New TWA800 Documentary

Here is a clip I found on YouTube with a similar test (though not the official one conducted by the NTSB) of the center fuel tank. A 75 millijoule spark was all that was needed to detonate the vaporized fuel in the tank, per video commentary.

 
TheFlyingTurkey said:
So how much voltage does it take to generate an electrical arc? HMM?
Click to expand...
I welded two 00 gauge leads together on accident with the 24v battery we were using to power a box in the lab. Quite a science experiment because I held them with my fingers and didn't burn them at all but I sure got a great bond electrically and structurally.
 
dasleben said:
I don't know. My source was the documentary.

And really, I just...I just don't care. I see this thread erupting into a lot of angst for no reason anyway.
Click to expand...

Come to think of it, I've seen 12VDC arc big time. Just take the positive lead from your car battery and touch the metal frame and watch the sparks fly.
 
TheFlyingTurkey said:
Come to think of it, I've seen 12VDC arc big time. Just take the positive lead from your car battery and touch the metal frame and watch the sparks fly.
Click to expand...
Not good for the battery. :)

For most fuel in an airplane it takes a ton of heat to get the flashpoint up. Initially one of the biggest conspiracies asked why the hell did the fuel company at JFK, Ogden at the time I think, have so much money invested with a white gas company out further on the island. Later on the fuel company was found to have done nothing wrong but a lot of folks were instantly convinced the fuel company was mixing cheap white gas in with the jet-a. If there was enough low vapor point gas you could light the thing off easier. One of many dead end leads. I always liked the greed angle, no dice though.
 
ATN_Pilot said:
What happened to this thread? Seems like an awful lot of posts just disappeared without explanation.
Click to expand...
sdf.jpg


@MikeD says the software goofed up when he tried killing some tangential stuff. Not only that but you're post is now higher than a post from a couple days ago.

MikeD may be right, the software sucks a big one. Cue Darrenf with the "qutch was right, we should have been saving and pdf'ing the threads".
 
jynxyjoe said:
View attachment 25798

@MikeD says the software goofed up when he tried killing some tangential stuff. Not only that but you're post is now higher than a post from a couple days ago.

MikeD may be right, the software sucks a big one. Cue Darrenf with the "qutch was right, we should have been saving and pdf'ing the threads".
Click to expand...

Yeah, was culling out the crap in order to keep this thread here in Gen Topics. For whatever reason, it cut out a heck of alot more, including my own posts. Software a work in progress, I guess.
 
jynxyjoe said:
Not good for the battery. :)

For most fuel in an airplane it takes a ton of heat to get the flashpoint up. Initially one of the biggest conspiracies asked why the hell did the fuel company at JFK, Ogden at the time I think, have so much money invested with a white gas company out further on the island. Later on the fuel company was found to have done nothing wrong but a lot of folks were instantly convinced the fuel company was mixing cheap white gas in with the jet-a. If there was enough low vapor point gas you could light the thing off easier. One of many dead end leads. I always liked the greed angle, no dice though.
Click to expand...

The center fuel tank had something like 75 or 80 gallons of Jet-A in it at the time of departure, which is nothing more than a puddle in such a large tank. It wouldn't take THAT much heat to vaporize such a small quantity of jet fuel.
 
MikeD said:
Yeah, was culling out the crap in order to keep this thread here in Gen Topics. For whatever reason, it cut out a heck of alot more, including my own posts. Software a work in progress, I guess.
Click to expand...
Better not have cut out my Penguin MEME! I worked seconds on that old man!
 
Apophis said:
The center fuel tank had something like 75 or 80 gallons of Jet-A in it at the time of departure, which is nothing more than a puddle in such a large tank. It wouldn't take THAT much heat to vaporize such a small quantity of jet fuel.
Click to expand...
Sure, which was the issue illustrated at the conclusion of the investigation. i was talking about something that came up during the investigation. Second hand story from a guy who gave expert testimony for the NTSB for their investigation.
 
ATN_Pilot said:
Sorry, but I don't intend to waste my time reading stuff from a conspiracy theory web site. If you have any legitimate sources, I'd be happy to read them.
Click to expand...

It is an official document, a legitimate source.

Unless you don't consider sworn affidavit lefitimate...
 
Just watched the film.

