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.

 

TWA Flight 800 investigators break silence in new documentary, claim original conclusion about caus

page: 24
165
<< 21  22  23    25  26  27 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 21 2013 @ 01:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dragoon01
Uhhh no.....Apollo 13 was a leak in an Oxygen tank which leaked into other areas of the module. TWA is supposed to be a short INSIDE of the actual fuel tank. So like all of the other examples I mentioned above Apollo 13 is nothing like TWA 800.
I wouldn't say it's like TWA 800 so I agree with that much. But what was the cause in Apollo 13? It was indeed a wiring short (failed insulation), but it was for a stirring fan, not a fuel level sensor. A fan would take more current than a fuel level sensor which is generally a milliamp level device as stated by the investigator in the documentary, so it's harder for such low power devices as fuel level sensors to be ignition sources. One possibility if a fuel level sensor shorted is that it might just stop working, and it may not ignite anything at all.

A fan, drawing more current, could catch the insulation on fire upon a short circuit as happened on Apollo 13.

en.wikipedia.org...

In fact, the number-2 oxygen tank, one of two in the Service Module (SM), had exploded.[11] Damaged Teflon insulation on the wires to the stirring fan inside oxygen tank 2 allowed the wires to short-circuit and ignite this insulation. The resulting fire rapidly increased pressure beyond its 1,000 pounds per square inch (6.9 MPa) limit and the tank dome failed

edit on 21-6-2013 by Arbitrageur because: clarification




posted on Jun, 21 2013 @ 02:41 PM
link   
IIRC a short external to the fuel tank placed a large current through wires that did go into the tank.

So my compairison is indeed very close. Too much current in a place with combustible gasses.



posted on Jun, 21 2013 @ 02:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by samkent
IIRC a short external to the fuel tank placed a large current through wires that did go into the tank.

So my compairison is indeed very close. Too much current in a place with combustible gasses.
Except that fan circuits are designed to provide moderate current (perhaps amps) which is relatively large compared to fuel sensor circuits which are only designed to supply small currents (milliamps). So I don't think the comparison is that close for that reason. Amps are a thousand times greater than milliamps and power of one amp is a million times as great as a milliamp going into the same resistance, therefore much more capable of producing the heat needed to catch insulation on fire.

Also, it wasn't a fuel tank in Apollo 13, it was an oxygen tank.

These are factors to consider regarding the similarity.
edit on 21-6-2013 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Jun, 21 2013 @ 02:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 




Amps are a thousand times greater than milliamps and therefore much more capable of producing the heat needed to catch insulation on fire. Not only that but the power of one amp is a million times as great as a milliamp going into the same resistance, so these are factors to consider regarding the similarity.

Also, it wasn't a fuel tank in Apollo 13, it was an oxygen tank.

Too much current through damaged wires (Apollo) or wires that were not designed for high current (TWA).
Both had combustible gasses inside. Both went boom.
To me it's the same bird with different color feathers.

When this whole thing plays itself out I hope they hang the producer out to dry.



posted on Jun, 21 2013 @ 03:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by samkent
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 




Amps are a thousand times greater than milliamps and therefore much more capable of producing the heat needed to catch insulation on fire. Not only that but the power of one amp is a million times as great as a milliamp going into the same resistance, so these are factors to consider regarding the similarity.

Also, it wasn't a fuel tank in Apollo 13, it was an oxygen tank.

Too much current through damaged wires (Apollo) or wires that were not designed for high current (TWA).
Both had combustible gasses inside. Both went boom.
To me it's the same bird with different color feathers.

When this whole thing plays itself out I hope they hang the producer out to dry.


