Rdutch 0
Recommended Posts
sundevil777 102
I already 'splained why the fuel was hot.
Other so called evidence, including eyewitness reports of a missile (it indeed would have looked like a missile to witnesses), have long been explained and info about it posted in other threads. If you're not a conspiracy type, you will be convinced by the evidence that puts down all the weird theories and bullshit bits of supposed evidence that support an attack. Don't be taken in by a bunch of convincing talk and links to bullshit websites.
Other so called evidence, including eyewitness reports of a missile (it indeed would have looked like a missile to witnesses), have long been explained and info about it posted in other threads. If you're not a conspiracy type, you will be convinced by the evidence that puts down all the weird theories and bullshit bits of supposed evidence that support an attack. Don't be taken in by a bunch of convincing talk and links to bullshit websites.
People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am
Rdutch 0
The NTSB's theory is that some unknown spark ignited the Jet A fuel vapors inside Flight 800's center fuel tank. This theory depends on 2 things: a) sufficient fuel vapors at the proper fuel/air mixture; and b) a sufficient spark to ignite the fuel vapors. Neither condition has been found to have been present in subsequent tests. In Boeing's recent filing with the NTSB they have stated that they have not found any source of spark in Flight 800. The NTSB would have you believe that Jet A fuel vapors are a virtual bomb waiting to go off, yet every day hundreds of 747's are sitting on hot runways in places like Saudi Arabia, India, etc. with empty center tanks and none have ever exploded. Every day aircraft with empty fuel tanks are hit by lightning, a spark thousands of times greater than necessary to ignite this vapor, yet these aircraft do not explode. Why, because the fuel vapor is not explosive. See lightning strike an aircraft. Still image.
Jet A Fuel Demo - Cmdr. Donaldson demonstrates properties of Jet A fuel (this 4 minute film is in RealPlayer format and is 937kb. -3-21-00 This demo was originally produced for a talk Cmdr Donaldson gave in 1998 and was designed for a live presentation and therefore has no introduction. Cmdr Donaldson obtained a quantity of Jet A fuel from Kennedy airport and conducted several tests showing the properties of the fuel. In this test he inserts a lighted match into an open container of Jet A fuel and the fuel puts out the match because it needs to be heated to 127 degrees to ignite. However, when misted into the atmosphere, the fuel will burn quickly and even explode because it has the proper fuel/air mixture. This mixture does not exist in a 747 tank that has not been violently shaken by some outside force. Click here to download RealPlayer. Download File.
Jet A Fuel Experiment - RealPlayer Format 8 min. (2.0 mb) -3-25-00 In this experiment Cmdr. Donaldson uses a crab steamer to heat Jet A fuel beyond the fuel's boiling point. The experiment shows that the vapor does not become explosive until 185 degrees and even then it is not enough for a violent explosion. This closed container test uses a 5 gallon container placed on top of a propane burner. The container has a temperature probe inserted in the bottom of the tank to measure the internal fuel temperature. The ignition source uses a light bulb element to create an extreme spark. Click here to download RealPlayer. Download file.
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.
This experiment was originally filmed for a segment of the Discovery Channel which never aired. It has since been recreated using a home video camera. While the quality is not very good, I believe the point is well demonstrated.
EPA - Fuel Tank Ignition Prevention Measures - 4-3-97
Ray
Small and fast what every girl dreams of!
Jet A Fuel Demo - Cmdr. Donaldson demonstrates properties of Jet A fuel (this 4 minute film is in RealPlayer format and is 937kb. -3-21-00 This demo was originally produced for a talk Cmdr Donaldson gave in 1998 and was designed for a live presentation and therefore has no introduction. Cmdr Donaldson obtained a quantity of Jet A fuel from Kennedy airport and conducted several tests showing the properties of the fuel. In this test he inserts a lighted match into an open container of Jet A fuel and the fuel puts out the match because it needs to be heated to 127 degrees to ignite. However, when misted into the atmosphere, the fuel will burn quickly and even explode because it has the proper fuel/air mixture. This mixture does not exist in a 747 tank that has not been violently shaken by some outside force. Click here to download RealPlayer. Download File.
Jet A Fuel Experiment - RealPlayer Format 8 min. (2.0 mb) -3-25-00 In this experiment Cmdr. Donaldson uses a crab steamer to heat Jet A fuel beyond the fuel's boiling point. The experiment shows that the vapor does not become explosive until 185 degrees and even then it is not enough for a violent explosion. This closed container test uses a 5 gallon container placed on top of a propane burner. The container has a temperature probe inserted in the bottom of the tank to measure the internal fuel temperature. The ignition source uses a light bulb element to create an extreme spark. Click here to download RealPlayer. Download file.
