TWA Flight 800 Investigation

Status
Not open for further replies.
A missile was only one theory. They later found out that there was a Navy ship close by.
The other theory was that detonating the center fuel tank was already a terrorist goal. One was arrested on a Pacific flight sitting ,you guessed it, right over the center fuel tank. His explosives failed to go off. Who was the mastermind of this? Ramzi Yousef. He was on trial in New York the day TWA 800 was destroyed. For his failed attempt to blow up the World Trade center in 1993.
Explosive residue was found but the NTSB dismissed it.
 
We (Desert Research Institute) were involved with the TWA investigation. People in the group that I work for were able to replicate the conditions that would have resulted in the explosion. Somewhere around here is a report with high speed photography of an ignition in the tank. It's a proven fact that the tank wiring could have caused the explosion.

I'm away from work until Monday. I'll see if I can find an online copy when I get back.

Ed
 
The other reason the NTSB require 1000 pounds fuel in the tanks was to keep the fuel probes covered.

Fire needs three things, oxygen, fuel, and an ignition source. No oxygen, no fire...
This is why the Air Force removes oxygen from C5 Galaxy's fuel during filling, and keeps 2000 pounds in the tanks...
 
Originally Posted By: demarpaint
I said missile from day one, along with millions of other people.


Millions of people...who would also believe the wrong thing about this...

Aviation mishap investigation is difficult, about 90% of eye witnesses claim to have seen things that simply did not, or could not, have happened....partly due to stress, partly due to lack of aviation understanding.

Look, just after 800 blew up, UAL conducted center fuel tank inspections and found out that the thrust bushings on the center tank fuel pumps on many of their 747s had failed, causing the steel impeller to grind into the aluminum pump housing by about 1/2". There were immediate restrictions on all 747 operators on using the center tank pumps, and the stabilizer fuel pumps on the 747-400 models, until Boeing could get new pumps sourced and installed.

Fuel pump grinding away in a tank full of volatile vapor...wiring short in that same vapor environment...there are a lot more likely causes than the conspiracy theorists (supported by unreliable witnesses and mis-understanding of Navy and/or terrorist capability) would like to believe.
 
Originally Posted By: edhackett
We (Desert Research Institute) were involved with the TWA investigation. People in the group that I work for were able to replicate the conditions that would have resulted in the explosion. Somewhere around here is a report with high speed photography of an ignition in the tank. It's a proven fact that the tank wiring could have caused the explosion.

I'm away from work until Monday. I'll see if I can find an online copy when I get back.

Ed


Terrorists knew some of this. I always thought it was interesting (coincidence?) that the terrorist who developed a plot to blow up center fuel tanks was on trial in NY the same day TWA 800 blew up. He was found guilty and is in the Supermax in Colorado.
 
Originally Posted By: Astro14
Originally Posted By: demarpaint
I said missile from day one, along with millions of other people.


Millions of people...who would also believe the wrong thing about this...

Aviation mishap investigation is difficult, about 90% of eye witnesses claim to have seen things that simply did not, or could not, have happened....partly due to stress, partly due to lack of aviation understanding.

Look, just after 800 blew up, UAL conducted center fuel tank inspections and found out that the thrust bushings on the center tank fuel pumps on many of their 747s had failed, causing the steel impeller to grind into the aluminum pump housing by about 1/2". There were immediate restrictions on all 747 operators on using the center tank pumps, and the stabilizer fuel pumps on the 747-400 models, until Boeing could get new pumps sourced and installed.

Fuel pump grinding away in a tank full of volatile vapor...wiring short in that same vapor environment...there are a lot more likely causes than the conspiracy theorists (supported by unreliable witnesses and mis-understanding of Navy and/or terrorist capability) would like to believe.
And fire has never melted steel.
 
Quote:
It's a proven fact that the tank wiring could have caused the explosion.



"Potentially could have caused" I think would be a better phrasing.

