It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by johnlear
Thanks for the post COOL HAND. No center tank fuel pump on any Boeing 747 ever ignited fumes and caused an explosion in any center tank of any Boeing 747. It was a ridiculous explanation. Couldn't have happened. Didn't happen. Wouldn't happen. No possible way could it happen.
Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
You know, John, the statement "because I said so" doesn't validate an argument unless I'm ten years old, you're my dad and you want to change the channel.
What damage are you talking about? People would be less inclined to fly because one (of two) pilots might be suicidal?
The government din't see it that way.
Originally posted by adjay
Amazing.
Yet, still there are many who believe jumping into a 767 and "flying" it is just like piloting a Cessna or such..
Now, assume they could fly it (which the guy who trained them says they couldn't!), could they put them into a tower, measuring 207 feet wide, and get the wings in so neatly that measure 156 feet?
That's 25.5 feet each side to play with. One of these planes got it almost bang on, the other did a pretty good job even considering the impressive diving maneouvre at the end..
Food for thought!
So, let me get this right....
Two identical 737s, crashed by yawing and flipping upside down, are suicides, even though when thermal shock was applied to the Rudder PCU controls are locked and reversed which would cause the plane to yaw heavily?
And then over a year later there was a 'attempted suicide', involving ANOTHER 737 yawing heavily?
Why not push the nose DOWN?
Turn off centre fuel tanks so you run dry early?
What a joke.
I was taught that the immersed pumps used the surrounding fuel as a 'heat sink' for cooling purposes. We were told that, even when the tank was 'dry', there was always an amount of unusable fuel there to provide sufficient cooling for the motor
There is (or was two years ago) a directive involving the B737NG and the B757 to stop burning from the center tank when quantity reached about 1000lbs. Theory was, 'Don't let the pumps run 'dry'.
While we complied, it was after all the regulation, and was also a limitation written in to our Flight Manuals, we still had to wonder..."Why was it OK (to burn the tank dry) when the airplane was certified, but not now?"
Originally posted by johnlear
Because the airplane was certified before the U.S. Navy accidentally shot down TWA Flight 800 which was, I believe, the fifth civilian airliner that the U.S. Navy has shot down accidentally. (5 civilian airliners shot down made the U.S. Navy eligible for "Ace" status.). And in order the cover up for the U.S. Navy we all had to pretend that fuel pumps arced causing exposions.
Originally posted by buddhasystem
Let's say you have a really lousy driver who can't park or use standard stick and stuff, and you put him in a car on a completely empty freeway and ask him to hit the orange cone you put on the double yellow. Wouldn't surprise me if he did
john,
Since you seem to know so much about the incident, how about a few details? I have asked for them before, and no one has answered me.
Just a few simple facts, like what kind of weapon they used, what ship was it, etc.
What prompts this column is an email I received last week from a retired USNR Commander and former TWA pilot, with whom I had had no prior contact.
He recounted a conversation that he had shortly after the mid-air destruction of TWA Flight 800 on July 17, 1996 off the coast of Long Island. He had a particular interest in the plane’s demise for two reasons. One is that he was a qualified accident investigator. The second is that he had flown that very same flight a week earlier.
"It had to be a bloody missile, probably an un-armed Tomahawk, going for center-of-mass,” he said to a senior flight manager of his acquaintance. “They were most likely going for a target drone and testing their capability to go-through normal aircraft traffic to get at the target.”
My partner in this investigation, James Sanders, had developed any number of discreet first hand sources in 1996-1997, but all of these sources “went away after we were indicted.” The “we” refers to James and his wife, Elizabeth, at the time a TWA trainer, both of whom were eventually convicted of the bogus charge of conspiracy to steal airplane parts.
I seem to recall that the Navy went so far as to reveal the presence of ballistic missile subs in the area, since people were still not convinced that the Navy did not do it.
Originally posted by tezzajw
Buddahsystem, why do you continue to draw useless analogies to driving cars, when the thread is about flying aeroplanes?
Most idiots on Earth can drive a car with very limited instruction time. I know, they overtake me in dangerous moves every day when I am on the road. However, very few people on Earth would be able to pilot an aeroplane like a 767 with only limited instruction.
Flying a plane, specifically a 767, is not like driving a car!