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.
This experiment was originally filmed for a segment of the Discovery Channel which never aired. It has since been recreated using a home video camera. While the quality is not very good, I believe the point is well demonstrated.
EPA - Fuel Tank Ignition Prevention Measures - 4-3-97
Ray
Small and fast what every girl dreams of!
sundevil777 102
It has really happened to actual planes on the ground. It does happen. Don't be so gullible.
People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am
Rdutch 0
Gullible, maybe but show me an example. Ive shown you tests that prove the theory wrong, so maybe your the gullible one. Either way this is how our great country works. Im dont think that this isnt what they say it is, but its damn interesting that it isnt, and the more I look into it, it seems like it isnt. Do I think that dropzone.com will change anything no! But id like to know what people think if they see the other side of the story.
Ray
Small and fast what every girl dreams of!
Ray
Small and fast what every girl dreams of!
Rdutch 0
Report pn the 737 ground explosion:
Bangkok Post, 4 March 2001
Authorities strongly suspect sabotage caused the explosion which destroyed a Thai Airways International plane only minutes before Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra was to board it yesterday.
The Airports Authority of Thailand board concluded after a meeting that it may have been a bomb, given information it had so far, a source said.
And if it was a bombing, the most likely target was the prime minister.
A high-ranking aviation source said the ensuing blaze was also too hot and fierce to be a normal onboard fire. It had gutted the plane, which broke in half in just 40 minutes. This ruled out an accidental fire.
Air force chief-of-staff ACM Kongsak Wanthana, who is heading the investigation, said all possibilities would be taken for consideration, including sabotage.
The prime minister, his son Panthongthae, and other relatives, were among the 149 passengers who were due to board the Boeing 737-400 jet, which blew up on the boarding apron at Don Muang Airport about 2.40 pm.
A steward, identified as Kampol Meelarp, was killed and seven other air crew and ground staff were injured. Two of them were admitted to Vibhavadi General Hospital and the others sent home after treatment.
The crew were preparing flight TG 114 for a 3.15pm departure for Chiang Mai when explosions were heard from the front section of the plane, where Mr Thaksin was to have been seated in the business section, near the front of the aircraft, where the explosion and fire appeared to have been centred.
Mr Kampol, the only fatality, was preparing the front section of the plane.
Mr Thaksin was still on the expressway, en route to the airport, when the plane blew up.
He, his son and some relatives were on their way to Chiang Mai, where he was to attend a meeting today.
They were later taken to their destination in an air force plane which would bring them back today.
Thai Airways president Pisit Kulsalasaiwanond said there was "a loud noise that sounded like an explosion" before the fire started.
"We will investigate all factors. We do not rule out any possible cause, but we don't want to speculate," he said.
All luggage had been loaded on the plane after being X-rayed, he said. An X-ray machine at the domestic terminal had been out of operation early yesterday, but it had been fixed before the luggage was loaded, he said.
The plane had flown in from Phitsanulok and was to fly on to Chiang Mai.
Chusak Bhachaiyudh, executive vice president technical, said if the engines had not started it was impossible for the explosion to be caused by an internal malfunction.
Workers had finished refueling the plane shortly before the blast occurred. The fuel tanks, located in the plane's wings, were intact, he said, indicating that burning fuel was not the cause of the explosion.
Thai Rak Thai party spokesman Suranan Vejjajiva said the prime minister's bodyguards, who were at the terminal, heard "a big bang" and saw the plane going up in flames.
Other witnesses, however, said they heard two explosions in succession.
Mr Thaksin said he was not worried about the incident, but his security personnel have curtailed his movements. He urged people not to jump to conclusions over the cause of the fire, but said special measures were being taken for his safety.
"I hope it was an accident, but for now we will set up an investigation. Security has been increased and I cannot go anywhere I want," he said.
Aviation authorities cut off power at the domestic terminal and diverted all incoming flights to an airport in nearby Chon Buri province before resuming normal operations three hours later. International flights were not affected.
The plane was insured for 2.157 billion baht, Deputy Transport Minister Pracha Maleenond said.
Ray
Small and fast what every girl dreams of!
Bangkok Post, 4 March 2001
Authorities strongly suspect sabotage caused the explosion which destroyed a Thai Airways International plane only minutes before Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra was to board it yesterday.