Disclaimer. I'm a skeptic bordering on nihilist. I don't believe in jack unless there is sufficient evidence and a reason to believe. i.e., if you're crapping on conspiracy theories in here but legitimately believe the story of Jesus Christ, then I would say you have very little credibility as a skeptic or somebody who should be critical of missing evidence.

Without combing through all the NTSB narrative, wasn't the final conclusion basically that there was no known or understood source for ignition in the fuel tank? In other words, there are thousands of airliners flying around with vapor in their fuel tanks every day and this is the one time a wire arced and blew up an entire airplane?

I'm not jumping on board with the missile theory by any means, but to outright laugh at the people who question the NTSB report and ridicule them like bigfoot hunters is completely inconsistent with the critical thinking skeptics' way.

The film itself has an unfortunate bias toward the missile theory, but it makes a few respectable claims with regard to a contaminated investigation. If the naysayers in here won't address that claim, I'll assume they just lack the ability to debate at a middle school level.
 
ATN_Pilot said:
Ahh, this old crap. Rebutted long ago. As in 16 years ago. Not a missile, but several different primary targets without beacon signals.
Click to expand...

As in ten when the affidavit was signed correct? I thought you didn't know what I was talking about.

Your turn, post the legitimate rebuttal.
 
Cal Goat said:
Just watched the film.

Disclaimer. I'm a skeptic bordering on nihilist. I don't believe in jack unless there is sufficient evidence and a reason to believe. i.e., if you're crapping on conspiracy theories in here but legitimately believe the story of Jesus Christ, then I would say you have very little credibility as a skeptic or somebody who should be critical of missing evidence.

Without combing through all the NTSB narrative, wasn't the final conclusion basically that there was no known or understood source for ignition in the fuel tank? In other words, there are thousands of airliners flying around with vapor in their fuel tanks every day and this is the one time a wire arced and blew up an entire airplane?

I'm not jumping on board with the missile theory by any means, but to outright laugh at the people who question the NTSB report and ridicule them like bigfoot hunters is completely inconsistent with the critical thinking skeptics' way.

The film itself has an unfortunate bias toward the missile theory, but it makes a few respectable claims with regard to a contaminated investigation. If the naysayers in here won't address that claim, I'll assume they just lack the ability to debate at a middle school level.
Click to expand...

One is wise to not believe anything unless there is sufficient evidence and reason to believe (which is most likely based on life experience). What usually occurs is the distance of agreement, the further which it is a apart, the more desperate those in opposition will become to close the distance to find agreement. As seen here, even when no opinion is given, the inquiry to inconsistency of the investigation is met with strong resistance. For what purpose I am not sure, and like you are starting to make mention of, the NTSB has only given probable cause to the incident.
 
n57flyguy said:
As in ten when the affidavit was signed correct?
Click to expand...

No, as in 1997, when he originally went public with his crackpot story on the internet.

I thought you didn't know what I was talking about.
Click to expand...

I couldn't have imagined that you were actually referencing this debunked nonsense from so long ago. I figured you were talking about some new wacky conspiracy claim. The nuts are always coming up with new stupid nonsense, after all.
 
Cal Goat said:
Without combing through all the NTSB narrative, wasn't the final conclusion basically that there was no known or understood source for ignition in the fuel tank? In other words, there are thousands of airliners flying around with vapor in their fuel tanks every day and this is the one time a wire arced and blew up an entire airplane?
Click to expand...

Yes, it's right there in the probable cause paragraph, as stated by the NTSB. It IS known that the CWT detonated. That's not in contention. What isn't clear is what detonated the CWT, or even whether the CWT detonation was an initiating event, or an event secondary to something else.

The NTSB admits in the probable cause that the answer to the above is not known, but their best guess theory (to riterate: a theory, not known factual), is the stray voltage from wiring.

To me, as the unbiased investigator that I strive to be; this equates to a "we know what happened up to event X, but beyond that we don't have any hard evidence to go by." Therefore the probable cause of the accident is truly unknown, and should read as such in order to be honestly accurate: "....detonation of the 747 CWT, the initiating event of which could not be conclusively determined with the available recovered evidence." From there, if they want to give a "best guess", they can, and did, and even labeled it as-such in the probable cause. However....and here's where I have issue....... over the years, that "best guess" has morphed into THE ACTUAL cause of the accident. And that is not factually correct. But even the NTSB has fallen for this along with many of their people, even though their own written probable cause states "best guess" not "actual occurance". Therefore, it's highly disingenuous to make that connection between the two, when there is no conclusive evidence to do so.