Clearly you didn't watch the video, and you have not heard all of the evidence that destroys the fuel tank cause. Regardless if you think the fuel tank exploded or not, the fuel tank cannot produce a high velocity explosion, and there is evidence of a high velocity explosion in the radar evidence. The evidence in this documentary and the petition is rock solid, and provides more than a shadow of a doubt that this was a cover up, and the results were done to fit an agenda.



posted on Jun, 21 2013 @ 03:21 PM
link   
reply to post by rjohns1
 


People's opinions and speculation aren't evidence. If they had any solid evidence they would be filing court proceedings, either civil or criminal, not producing a documentary. Evidence is something you take to court not spout out to a camera to profit from.



posted on Jun, 21 2013 @ 03:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by EViLKoNCEPTz
People's opinions and speculation aren't evidence. If they had any solid evidence they would be filing court proceedings, either civil or criminal, not producing a documentary. Evidence is something you take to court not spout out to a camera to profit from.
The most solid evidence would possibly be in the parts of the underwater video that were edited out so NTSB investigators could not see the unedited video.

The FBI refused to let them see it when they asked.

The alleged mach 4 radar data may not be personal opinion or speculation. It should be independently verifiable (or not).

And by the way Stalcup, the video producer did take some government agencies to civil court; he said "I sued them" but he didn't give a lot of details.



posted on Jun, 21 2013 @ 03:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


But, and this is a big but in the legal system, a lack of evidence isn't evidence. If a SEAL team was involved in recovery the editing may have been done to protect their identities and/or equipment and tactics. A lot of that stuff is classified or secret. It's actually a felony to divulge a SEALs identity without permission, especially if you're a civilian. Those guys and their families are targets and releasing their identity could result in retaliation from somewhere.

The radar data would be inconclusive as a blast with enough force to rip a 747 apart could easily propel debris at speeds up to mach 4. ANFO has a blast force of over 5000 meters per second, well above mach 4, a large fuel explosion from a pressurized vessel such as a fuel tank on an aircraft would produce similar results.

His claims of suing them should be easily verifiable if true. Court dockets are a matter of public record so if he in fact sued them finding the records wouldn't be too difficult.



posted on Jun, 21 2013 @ 04:00 PM
link   
they signed and filed a petition to reopen which is what the NTSB requires for something like this

The NTSB acknowledged receipt Wednesday of the filmmakers' petition -- signed by former investigators -- requesting that the investigation be reopened.
"As required by NTSB regulation, a petition for reconsideration of Board findings or a probable cause determination must be based on the discovery of new evidence or on a showing that the Board's findings are erroneous," said board spokeswoman Kelly Nantel.



posted on Jun, 21 2013 @ 04:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by EViLKoNCEPTz
The radar data would be inconclusive as a blast with enough force to rip a 747 apart could easily propel debris at speeds up to mach 4. ANFO has a blast force of over 5000 meters per second, well above mach 4, a large fuel explosion from a pressurized vessel such as a fuel tank on an aircraft would produce similar results.
So are you saying that mach 4 debris would be consistent with a center fuel tank explosion?

I thought the pressure inside the center fuel tank wasn't very high, though I don't know the pressure level or range.


Originally posted by research100
they signed and filed a petition to reopen which is what the NTSB requires for something like this
I posted a link to the petition here.
edit on 21-6-2013 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Jun, 21 2013 @ 04:17 PM
link   
reply to post by research100
 


Acceptance of a petition only means they received it. It doesn't necessarily mean there was enough new evidence to reopen the investigation. Only time will tell if they really have any evidence that will bring about a reopening of an investigation. What I've seen in the video wouldn't pass for evidence in a court of law, unfortunately. We'll have to see if they have more than what they've presented thus far. If they don't this documentary will do them more harm than good as they've just shown their hand and given the defense a road map to defeat them.

To me this documentary feels more like a publicity stunt than anything. But like I said only time will tell.



posted on Jun, 21 2013 @ 04:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


The pressure would come from the fire needing to escape which will build up pressure until it opens a way out. Any fuel explosion can throw shrapnel at mach 4. ANFO (Ammonium Nitrate Fuel Oil) isn't a very high explosive, it's more in the mid range as far as explosive force is concerned, and we've seen what kind of damage it can do, think OKC. I'm not sure how the fuel system on an airliner works but I'd assume it has to manage its pressure due to altitude changes and the external pressure changes associated with that.