The Airports Authority of Thailand board concluded after a meeting that it may have been a bomb, given information it had so far, a source said.
And if it was a bombing, the most likely target was the prime minister.
A high-ranking aviation source said the ensuing blaze was also too hot and fierce to be a normal onboard fire. It had gutted the plane, which broke in half in just 40 minutes. This ruled out an accidental fire.
Air force chief-of-staff ACM Kongsak Wanthana, who is heading the investigation, said all possibilities would be taken for consideration, including sabotage.
The prime minister, his son Panthongthae, and other relatives, were among the 149 passengers who were due to board the Boeing 737-400 jet, which blew up on the boarding apron at Don Muang Airport about 2.40 pm.
A steward, identified as Kampol Meelarp, was killed and seven other air crew and ground staff were injured. Two of them were admitted to Vibhavadi General Hospital and the others sent home after treatment.
The crew were preparing flight TG 114 for a 3.15pm departure for Chiang Mai when explosions were heard from the front section of the plane, where Mr Thaksin was to have been seated in the business section, near the front of the aircraft, where the explosion and fire appeared to have been centred.
Mr Kampol, the only fatality, was preparing the front section of the plane.
Mr Thaksin was still on the expressway, en route to the airport, when the plane blew up.
He, his son and some relatives were on their way to Chiang Mai, where he was to attend a meeting today.
They were later taken to their destination in an air force plane which would bring them back today.
Thai Airways president Pisit Kulsalasaiwanond said there was "a loud noise that sounded like an explosion" before the fire started.
"We will investigate all factors. We do not rule out any possible cause, but we don't want to speculate," he said.
All luggage had been loaded on the plane after being X-rayed, he said. An X-ray machine at the domestic terminal had been out of operation early yesterday, but it had been fixed before the luggage was loaded, he said.
The plane had flown in from Phitsanulok and was to fly on to Chiang Mai.
Chusak Bhachaiyudh, executive vice president technical, said if the engines had not started it was impossible for the explosion to be caused by an internal malfunction.
Workers had finished refueling the plane shortly before the blast occurred. The fuel tanks, located in the plane's wings, were intact, he said, indicating that burning fuel was not the cause of the explosion.
Thai Rak Thai party spokesman Suranan Vejjajiva said the prime minister's bodyguards, who were at the terminal, heard "a big bang" and saw the plane going up in flames.
Other witnesses, however, said they heard two explosions in succession.
Mr Thaksin said he was not worried about the incident, but his security personnel have curtailed his movements. He urged people not to jump to conclusions over the cause of the fire, but said special measures were being taken for his safety.
"I hope it was an accident, but for now we will set up an investigation. Security has been increased and I cannot go anywhere I want," he said.
Aviation authorities cut off power at the domestic terminal and diverted all incoming flights to an airport in nearby Chon Buri province before resuming normal operations three hours later. International flights were not affected.
The plane was insured for 2.157 billion baht, Deputy Transport Minister Pracha Maleenond said.
Ray
Small and fast what every girl dreams of!
Rdutch 0
link:
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/CRASH/TWA/WINGBOX/magic.html
TWA 800 - THE MAGIC WINGBOX
The wing box exists to hold the wings in place and keep them cantilevered so that the lift on the wings doesn't fold them upward. This rigidity is based on three main structural elements that cross the wing box, the front and rear spars, plus spanwise beam #3. On the 747-131 (The TWA 800 aircraft) the bay between the rear spar and spanwise beam #3 is sealed and carries fuel. This is the center fuel tank. The bay between the forward spar and spanwise beam #3 is dry and used as a maintenance access way. On later model 747s, the forward bay is also sealed and used for fuel, but on TWA 800, it was an empty space filled with air. So, three main structural elements. The foreward spar is surrounded by air. The rear spar and spanwise beam #3 form the back and front walls of the Center Fuel Tank respectively. (There are three lighter structural elements, also called spanwise beams, within the area occupied by the fuel tank that help the tank hold it's shape).
Click for full size image (48.5K)
That the initiating event (whatever it was) damaged the wing box is proved by CW-504, a portion of the front spar from the wing box found very early (the west end) in the debris field.
Click for full size image (78.2K)Photo courtesy of the Riverside Press Enterprise.
