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

Originally posted by chunder
I need to read the NTSB investigation more thoroughly before being sure

I had similar thoughts. This is from page 294 of the report:

www.ntsb.gov...

the Safety Board concludes that the ignition energy for the CWT
explosion most likely entered the CWT through the FQIS wiring, and, although it is
possible that the release of ignition energy inside the CWT was facilitated by the existence
of silver-sulfide deposits on an FQIS component, neither the energy release mechanism
nor the location of the ignition inside the CWT could be determined from the available evidence.

What I find odd about this is that they don't mention any simulations where they attempted to duplicate this failure mode. So either they didn't do it, or they did and it didn't duplicate the failure so they didn't mention it (or I missed where they described their simulation or test, but I don't think so).

They did pursue some kind of experiments in other hair-brained ideas like EMI from personal electronic devices as a possible ingition sources and ruled those out, but they didn't even do anything to confirm what they thought was the likely route of ignition (the FQIS wiring) could have delivered enough energy. They do mention that Boeing design specifications call for the FQIS wiring to not be able to carry enough energy for an ignition event (provided it doesn't get fed a higher voltage by an insulation failure):

p271:

The minimum ignition energy (MIE) for Jet A fuel has been generally accepted to
be about 0.25 millijoule (mJ)579 based on testing done by the American Petroleum Institute
(API)

p279:

The only electrical wiring located inside the CWT is the wiring associated with the
FQIS. 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.

I can't find where they ran any simulation to confirm what they think was the likely cause, but they ran lots of simulations on the unlikely causes, does this make sense?

I would have to wonder if they DID run tests and might have found what you described, that they couldn't duplicate what they say is the likely failure mode? The FQIS wiring is probably more likely to melt where it came in contact with the high voltage wiring, than inside the fuel tank, all else being equal. That doesn't mean it's not possible to discharge the energy inside the fuel tank, but, you'd really expect it to be more likely to occur closer to where the short occurred OUTSIDE the fuel tank, which I think is what you're suggesting.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


www2.galcit.caltech.edu...

Details of experiments and video of a 1/4 scale tank letting go.
www2.galcit.caltech.edu...

The FQIS wiring was found to have contaminants on it, most likely built up from 30 years of submersion in the fuel. These would have allowed arcing to take place in the tank. There is also evidence from the fuel quantity indicator that was recovered that showed 600+ pounds, instead of the 300 that it should have shown. Experiments showed that stray or excess voltage applied to parts of the FQIS wiring would alter the fuel gauge reading by several hundred pounds.

The wiring was initially supposed to be blast proof, but no one knew what 30 years of submersion into fuel, and not being changed or even in some cases inspected would do to the wiring.

Various FAA and NTSB activities have identified actual examples of, or the specific potential for, each of those contributing conditions. For example, conductive debris inside the fuel tank could lodge in a FQIS probe. Wire insulation at the fuel probes could be damaged. The FQIS probes and in-tank wiring could be contaminated by conductive copper/sulfur or silver/sulfur film.

www.faa.gov...

The directive required all Series 3 probes to be replaced with Series 4 or later probes. The Series 3 had a knurled terminal block that could lead to damage to the wiring, while the Series 4 and later used nylon wire clamps and shrink wrap on the wiring.

I faintly remember seeing the CIA video back then. "YOU DID NOT SEE A MISSILE".

It's cracking me up, ever since this thread started and after watching the documentary referenced here. I'm certain it was a coverup of sorts. The CIA video makes me believe more than anything that this was, in fact, a screwed up missile launch and the blood of all those people are the mistake of our military.

This screams coverup and conspiracy. The planes mid air explosion was unlikely caused by mechanical failure.

Remember folks, "YOU DID NOT SEE A MISSILE". What a psyop job that was....

reply to post by sticky


Yeah the whole "the plane continued to climb on fire with the entire front missing and that is what witnesses saw" thing sounded good at the time because we were all asleep,... oh wait ...we still are...

Originally posted by EViLKoNCEPTz
reply to post by Zaphod58

 

There were several large fishing and private vessels in the area at the time that would have been capable of hiding fairly large weapons systems in the cargo holds below deck. Open the deck hatches and you now have a hidden snipers nest. If the vessel was specifically modified for the purpose it could have a dump hatch like smugglers are known to use to drop their cargo if stopped.

A 'sniper' can't hit a target going 500+ MPH at 3 miles altitude, for one thing even if it had that range (which it doesn't) a 1/2" projectile wouldn't do enough damage to blow up the aircraft!
Just quit thinking SNIPER, RIFLE, etc, didn't and can't happen!

Originally posted by Zaphod58
Details of experiments and video of a 1/4 scale tank letting go.
www2.galcit.caltech.edu...

Thanks for the links.

So according to this, they didn't try to model the failure mode they thought occurred?

What features of the CWT were not modeled?
A number of features were not modeled since these were either considered unimportant (variation in height), modeled in other ways (heating), or else too complex or expensive (failure of tank top, etc).

The fuel probes and associated wiring in the tank.