But ignition of a fuel fire in a closed system forces the fire to find an escape which is what makes it go boom. Once it finds an escape route all the pressure built up from the fire forces it's way out causing an explosion. An explosion with enough force to rip the plane apart would definitely have the force to propel small and medium debris upwards of Mach 4, possibly even larger pieces of debris as well.



posted on Jun, 21 2013 @ 04:33 PM
link   
On the topic of the nitrates found which supposedly indicated explosive residue. Nitrates are found naturally in sea water. There is a type of red slime algae known as cyano which has very high levels of nitrates as that's what it feeds on to fuel its growth. Its a red to reddish purple color somewhat similar to the color of beets. It has enough nitrates in it to cause bomb sniffing dogs and bomb testing equipment to give a false positive. Being as the plane went down in the ocean it may have come in contact with a species of algae that's high in nitrates which caused cross contamination. Still not entirely conclusive since there's more options for the reason of nitrates being present besides explosive residue only.



posted on Jun, 21 2013 @ 04:35 PM
link   
here is a clip, interviewing one of the guys.....;oh I forgot, they also spent alot of time using the FOIA (freedom of information act) to get many papers and documents from this crash to study and look over compare.

www.cnn.com...



posted on Jun, 21 2013 @ 04:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by EViLKoNCEPTz
An explosion with enough force to rip the plane apart would definitely have the force to propel small and medium debris upwards of Mach 4, possibly even larger pieces of debris as well.
I'm not sure why you're citing ANFO, airliners don't use that, right?

According to Melvin Baer, the size of the pieces of the center tank indicate the explosion was not supersonic:

www.liveleak.com...

Joseph E. Shepherd of Cal-Tech’s Explosion Dynamics Laboratory and Melvin Baer of Sandia National Laboratories concluded that what occurred in TWA 800’s center tank was a deflagration or sub-sonic explosion. According to Baer, had the explosion been super-sonic, the tank would have been recovered in small pieces instead of in the large sections that the Navy found.

Baer and Shepherd’s conclusions regarding the fuel tank explosion appear sound. However, as the radar data shows, this explosion was not the initiating event but a secondary explosion that followed a prior super-sonic detonation. The NTSB did not ask Baer or Shepherd to review the radar data showing that a super-sonic explosion had occurred prior to the fuel tank explosion.

Neither Baer, Shepherd, nor any other scientists commissioned by the NTSB, nor any NTSB investigators analyzed the debris associated with the supersonic explosion. Further, although the debris was clearly recorded by all the nearby radar sites, the NTSB did not list it in their official debris field database.



posted on Jun, 21 2013 @ 04:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


They use a fuel oil, kerosene, which is an ingredient in ANFO. But that's not the point. The point is the comparison between the two as medium velocity explosive forces and the amount of power released by them. It's strictly to illustrate a high explosive (HE) isn't needed to produce debris/shrapnel speeds up to and in excess of Mach 4.



posted on Jun, 21 2013 @ 05:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


There are secondary forces besides the fuel tank alone involved. The decompression of the fuselage as well as combustible materials on board, both in the plane itself as well as it's cargo. The fuel tank itself may not have exploded at supersonic speeds but that doesn't exclude other factors from the explosion reaching them. It all depends on all of the factors involved and not just one point. You have to look at the situation as a whole and not focus on just the CWT. You should consider the CWT as a detonator on a bomb and not the bomb itself, so to speak.



posted on Jun, 21 2013 @ 05:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


I believe the suggestion is that a fuel air explosion wouldn't have the energy to propel the initial debris fan at the velocities estimated and that the NTSB report fails to provide a mechanism to explain the initial vector the debris took.