But this is a portion of the wing spar which is surrounded by air, not fuel. The wreckage from the rear wing spar, and the remains of spanwise beam #3 are found with the fuel tank wreckage more than two miles into the debris field. This fact alone shows that the breakup sequencing began at the nose and was progressing rearwards. Had the fuel tank been the initiating event, one would expect spanwise beam #3 and the rear wing spar in contact with the fuel tank to either lie with or precede CW-504 in the debris field, not follow it by two miles.
Now the government contends that the center fuel tank exploded (no cause has yet been found) and that this started the sequence of events that brought down the 747.
In that sequence of events is the loss of the forward section of the aircraft. Oddly enough, the severe scorching and paint discoloration seen on the aircraft's skin stops cleanly at the break where the nose section pulled away.
Click for full size image (87.2K)
Seen by many as proof that the nose section had to pull away prior to the explosion, the government has tried to explain away this contradiction by suggesting that the center fuel tank exploded inside the airplane ONLY, blowing the nose off from within.
Now, according to Dr. Charles Wetli, the Suffolk County Medical Examiner, whatever fuel explosion did occur did not appear to reach the passengers.
On the PBS News Hour, Dr. Wetli said," The--so far, there have been no signs of fire injury, thermal injury on any of the victims. Dr. Stew Dawson, our deputy chief medical examiner was at the scene supervising the body recovery effort, and he informs me that the bodies that he's seen, which I think is probably the most of them, he's only seen some minor burn injuries, and this was probably from the fire of the burning fuel on the water more than anything else?
Newsday reported...
Investigators gave no hint of whether they are also focusing on seats from that area. But a source familiar with the investigation said that none of the bodies recovered from rows 18 through 22, which are above the center fuel tank and near where right wing joined fuselage, show any trace of the explosion.
And from the Fort Worth Star Telegram....
The medical examiner said he still could not understand why passengers were not burned even though investigators have determined that the center fuel tank somehow exploded, knocking the plane out of the sky.
The debris field also reveals that the bottom portion of the fuel tank and the air conditioning units are not found until two miles into the debris field. So if the Center Fuel Tank did explode as the initiating event, it did NOT punch downward through the belly of the plane, or that debris would have been hurled downward to lie at the very start of the debris field.
But it doesn't. Click for full size image (78.2K)Photo courtesy of the Riverside Press Enterprise.
Okay, so the Center Fuel Tank explosion postulated as the initiating cause by the government did not reach the nose from the outside of the plane, (no paint scorching) and it did not travel through the cabin ( no burns on the passengers) and it didn't go downward through the belly (debris field and again the paint scorching).
That leaves just one path, straight forward through the front of the wing box. And we do know that the front spar, the one surrounded by air, WAS broken by the initiating event because of the portion, CW-504 found at the start of the debris field.
If, as the government suggests, the center tank exploded with enough force to break the front spar, it had to go through spanwise beam #3 (the one at the front of the actual fuel tank) to do so. Click for full size image (102.7K)
An explosion capable of breaking the two main wing structural elements to the front will likely break the remaining wing spar to the rear.
For the claimed center fuel tank explosion to have been the initiating event that resulted in CW-504 being at the start of the debris field, then at least two of the three main wing structural elements were broken by that event, probably all three (not to mention the thinner spars inside the tank itself). The NTSB's report actually reports that the front spar and spanwise beam #3 spars were torn loose by the supposed initiating explosion.
According to my sources at Boeing, even if the rear spar was undamaged, the loss of the two forwardsupports makes the plane unflyable! The wings will fail under the loading of level flight, let alone a high G pitch up maneuver.
This makes the claim of a zoom climb of 3000 feet following the loss of the nose not only aerodynamically impossible, but structurally impossible as well.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
More information on the flaws in the Center Fuel Tank theory can be found at Richard Hirsch's website.
Ray
Small and fast what every girl dreams of!
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/CRASH/TWA/WINGBOX/magic.html
TWA 800 - THE MAGIC WINGBOX
The wing box exists to hold the wings in place and keep them cantilevered so that the lift on the wings doesn't fold them upward. This rigidity is based on three main structural elements that cross the wing box, the front and rear spars, plus spanwise beam #3. On the 747-131 (The TWA 800 aircraft) the bay between the rear spar and spanwise beam #3 is sealed and carries fuel. This is the center fuel tank. The bay between the forward spar and spanwise beam #3 is dry and used as a maintenance access way. On later model 747s, the forward bay is also sealed and used for fuel, but on TWA 800, it was an empty space filled with air. So, three main structural elements. The foreward spar is surrounded by air. The rear spar and spanwise beam #3 form the back and front walls of the Center Fuel Tank respectively. (There are three lighter structural elements, also called spanwise beams, within the area occupied by the fuel tank that help the tank hold it's shape).