One has to consider the available energies in the total system that might contribute to a potential explosion.

I was also on a team that investigated this and we considered the following from the standpoint of the physics of every available energy source including electrical, mechanical, ambient heat, and of course, chemical as in fuel and fuel vapor pressure, oxygen content, etc. We used every piece of modeling and simulation software at our disposal:

We modeled the electrical system (wiring, probes, etc) using 24-28 Volt power sources with CURENT LIMITING as per the electrical wiring available in the aircraft WITH 3/4" to 3" fuel remaining. This included fuel sloshing, etc.

Conclusion: We found no ENERGY levels high enough to cause an in situ center tank explosion.
 
Last edited:
Any fellow Long Island residents here that fished those waters? Wasn't something going on in that area prior to the crash? Or do I have my time periods and plane crashes mixed up?
 
Originally Posted By: demarpaint
Any fellow Long Island residents here that fished those waters? Wasn't something going on in that area prior to the crash? Or do I have my time periods and plane crashes mixed up?


My uncle and son were out on the boat (live in East LI) and saw it. They are both engineers and both swear they saw an ascending missile. Then an explosion. They said the missile smoke trail remained visible for some time. They also know many others who witnessed it.

I won't take a position on it, one way or the other. As an aviation professional, I do know that all sorts of mechanical faults occur. Most of the time without incident.

I do know this, not all missiles are heat seeking and not all "heat seekers" will impact an engine.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Cujet
Originally Posted By: demarpaint
Any fellow Long Island residents here that fished those waters? Wasn't something going on in that area prior to the crash? Or do I have my time periods and plane crashes mixed up?


My uncle and son were out on the boat (live in East LI) and saw it. They are both engineers and both swear they saw an ascending missile. Then an explosion. They said the missile smoke trail remained visible for some time. They also know many others who witnessed it.

I won't take a position on it, one way or the other. As an aviation professional, I do know that all sorts of mechanical faults occur. Most of the time without incident.

I do know this, not all missiles are heat seeking and not all "heat seekers" will impact an engine.

I was talking to a friend today who lives east of me on Long Island, and he said the Navy was in that area during that time. That seemed to get my memory going, I heard that story before. I will ask my brother next time I talk to him about it, we fished that area for years.
 
The Navy had a P-3 in the area, and several ships at sea on that night...which is meaningless...Look, I can't go into technical details (capabilities and limitations are still classified), but the Navy didn't shoot down TWA 800, of that I am certain.

Look at it this way: In the days before cell phones and internet, the Navy shoots down an Iranian airliner halfway around the world, and it's in the press in hours...(USS Vincennes)

Now, with all the connectivity, all the new technology for communication, and all the whistle-blowers, the Navy shoots down a US airliner, on our own shores, and not one sailor says anything? Nothing?

There is no way the Navy could have kept TWA 800 quiet if it were responsible.

But the Navy wasn't responsible...and people are more accepting of pernicious action and dark forces than of random chance and bad luck...it's a psychological pre-disposition...and it plays heavily in the theories surrounding TWA-800.
 
^^ I never said the Navy was responsible, I said they were in the area around the time the plane went down. For all we know it could have been a terrorist act. If the Navy did it we'd know.
 
Since you have better insight on this than do most of us, let me pose a couple of questions based upon what I remember from my long-ago days of playing firfighter locally.

1. Even if the center tank did offer some internal source of ignition, wouldn't the vapor in the tank have been too rich to burn, ie not enough oxygen?

2. Fuel is not an explosive. It doesn't detonate. Rather, it burns very rapidly in vapor form. The liquid itself doesn't burn, rather the vapors from it do. Even most explosives won't dentonate without a dentonator. For example, you can burn dynamite and it will simply burn, not detonate.
What you get with a closed tank is a BLEVE, or a boiling liquid expanding vapor explosion, which is really a pressure rupture, not a detonation, although liberating all of that vapor into fresh air with a source of ignition will result in an almost instantaneous fireball which will generate a shock wave.
BLEVEs are usually caused by flame impingement on the outside of a tank, so the usual preventive measure is to keep the subject tank cool with a large volume of water spray and to attempt to extinguish the fire.