Now, does this automatically make this accident a bomb or missile? No, it doesn't. Those will need their own evidence. but speaking on mechanical malfunction only; at best, this is an unknown.

I'm not jumping on board with the missile theory by any means, but to outright laugh at the people who question the NTSB report and ridicule them like bigfoot hunters is completely inconsistent with the critical thinking skeptics' way.

The film itself has an unfortunate bias toward the missile theory, but it makes a few respectable claims with regard to a contaminated investigation. If the naysayers in here won't address that claim, I'll assume they just lack the ability to debate at a middle school level.
Click to expand...

I haven't seen the film yet, my knowledge goes only from my own background in investigation, having followed this accident since watching live coverage of it on TV back in 1996, and having visited the completed the mockup and heard the theory which is now being touted as absolute fact somehow.

I am curious however how the front half of a 747 can get chopped off inflight, and the rest of the airframe makes a smooth 3000' climb, without being affected by the massive aft CG shift that would occur, or the wings never exceeding critical AOA. Was this ever tried with a scale model of a 747? I would doubt an aircraft having that occur would climb 3000 ft. There is precedence for damage similar occurring: The 1971 midair collision between between a Hughes AirWest DC-9 and a USMC F-4B Phantom east of Los Angeles. In that accident though, the F-4 pretty much cut off only the cockpit of the DC-9, not nearly half the fuselage and thus not nearly as severe a CG shift aft; even so, the DC-9 only flew on for about 10 seconds before spiraling down to earth.


http://forums.jetcareers.com/threads/look-out-to-live.92882/#post-1255353
 
ATN_Pilot said:
No, as in 1997, when he originally went public with his crackpot story on the internet.



I couldn't have imagined that you were actually referencing this debunked nonsense from so long ago. I figured you were talking about some new wacky conspiracy claim. The nuts are always coming up with new stupid nonsense, after all.
Click to expand...

I'm making postion of evidence to evidence, not your opinion on the matter. That comes after evdence in a normal debate. The offer still stands for you to "debunk" the affidavit claims with credible source. You could even find an ALPA member guilty of perjury!
 
MikeD said:
Yes, it's right there in the probable cause paragraph,..
Click to expand...

The unknown ignition source is one thing, but it seems pretty damning that the investigation itself was as contaminated as it was by the FBI (supposing that the claims made by NTSB investigators in the film are accurate). The last thing I want to do is take some documentary on Netflix as a credible source for some possibly outrageous claims, but there seems to be a few points of legitimate concern that I haven't seen addressed by some people in here.

There doesn't need to be a definitive answer for the entire event because sometimes a lack of available evidence simply precludes that. However, given the immense emotional toll an event like this has on so many people, as well as its possible ability to make the industry safer going forward, any post-accident or investigative anomalies should be addressed.
 
[
n57flyguy said:
I'm making postion of evidence to evidence, not your opinion on the matter. That comes after evdence in a normal debate. The offer still stands for you to "debunk" the affidavit claims with credible source. You could even find an ALPA member guilty of perjury!
Click to expand...
I read the stupid pdf file. If everything he saw was wrong he is without malicious intent to decieve. He isnt perjuring himself, he believes what he believes and disbelieves any facts otherwise. That isn't a crime. Its not a crime to see conspiracies everywhere.

Aorry for the spelling switched to the phone
 
Cal Goat said:
The unknown ignition source is one thing, but it seems pretty damning that the investigation itself was as contaminated as it was by the FBI (supposing that the claims made by NTSB investigators in the film are accurate). The last thing I want to do is take some documentary on Netflix as a credible source for some possibly outrageous claims, but there seems to be a few points of legitimate concern that I haven't seen addressed by some people in here.

There doesn't need to be a definitive answer for the entire event because sometimes a lack of available evidence simply precludes that. However, given the immense emotional toll an event like this has on so many people, as well as its possible ability to make the industry safer going forward, any post-accident or investigative anomalies should be addressed.
Click to expand...

I agree with you, and I did address the FBI portion of the investigation in an earlier post that was lost with many in this thread. In it, I do question how the investigational integrity was affected by the absolutely disgraceful and highly unusual evidence preservation (or lack therefore) methodology abd documentation the FBI was using, and why the NTSB didn't raise hell about it, as they were left with the mess the FBI left them after they came off the case.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top