Click for full size image (48.5K)
That the initiating event (whatever it was) damaged the wing box is proved by CW-504, a portion of the front spar from the wing box found very early (the west end) in the debris field.
Click for full size image (78.2K)Photo courtesy of the Riverside Press Enterprise.
But this is a portion of the wing spar which is surrounded by air, not fuel. The wreckage from the rear wing spar, and the remains of spanwise beam #3 are found with the fuel tank wreckage more than two miles into the debris field. This fact alone shows that the breakup sequencing began at the nose and was progressing rearwards. Had the fuel tank been the initiating event, one would expect spanwise beam #3 and the rear wing spar in contact with the fuel tank to either lie with or precede CW-504 in the debris field, not follow it by two miles.
Now the government contends that the center fuel tank exploded (no cause has yet been found) and that this started the sequence of events that brought down the 747.
In that sequence of events is the loss of the forward section of the aircraft. Oddly enough, the severe scorching and paint discoloration seen on the aircraft's skin stops cleanly at the break where the nose section pulled away.
Click for full size image (87.2K)
Seen by many as proof that the nose section had to pull away prior to the explosion, the government has tried to explain away this contradiction by suggesting that the center fuel tank exploded inside the airplane ONLY, blowing the nose off from within.
Now, according to Dr. Charles Wetli, the Suffolk County Medical Examiner, whatever fuel explosion did occur did not appear to reach the passengers.
On the PBS News Hour, Dr. Wetli said," The--so far, there have been no signs of fire injury, thermal injury on any of the victims. Dr. Stew Dawson, our deputy chief medical examiner was at the scene supervising the body recovery effort, and he informs me that the bodies that he's seen, which I think is probably the most of them, he's only seen some minor burn injuries, and this was probably from the fire of the burning fuel on the water more than anything else?
Newsday reported...
Investigators gave no hint of whether they are also focusing on seats from that area. But a source familiar with the investigation said that none of the bodies recovered from rows 18 through 22, which are above the center fuel tank and near where right wing joined fuselage, show any trace of the explosion.
And from the Fort Worth Star Telegram....
The medical examiner said he still could not understand why passengers were not burned even though investigators have determined that the center fuel tank somehow exploded, knocking the plane out of the sky.
The debris field also reveals that the bottom portion of the fuel tank and the air conditioning units are not found until two miles into the debris field. So if the Center Fuel Tank did explode as the initiating event, it did NOT punch downward through the belly of the plane, or that debris would have been hurled downward to lie at the very start of the debris field.
But it doesn't. Click for full size image (78.2K)Photo courtesy of the Riverside Press Enterprise.
Okay, so the Center Fuel Tank explosion postulated as the initiating cause by the government did not reach the nose from the outside of the plane, (no paint scorching) and it did not travel through the cabin ( no burns on the passengers) and it didn't go downward through the belly (debris field and again the paint scorching).
That leaves just one path, straight forward through the front of the wing box. And we do know that the front spar, the one surrounded by air, WAS broken by the initiating event because of the portion, CW-504 found at the start of the debris field.
If, as the government suggests, the center tank exploded with enough force to break the front spar, it had to go through spanwise beam #3 (the one at the front of the actual fuel tank) to do so. Click for full size image (102.7K)
An explosion capable of breaking the two main wing structural elements to the front will likely break the remaining wing spar to the rear.
For the claimed center fuel tank explosion to have been the initiating event that resulted in CW-504 being at the start of the debris field, then at least two of the three main wing structural elements were broken by that event, probably all three (not to mention the thinner spars inside the tank itself). The NTSB's report actually reports that the front spar and spanwise beam #3 spars were torn loose by the supposed initiating explosion.
According to my sources at Boeing, even if the rear spar was undamaged, the loss of the two forwardsupports makes the plane unflyable! The wings will fail under the loading of level flight, let alone a high G pitch up maneuver.
This makes the claim of a zoom climb of 3000 feet following the loss of the nose not only aerodynamically impossible, but structurally impossible as well.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
More information on the flaws in the Center Fuel Tank theory can be found at Richard Hirsch's website.
Ray
Small and fast what every girl dreams of!
sundevil777 102
Well there you go, you have a website called whatreallyhappened, what more do you need.
