With some experience myself I can tell you that particular argument doesn't fly. Only a few manning the ships CIC would know what they hit(if they did hit). Could they be effectively silenced? Maybe, maybe not, but its not about silencing a a ship full of sailors by any measure.

 

[Garfield1966]

With some experience myself I can tell you that particular argument doesn't fly. Only a few manning the ships CIC would know what they hit(if they did hit). Could they be effectively silenced? Maybe, maybe not, but its not about silencing a a ship full of sailors by any measure.

They would have been faily near the cost of the US. They would heard the missile fire off the deck. I am guessing at least one of the boys on that ship might watch CNN or FOX every now and then. Ya think they might have put two and two together?

I know I have never been in the military and all my knowledge is from reading and watching but if the ship is having a live fire exercise or actually under attack, would not all personal be at their stations to simulate a real attack? If a ship fires a missile, I would think a few would hear or feel that. I know it's not like firing a 16" off of a destroyer but come on. These are US soldiers. They would have just murdered or taken part in the cover up of 230 people. Most of them US citizens. I am a cynic by most standards but even I have a hard time buying this story line. Now don't get me wring. I know full well the depth to which people can and have gone. Somehow in this day and age, I have a hard time biting that one.

 

[MCI transplant]

<_< ------ First fixer, your not the only one who spent some time in the Navy! And there was at least one retired "Senior Chief" on the investigating team with over twenty years service! Second Gentlemen you're assuming one hell of a lot if you think that missles could only have come from a ship! Or even from the Navy for that matter! I did say the one thing I wasn't sure about was if it, or they, came from the Navy at all? Or in fact it was the first shot of the War we are now in, came on that day, and not 9/11!!!