Interesting sure, but hardly new or damning. The graphic used by the producers is from the original NTSB report which clearly shows the debris track in question and regardless of how some want to downplay it, the explosion of the CWT was a catastrophic over pressure event which is going to vent the bulk of its force whichever direction gives the least resistance.



I read the argument that the pressure wave as calculated was insufficient to propel the debris at the velocities estimated but what I see is a lot of supposition and mathematical calculation based on a preconceived assumption more than actual data.

From the petition....

We will prescribe an exit velocity equal to the explosion velocity: 100 m/s.


compared to...

Typical detonation velocities in gases range from 1800 m/s to 3000 m/s.

Explosive velocity

What is so hard in believing that when the CMT failed the force of the blast was vented to the starboard side of the aircraft or that the force was more energetic than was assumed?

The NTSB provides an extensive metallurgical examination of the surviving wreckage as well.


1.16.4 Additional Metallurgical, Material, and Structural Testing and Information
1.16.4.1 Metallurgical Examination of Several Small Holes in the Accident Airplaneís Structure
1.16.4.2 Metallurgical Examination of Fatigue Cracking
1.16.4.3 Metallurgical Examination of the Fuselage Joint Between Sections 41 and 42
1.16.4.4 Metallurgical Examination of the Forward Cargo Door
1.16.4.5 Metallurgical Examination of Nose Landing Gear Doors and Surrounding Structure


In-flight Breakup Over the Atlantic Ocean Trans World Airlines Flight 800 Boeing 747-131

Perhaps there is some detail that was overlooked but after spending some time trying to reference the recent accusations in the petition with the data in the NTSB report it seems to me that no stone was left unturned and that there was sound reasoning behind the decision to dismiss the missile theory.

If there is enough public interest to revisit the case, I don't think it is a bad idea necessarily although if the new investigation finds nothing new or damning it wont change many minds and the resources could be used for other, current investigations.



posted on Jun, 21 2013 @ 06:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Drunkenparrot
Perhaps there is some detail that was overlooked but after spending some time trying to reference the recent accusations in the petition with the data in the NTSB report it seems to me that no stone was left unturned and that there was sound reasoning behind the decision to dismiss the missile theory.
I don't know if the mach 4 calculation is correct, but if it is, that doesn't seem to have been specifically addressed, though as you suggest there are a number of variables.

But as for no stone being left unturned, that is not quite true. When asked about the splatter pattern on the center fuel tank that was deposited before the tank exploded, the Dr Birkey, chief technical advisor at NTSB admitted that when nitrates were found in the splatter pattern by NASA, he should have conducted additional tests to determine the nature of the origin of the nitrates and whether it was from an explosive, and he didn't do this and he couldn't explain why. Also interesting was that fact that several key investigators who should have been aware of the splatter pattern weren't even aware of it, including the FBI explosives unit examiner, Bob Heckman, and he said that he was the person responsible for deciding what evidence was to be considered, and NTSB Senior Accident Investigator Hank Hughes.

I don't know how much significance that splatter pattern really has, but neither do investigators, since it was apparently a stone largely unturned, to use your expression. The documentary producers seem to think it's relevant as it's the first piece of evidence discussed, beginning just after 54 minutes into the video.

Did you watch the documentary? Here's a short clip from the documentary featuring the NTSB Senior Accident Investigator where he said the explosive force came from outside the aircraft:
press.epixhd.com...

How do you reconcile that with your conclusion about no stone being unturned?
edit on 21-6-2013 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Jun, 22 2013 @ 09:22 AM
link   
I was watching network TV with my children when this happened, and wondered why on earth normal TV programming was interrupted so that the White House could announce an airliner crash? Is this new policy? Would the POTUS also interrupt normal programming to announce a train wreck or bus accident?

This was a coverup from Day One. My guess is a friendly fire type accident involving the US Navy.

FBI being the lead agency on an airliner accident? That is highly irregular. NTSB is the lead agency on airliner accidents.

Coverup from the very start.



new topics

top topics



 
165
<< 21  22  23    25  26  27 >>

log in

join