It sounds so much like the 9/11 conspiracy stuff. Conclusions are asserted as if they are so obvious, but they are not so obvious, it is not so easy to make conclusions as they claim. They only mention evidence that seems to support their claim, and ignoring other evidence and explanation.
Why is it so obvious that the passengers should have severe burns? The fuel tank suffers a rapid pressurization during an explosion, causing a structural failure with burning fuel released. That doesn't mean that the fuel would necessarily go pouring into the cabin. The doctors admit there were some burns, why do they conclude that the burns weren't severe enough to support the official conclusion? It is all supposition, just seat of the pants engineering that has no place except in conspiracy theories.
The 2001 Thai Airways explosion was not the only 737 incident. Philippine Airlines had one in 1999 on the ground.
Also, a 727 wing tank exploded on the ground early in 2006 (they hadn't done the airworthiness directive fixes to replace wiring). Inspections of other 727s showed severe wiring damage and evidence of arcing to the tubes carrying the wires:
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/search/autosuggest.jsp?docid=74459&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.aviationnow.com%2Favnow%2Fnews%2Fchannel_mro_story.jsp%3Fview%3Dstory%26id%3Dnews%2FINERT07196.xml
Those advocating the wacko conspiracy theories will sometimes ignore evidence, sometimes will make up evidence, sometimes will boldly make conclusions claiming it to be obvious.
It sounds so much like the 9/11 conspiracy stuff. Conclusions are asserted as if they are so obvious, but they are not so obvious, it is not so easy to make conclusions as they claim. They only mention evidence that seems to support their claim, and ignoring other evidence and explanation.
Why is it so obvious that the passengers should have severe burns? The fuel tank suffers a rapid pressurization during an explosion, causing a structural failure with burning fuel released. That doesn't mean that the fuel would necessarily go pouring into the cabin. The doctors admit there were some burns, why do they conclude that the burns weren't severe enough to support the official conclusion? It is all supposition, just seat of the pants engineering that has no place except in conspiracy theories.
The 2001 Thai Airways explosion was not the only 737 incident. Philippine Airlines had one in 1999 on the ground.
Also, a 727 wing tank exploded on the ground early in 2006 (they hadn't done the airworthiness directive fixes to replace wiring). Inspections of other 727s showed severe wiring damage and evidence of arcing to the tubes carrying the wires:
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/search/autosuggest.jsp?docid=74459&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.aviationnow.com%2Favnow%2Fnews%2Fchannel_mro_story.jsp%3Fview%3Dstory%26id%3Dnews%2FINERT07196.xml
Those advocating the wacko conspiracy theories will sometimes ignore evidence, sometimes will make up evidence, sometimes will boldly make conclusions claiming it to be obvious.
People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am
No doubt in my mind the Navy shot that plane down. If it looks like a duck, it probably is.
Now, who here really believes a jumbo jet hit the Pentagon?
"Some call it heavenly in it's brilliance,
others mean and rueful of the western dream"
QuoteNo doubt in my mind the Navy shot that plane down. If it looks like a duck, it probably is.
Now, who here really believes a jumbo jet hit the Pentagon?
I dont! It was Uncle Jimbo with his homemade bazooka!
If you find yourself in a fair fight, your tactics suck!
nanook 1
QuoteNo doubt in my mind the Navy shot that plane down. If it looks like a duck, it probably is.
Now, who here really believes a jumbo jet hit the Pentagon?
Funny thing is, there's people who actually believe that all 300+ Navy Sailors can be scared out of talking about their ship shooting down an airliner. Or the fact that a missing missile will not show up when offloading at Yorktown and silencing another thousand that's involved with the supply chain side of inventory.
_____________________________
"The trouble with quotes on the internet is that you can never know if they are genuine" - Abraham Lincoln
"The trouble with quotes on the internet is that you can never know if they are genuine" - Abraham Lincoln
birdlike 0
Nanook, the conspiracy nutcases engage a hefty dollop of "doublethink" before they consider anything. They do some serious work to avoid the stuff that makes sense, in favor of believing what can't possibly hold up under scrutiny.
I read a book published by the editors of Popular Mechanics, about the 9/11 conspiracy theories. I bought it, read it, and sent it on to a close friend who was falling hook/line/sinker for the crap spewed on "Loose Change."
P.M. published the book because there were loads of requests that they do so, after they published an article about that subject. So they delved deeper, got more info from more experts, and totally shred all of the popular 9/11 conspiracy kook theories. You should check it out.