Maybe they didn't know how to model a deteriorated condition of the fuel probes? But they didn't use the fuel probes or the wiring in that test? Odd, since that was the only way the high voltage for an ignition source could get into the tank.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by Arbitrageur

 

www2.galcit.caltech.edu...

Details of experiments and video of a 1/4 scale tank letting go.
www2.galcit.caltech.edu...

The FQIS wiring was found to have contaminants on it, most likely built up from 30 years of submersion in the fuel. These would have allowed arcing to take place in the tank. There is also evidence from the fuel quantity indicator that was recovered that showed 600+ pounds, instead of the 300 that it should have shown. Experiments showed that stray or excess voltage applied to parts of the FQIS wiring would alter the fuel gauge reading by several hundred pounds.

The wiring was initially supposed to be blast proof, but no one knew what 30 years of submersion into fuel, and not being changed or even in some cases inspected would do to the wiring.

Various FAA and NTSB activities have identified actual examples of, or the specific potential for, each of those contributing conditions. For example, conductive debris inside the fuel tank could lodge in a FQIS probe. Wire insulation at the fuel probes could be damaged. The FQIS probes and in-tank wiring could be contaminated by conductive copper/sulfur or silver/sulfur film.

www.faa.gov...

The directive required all Series 3 probes to be replaced with Series 4 or later probes. The Series 3 had a knurled terminal block that could lead to damage to the wiring, while the Series 4 and later used nylon wire clamps and shrink wrap on the wiring.

edit on 6/24/2013 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)

Zaphod58 and myself both apparently being 'aircraft guys' don't always see eye-to-eye but, this crash was not anything more than an accident caused by trying to extend the life of aircraft way beyond their useful life! I have some aircraft mechanic friends that work at Sky Harbor and during the time several 737's had lost engines (i.e. 'fell off) so they were told to remove the aluminum flaring that connects the engine 'pod' to the wing, on many of the aircraft they found cracks in the solid aluminum brace that had been repaired by placing a plate of aluminum on each side and drilling holes through the brace to 'repair' the crack!
A 737 on a flight from here to California lost a 59" section of roof and had to make a rapid decent to 10,000 Ft to save the passengers!
Who can forget the Aloha Airlines Flight 243 that lost the entire roof section from just aft the cockpit to the wing root. A flight attendant, Clarabelle "C.B." Lansing was sucked out.
Do some research people! Not every terrible thing that happens has a conspiracy behind it!

reply to post by Arbitrageur


They used the 1/4 scale test to determine the failure mode of the tank, then used computer modeling to determine what could have happened with contaminated fuel probes and a short circuit in the tank.

reply to post by Zaphod58

I see, thanks.

Originally posted by abecedarian
Things that bother me:
- a spark purportedly occurred across high-voltage and low voltage systems. I sure hope the FAA and NTSB follow far more strict guidelines than what ANSI issues as the NEC ["National Electrical Code"] requiring minimum separation distances, jacketing and bisection angles between high and low volt systems where such systems are required to cross specifically created to prevent sparking across dissimilar voltage potentials. If they don't, the recreational vehicles I built in the early 90's are far more safe than any airplane out there.

According to my read of the NTSB report, there aren't any extraordinary measures to prevent sparking across dissimilar voltage potentials in the 747, just the insulation which should do the job when new. My take on the report is that they thought when the insulation gets old, it is more susceptible to failure. They also mentioned something about a reduction in insulation thickness to reduce the weight of the aircraft by 400-600 lbs, using a different insulating material.

I remembered reading your post when I read the NTSB report and I was looking for any mention of physical separation of high and low voltage circuits. Apparently there isn't a requirement for separation distances, or if there is, I misread the NTSB report, or else the report is mistaken.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


Nobody knew what would happen after thirty years with the original wiring or probes. As far as I know there wasn't a separation requirement. The assumption was that either the aircraft would have been replaced, out the probes would have been by then.

Ok the scale test was not true to the conditions of flight 800,they used propane and hydrogen and the spark was 67,000 times strong than 1/4 millojule, would list link but new here and not sure how to sorry.flight800.org...

reply to post by CowboyWilly


The scale test was to get an idea how the tank would fail, and if it would fail in a way that would break the plane up. There was no way to accurately test it except by computer model. They would have had to have 30 year old writing and fuel probes.

Originally posted by kelbtalfenek
Thanks, I was actually asking about the passenger manifest for the El Al flight...methinks that if this wasn't an accident, that flight was the real target.

I think anytime an EL AL flight is shot down the immediate connotations are obvious: attack against Israel and all Jewish people, trying to replicate the terror of the Munich Olympics but using different means to do so and the accomplishment of taking down what is known as the world's safest airline.

Also, the reporting about the EL AL flight disappeared just as fast as the video broadcast on MSNBC in the late, late night hours of 18 July 1996 of Flight 800 being hit by an outside object and exploding (to give you an idea of how fast the video disappeared, between it's broadcast circa 2-4am eastern and the start of the Today Show at 7am eastern the video and any mention of it were wiped from history).