Originally posted by buddhasystem
I disagree with your assessment that this analogy is useless. Analogies prove to be a very useful learning tool.
There were opinions from pro pilots posted on this board that this was entirely doable.
buddahsystem
tezzajw
Flying a plane, specifically a 767, is not like driving a car!
duh.
Originally posted by johnlear
Thanks for the post COOL HAND. The Navy has some excellent practice in covering up their accidents and help from the very top. Does the name Richard Clarke ring a bell? Or maybe Sandy Berger?
OK. How about 270 eyewitnesses to a missile none of whom were asked to testify at the NTSB cover-up...oops, I mean hearing. Pretty slick, eh?
"It had to be a bloody missile, probably an un-armed Tomahawk, going for center-of-mass,” he said to a senior flight manager of his acquaintance. “They were most likely going for a target drone and testing their capability to go-through normal aircraft traffic to get at the target.”
Now you want to know what weapon? What Ship? You might as well ask the Navy for information on its new Fleet 21 fully-automated battleship or 70 foot nuclear-powered Fast Attack Sub.
One of the crewmembers on the Navy ship that fired the missile called his father and said, "Dad, we did it." A full account of this in Sander's book.
I have been told that every single crew member was shipped to different stations around the world. This would probably be normal Navy procedure to keep anyone from discussing the matter. If any crew members were caught discussing the incident for any reason I would imagine they would commit suicide with 2 bullets in the back of their head.
Thanks for the post COOL HAND, your navel input is truly appreciated.
originally posted by johnlear
OK. How about 270 eyewitnesses to a missile none of whom were asked to testify at the NTSB cover-up...oops, I mean hearing. Pretty slick, eh?
You are just dodging my question. No Navy ship that has the ability to shoot down an aircraft carries a crew of only 270.
Even if it was a Navy ship, junior Sailors are notorious for revealing information they shouldn't. This would have leaked out if the Navy did it. There would have been no way to prevent disclosure.
Is this guy qualified on the Tomahawk? No, I didn't think so. The Tomahawk is a land attack (only) missile. We used to have an anti-shipping version, but they phased that out. Neither one of those has the ability or the capability of hitting an aircraft.
john, if you don't know just say you don't know. Stop pretending to have info you obviously don't have.
Whatever, why didn't any of his 269 friends join him in revealing this. Does the book go so far as to mention what the sailor did on the ship?
What? Who told you that line of crap? Spreading the Sailors around would actually increase the likelihood that they would reveal something.
If what you are saying is true, then give me the ship name and I can look up their operational history for the time period and confirm if an entire crew was transferred at once.
Originally posted by johnlearThe 270 people I am talking about were on the shore of Long Island watching the missile rise up and hit TWA Flight 800.
I disagree with you COOL HAND. The Navy has probably the best tight lipped, closed mouth personnel of any military force world wide. Junior Sailors are not notorious for revealing information they shouldn't. This may have gone on many, many years ago but it certainly isn't true today. That is the reason that many secret Navy projects are not classified "Secret" or"Top Secret" because (1) the classification process in itself draws attention and (2) there are very, very, very few leaks.
Just take the F-19 as an example. The original order, the funding, the construction and operation was kept so secret because very little of the project went on paper. There wasn't even any congressional oversight. I believe that the airplane may be retired now as it has been operational since about 1980. Thats 27 years.
Whatever misile the Navy fired it did a darn good job of downing TWA Flight 800.
I don't know what weapon the U.S. Navy used to accidentally shoot down TWA Flight 800 a Boeing 747, off the shore of Long Island in 1996, nor do I know what U.S. Navy ship was used to launch the U.S. Navy missile that accidentally shot down the Boeing 747 that belonged to and was crewed by Trans World Airlines.
I believe that you misunderstood my statement about the 270 witnesses. They were the number of people who witnessed the unknown U.S. Navy missile, launched from the unknown U.S. Navy ship streak up from the ocean and accidentally blow up TWA's Boeing 747. Not one of them was called to testify at the NTSB coverup....er...hearing.
I don't have the name COOL HAND. But if you can find a Naval Publication titled "COVER UPS" it will be listed along with Thresher and Scorpion.
Thanks for the post COOL HAND, your navel input is truly appreciated.