I read a book published by the editors of Popular Mechanics, about the 9/11 conspiracy theories. I bought it, read it, and sent it on to a close friend who was falling hook/line/sinker for the crap spewed on "Loose Change."
P.M. published the book because there were loads of requests that they do so, after they published an article about that subject. So they delved deeper, got more info from more experts, and totally shred all of the popular 9/11 conspiracy kook theories. You should check it out.
Spirits fly on dangerous missions
Imaginations on fire
Imaginations on fire
Once again I dont know but I find it quite interesting that some people with a lot of experience in aviation would give up their careers and spend a fortune of their money to try and prove what they think is the truth in this matter. Is it so hard to believe that the government who just admitted that they lied to the country for years with the cia papers release, would for whatever politcal reasons try and coverup the truth of this, even more its very hard to beleive that a few wires would bring down a 747 with so many of them flying so much without a problem. The missile theory is very valid from the site, and it even goes to show how many of them are out there, how hard would it be to for someone to bring a stinger missile that was given to Afgani fredom fighters and Bin Laden, by the US to fight Russian forces, into this country when thousands of pounds of cocaine and marijuana are brought here daily. And why wouldnt the CIA/FBI want to cover that a us missile was used to kill many people on US soil?
Sephton v. FBI
Freedom of Information Act lawsuit for
disclosure of Flight 800's probe of records of foreign objects and shrapnel
obtained by the FBI, and withheld, including from the NTSB and the medical examiner
Graeme Sephton
November, 2003
I am a registered professional engineer who has been working diligently for years on the discovery process of the most pertinent evidence about the explosion of Flight 800. My main effort has been to obtain the forensic evidence about hundreds of objects seized by the FBI during the autopsy that were never later shared with the coroner. (Highly irregular in itself.) I realized that, unlike other evidence collected from the bottom of the Atlantic, the foreign body evidence is definitive because there is no chain-of-custody ambiguity. It cannot readily be explained away.
Consider that any suspicious objects that had been dredged up during the salvage operation could not definitively be linked with the explosion. Objects removed during the autopsies cannot be dismissed in a cavalier manner. But such evidence obviously can be, and was, withheld by the FBI from routine independent evaluation by the County Coroner. Why, I wondered?!
The FBI's excuse for the existence of explosive residues throughout the wreckage is that it was carelelessly “spilled” during a canine explosives detection exercise. Similarly, the evidence from scores of witnesses who saw an object streaking up from the water was both suppressed and dismissed. The CIA experts explained that they were all visually confused by the burning disintegrating aircraft. Radar experts who were concerned with what the radar data showed were also dismissed. But suspicious foreign objects removed during autopsies presents a significant challenge to explain away or dismiss. Perhaps it is easier to withhold than to explain it.
Indeed, the final official conclusion of the spontaneous spark in the fuel tank was always very frail. There is no corroborating evidence to support it. The fuel tank was empty. The FBI claims to have relied on the "spark theory." The FBI asserted that there was “no physical evidence" of any outside initiating event.
In 1998, I made a Freedom of Information Act request for the forensic evidence that was withheld from the coroner. I believe that obtaining that evidence might resolve the controversial conclusions of the investigation. Who if anyone inside the FBI had evaluated all those hundreds of foreign bodies, and what did they conclude about them?
Eventually it became evident that perhaps no one had actually made an evaluation of the critical foreign body evidence: not the county coroner, not the FBI’s medical forensic consultant, not the NTSB medical forensic specialists, and certainly not the media. Despite these and other blatant symptoms of a deficient investigation, the media has repudiated the label “cover-up” as unmentionable and unacceptable. Unfortunately, that has left citizen investigators to investigate and research. There are dozens of us.
In early 2000 the FBI could only find 23 pages of responsive documents relating to the objects that were removed from 89 of the victims. In July 2000, with the support of the FIRO organization (see http://www.flight800.org/FBI_COMP.htm), I filed a lawsuit against the FBI for this apparent withholding of documents. That three-year litigation has now produced a lot of documentary evidence confirming that there were substantial quantities of forensic lab data withheld from both the NTSB and the coroner. But among the 550 pages the FBI has now submitted to the federal District Court in Springfield (June 2003), they have only found and surrendered one page of actual forensic results. One of the FBI affidavits to the Court acknowledged that the FBI had not and would not do a simple keyword search in either of the two computer databases that a former FBI employee identified as most likely containing the responsive records. Former FBI's Dr. Fred Whitehurst is helping, and his affidavit is filed in the suit.