What I'm getting at is that I can't see how you'd get the kind of rapid burning in a closed tank to create a BLEVE, even though the tank is vented. I can't see how there'd be enough oxygen available, and we all know that you can't have a fire without O2.
 
Originally Posted By: Astro14
The Navy had a P-3 in the area, and several ships at sea on that night...which is meaningless...Look, I can't go into technical details (capabilities and limitations are still classified), but the Navy didn't shoot down TWA 800, of that I am certain.

Look at it this way: In the days before cell phones and internet, the Navy shoots down an Iranian airliner halfway around the world, and it's in the press in hours...(USS Vincennes)

Now, with all the connectivity, all the new technology for communication, and all the whistle-blowers, the Navy shoots down a US airliner, on our own shores, and not one sailor says anything? Nothing?

There is no way the Navy could have kept TWA 800 quiet if it were responsible.

But the Navy wasn't responsible...and people are more accepting of pernicious action and dark forces than of random chance and bad luck...it's a psychological pre-disposition...and it plays heavily in the theories surrounding TWA-800.


I fully agree with you that there is no way the Navy could have done this and it remained quite. Firing a missile by the US Navy is a big deal with too many people knowing it, by P3 or surface ship.
 
The answer to your question begins on page 120 of that report. As Astro14 says, yes they tried, and succeeded.

I remember John talking about how frightening it was during the flights as they were exactly replicating the conditions that could have caused the explosion.

Ed
 
Actually, the real data starts on page 124, but here are some significant quotes:

Quote:
According to representatives from Honeywell and Boeing, electrical power is supplied to the FQIS components through the cockpit fuel gauges and is intended to be limited to 0.02 millijoule (mJ).73


Quote:
The flammability limits of Jet A fuel are variable and depend (at least) on ignition energy level, temperature, pressure, and mass loading. The magnitude of the ignition energy of the fuel vapor for the accident airplane’s conditions (50 gallons of Jet A fuel in the CWT at a pressure equivalent to 13,800 feet msl) is estimated to vary from 0.5 J at 104° F to less than 0.5 mJ at 122° F.



Quote:
The only electrical wiring located inside the CWT is the wiring associated with the FQIS.602 According to Boeing design specifications, the voltage to the FQIS wiring is
limited so that it cannot discharge energy in excess of 0.02 mJ. Therefore, for the FQIS to have played a role in igniting the flammable fuel/air vapor in the CWT, the following two events would have had to have occurred: (1) a transfer of a higher-than-intended voltage onto FQIS wiring from a power source outside of the fuel tank and (2) the release of the energy from that FQIS wiring into the inside of the tank in a way that could ignite the
fuel/air vapor in the tank.
 
Last edited:
One thing that was not taken into consideration is midair collision with an UFO. There are a lot of classified and unknown stuffs flying out there. From first flight to first public exposure was ten years for the F-117, and that was over 20 years ago. Some of the current DoD drones were developed over 30 years ago and some are invisible to 99.99% of the radars out there.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

y_p_w
Trevor Jacob pleads guilty to obstruction for covering up deliberate crash where he bailed out
Replies
13
Views
1K
ctechbob
wwillson
Flying the Boeing 757-200
2 3 4
Replies
71
Views
4K
john_pifer
OVERKILL
  • Locked
Update on the Chinese surveillance balloon
Replies
19
Views
1K
Astro14
SammyChevelleTypeS3
Mopar fans can dream just like all classic car lovers.
Replies
8
Views
665
Kurtatron
Cujet
A very small aviation adventure, Flight to Sun n Fun.
2
Replies
20
Views
2K
edhackett
Back
Top