Originally posted by wulff
Do some research people! Not every terrible thing that happens has a conspiracy behind it!

Quite, but some do and research is indicating there may have been more to this incident so I can't see the relevance of your comments ?

reply to post by Arbitrageur


Having read further the first obvious thing that strikes is that, taking the sequence of break up at face value as being instigated within the CWT, several external sources are theorised as possible (lightning / meteorite / missile fragment) as well as internal sources (fuel quantity measurement system amongst them). If witness reports indicated a meteorite visible in the approximate same airspace I would suggest it would make it a favourite source.

However, I was wrong, the fuel quantity probe wiring does run within the tanks. This FQIS electrical system though, in itself, does not contain enough energy to induce an ignition event no matter what condition it is in. In order for an ignition event to occur this energy needs to be introduced from elsewhere, theorised in the report from a short circuit with some higher energy system (lighting circuit is given as an example).

Of all the examples then provided in the report of short circuit events every single one of them exhibited the effects at the location of the short circuit, as opposed to this being introduced into another circuit and the actual ignition event being remote to the short circuit location.

I believe I can show how the fuel gauge reading is a red herring and that the circumstances theorised are a near impossibility but I need to obtain detailed wiring diagrams which might not be easy. Would be good to see an independent airframe electrical engineers findings on the report, aside from the anecdotal ones available that state it's BS.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by CowboyWilly

 

The scale test was to get an idea how the tank would fail, and if it would fail in a way that would break the plane up. There was no way to accurately test it except by computer model. They would have had to have 30 year old writing and fuel probes.

Well, there's plenty of 30 yr old 747's sitting around and according to the report they did plenty of checking on aircraft ranging from new to 28 yrs old to inspect wiring conditions.

Anyway, all they needed to do was simulate a short circuit somewhere to introduce a high voltage into the CWT fuel quantity probe to see what happened inside the tank.

Then explode an SM-2 close to it in an identical test.

reply to post by chunder


But a 30 year old 747 that hardly used the center wing fuel tank because it was on shorter routes won't have the building that this one may have had on the wiring. Fuel submersion is going to affect different probes in different ways. Where some may have buildup that could cause this to happen, others won't.

The only way to even get close to accurate results is through computer modeling, which needed to see what would happen with a tank failure.

An SM-2 explosion near the tank would have left large pieces of tank and airframe missing. The warhead is 167 lbs of explosive, either rod or fragmentation depending on the block number. In 1996 it would have been the Block IIIA which featured a focused blast fragmentation warhead. This would have focused any blast and fragments towards the target which would have increased the damage.

reply to post by wulff




Seriously?
This is your reply.....
The tripe intelectually dishonest "do some research"
Hey I got a better idea. Go back and read all 27 pages of this thread and see all the links posted to the sites that contain that research. Plenty of us have been following this event since it happend and have read countless documents and material on the investigation...heck I probably have forgotten more about this than you have ever read. I really dont mean to jump down your throat on this but come on...
Dont be lazy and do a drive by post where you tell us all to forget the cover up and "do some research".

Originally posted by charlyv
One thing in favor of the theory that the El Al may have been an intended target, is the fact that no terrorist organization or subversive faction ever took credit for the deed. Even slimebag terrorist groups would not own up to making such a hideous mistake, if that indeed happened. So, to me, the only 2 possibilities are this scenario, and a Military exercise gone wrong. Will we ever know.....

Actually there were jihadists who claimed there was going to be an attack just prior to the TWA event.

twa800.com...

"tomorrow morning we will strike the Americans in a way they do not expect and it will be very surprising to them,"

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by GArnold

 

Honestly mistaken doesn't mean lying. It means you saw something, and you were wrong in what you saw, but you tell what you think is the truth. That's not a lie.

It has nothing to do with thinking I'm smarter than anyone. It has to do with looking at the evidence out there, and putting everything together. A small missile (even three of them) doesn't make sense in blowing apart an aircraft that size. There was one witness to what might have been a launch signature (despite there being 200 that say they saw what appeared to be a missile, including people in flight that should have seen the launch). One of the experts coming forward had nothing to do with the fuel system, but says that despite evidence that by take off the fuel was already over the flashpoint, there was no way a short circuit could have pushed the fuel temperature over the point where it would have exploded.... I'm open to a shootdown, but the evidence I've seen to date doesn't add up to one.

Fair enough Zaphod. Always liked your posts but honestly you seem at odds with everyone on this thread. Your defense of the Governments explanation is somewhat mystifying as we all know they are really good at investigating embarrassing situations and providing citizens with the truth. I could list hundreds of examples but perhaps the best is the 9-11 commission report. Pretty much laughed at by pilots, engineers, people in the military and public at large as the years go by.

'How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?' Sherlock Holmes Quote -The Sign of Four Chapter 6: "Sherlock Holmes Gives a Demonstration

'Eliminate all other factors, and the one which remains must be the truth.' Sherlock Holmes Quote -The Sign of Four Chapter 1: "The Science of Deduction" ---