Of the 550 pages of records eventually surrendered to the federal Court in June 2003, only one page was of a forensic laboratory report, a negative result from an explosive residue test. Despite the lack of forensic data, the released records do reveal that hundreds of foreign objects were removed during the autopsies by the medical examiners – and were immediately seized as evidence by the FBI for its “identification” and “detailed lab analysis.” Eight years later the public is still waiting.
The records also show that not even the FBI’s own medical forensic team, headed by their specially appointed consultant Dr. Dennis Shanahan, had any access to the foreign object forensic data.
What those 550 pages fail to provide is very disconcerting. The FBI could not find any of the requested physical details or descriptions of those objects; their size, weight, composition, or likely point of origin. If it accurately reflects the status and contents of the “Main File” of the investigation produced and maintained by the NY FBI Field Office there was a serious problem in the investigation. It implies that Assistant Director Jim Kallstrom and the FBI Office in charge of the investigation never received any of that forensic information or even summaries or assessments of the foreign objects and shrapnel removed from the bodies. Were they even claimed to be merely pieces of a 747 and its contents?
The official FBI investigation cost over $20 million and the main record appears to be totally silent on this fundamental issue. Only a thorough review by independent experts will be able to prove whether the FBI's conduct is based on deception.
Theoretically, the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) was the lead agency in the Investigation. However, NTSB records released in response to a similar FOIA request were equally perplexing. Those records revealed that the FBI had never shared any of the descriptions or forensic details with them either. When asked about it via phone, Burt Simon, Chair of the NTSB Medical Group/Report, subsequently confirmed that revelation. It seems particularly remiss that the NTSB did not seek or receive that data. It is an important and routine part of the survivability factor analysis of every accident investigation, to analyze what particular objects were flying around and hurting passengers, if such evidence exists. Mr. Simon had no reasonable explanation for how he could have completed a professional survivability report without that data. He attempted to dismiss the unreviewed data as being “probably of little consequence.” Despite his own negligence in the matter, he expressed the utmost confidence in the never-seen analysis and conclusions the FBI must have made about it.
The FBI’s assertion that they cannot now locate the forensic data is not believable. In support of our case, Dr. Fred Whitehurst, formerly a senior chemist at the FBI Crime Laboratory, submitted an affidavit to the Court explaining how easy all of the forensic data would be to find if the FBI merely searched in the right place. He even identified, by name, the two most relevant computerized data bases at that institution.
Despite all the facts above, in August of 2003 the District Court ruled against us a second time, after having already been reversed at the US Court of Appeals. On October 24, 2003 the First Circuit Appeals Court in Boston rejected the lower court’s ruling and remanded the case back to Springfield District Court. The First Circuit directed the lower court to now finally "resolve the FOIA issues raised by Sephton."
Item “1B-28” - 20 mysterious shrapnel pellets of “unknown origin”
Apart from the single page mentioned above, only one other forensic laboratory report out of those missing hundreds has ever been released by the FBI. It was an analysis performed by Brookhaven National Lab (BNL) to evaluate 20 small (~1/4” diameter) pellets that were removed during autopsy of the person whose ME# was 96-5037; the pellets were designated Item “1B-28”. The lab report showed that a sample pellet was composed mostly of Aluminum with traces of Titanium, Zirconium, Cerium and Barium. Such compounds are consistent with incendiary pellets used in some missiles. The report merely concluded "unknown origin." The details of 1B-28 were among over 200 fairly innocuous pages of documents released in response to a Freedom of Information Act request from another independent researcher, Don Collins, in California. The FBI’s executive summary of that BNL Lab report was at variance with the remarkable implications of the BNL’s findings. The FBI initially classified the BNL report "secret."
Even if the remarkable incendiary components could be explained, the official low-velocity type fuel explosion could not shatter aluminum into small pellets.
Refer to the details and some of the documents of this BNL evidence at:
http://www.flight800.org/FBI_COMP.htm
http://www.twa800.com
230 souls perished with TWA Flight 800. It is now time to find out what really went wrong immediately prior to the explosion. Perhaps even more importantly for the sake of public safety and government credibility, we now also need to find out what went wrong with this elaborate and expensive investigation.
As more and more evidence emerges from the archives of the investigation, the more it's evident that the probe was a sham.
We cannot be safe if catastrophic events and serious problems can be swept under the carpet with elaborate and inadequate investigations
Ray
Small and fast what every girl dreams of!
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites