It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Air Disaster - Sept 30 Smithsonian Channel - TWA Flight 800

page: 1
<<   2 >>

log in


posted on Sep, 30 2018 @ 08:17 PM
Watching AIR DISASTERS tonight on Smithsonian cable network - showing investigation into 1996 TWA 800 disaster off Long Island

Fascinating on investigation

NTSB divided crash area into 3 sectors, Red, where first debris coming off aircraft, Yellow - debris from Cockpit and Green - where debris from passenger cabin landed

In Red sector found panels and remains of center fuel tank burned and scorched

Determined that to cause sufficient vapor to ignite in tank would require temperature of 96 F. Air conditioner packs placed under the tank
when tested by running for long period of time, TWA 800 sat on runway for 2 1/2 hours while bags matched to passengers
Found that air conditioner packs would heat up tp 350 degree . Temperature in tank would reach 120 - far above that needed to create flammable

Performed experiment where fuel - air vapor mixture in tank was ignited. Discovered create over pressure of 50 psi , more than enough to rupture

As for ignition source - discovered just before explosion that were getting strange readings from fuel sensors in tank

Found that wiring on this 747, one of fits built, was cracked and chaffed. Indications of short circuits as readings on Cockpit Voice Recorder began to dropout only 1 second before explosion Believe that high voltage spike from damaged wiring created arc in fuel probe

Put all together showed fuel air explosion in center fuel tank which ripped aircraft apart......

edit on 30-9-2018 by firerescue because: (no reason given)

edit on Sun Sep 30 2018 by DontTreadOnMe because: ALL CAPS TITLE

posted on Sep, 30 2018 @ 09:03 PM
a reply to: firerescue

Not the first time a center fuel tank brought a plane down. We lost a couple KC-135s after they changed manufacturers of the center wing fuel pump.

posted on Sep, 30 2018 @ 09:18 PM
a reply to: Zaphod58

Dang, stuff like that happens, huh!


I don't remember flt 800 being a 747....Jus me huh
edit on 30-9-2018 by GBP/JPY because: IN THE FINE TEXAS TRADITION

edit on 30-9-2018 by GBP/JPY because: IN THE FINE TEXAS TRADITION

I checked It was a that makes me mad.....missile then
edit on 30-9-2018 by GBP/JPY because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 30 2018 @ 10:52 PM

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: firerescue

Not the first time a center fuel tank brought a plane down. We lost a couple KC-135s after they changed manufacturers of the center wing fuel pump.

Were the crews lost in those crashes?


posted on Oct, 1 2018 @ 12:02 AM
a reply to: DexterRiley

Yes. The last one killed a maintenance crew, but solved the mystery of what was happening.

posted on Oct, 2 2018 @ 07:58 AM
In all honesty I am no longer convinced that a centre wing tank explosion is what brought down TWA 800. I actually hate conspiracy theories in general but there are far to many compelling reasons to ignore in this particular case. In a nutshell I believe this was a rerun of USS Vincennes shoot down of the Iranian Airbus and it was quickly decided that the bad PR in the middle of the Atlanta games was too much so it was buried. Problem is there are far to many credible witnesses, evidence and agency meddling to make it go away. Maybe we will eventually learn the truth.

posted on Oct, 2 2018 @ 09:10 AM

Taken from a picture from a party on a deck on Long Island when the incident occurred.

There are also great amounts of evidence that something entered the fuselage on only certain rows that left a red stain on the seats. Huge controversial results from wreckage analysis.

One of the best write-ups of this incident: What really Happened, TWA800 Real tin foil hat material.

edit on 2-10-2018 by charlyv because: spelling , where caught

posted on Oct, 2 2018 @ 09:30 AM
TWA 800 was a cover-up from the start. How many other aircraft accidents have required POTUS interrupt regular evening programming to inform the country? I agree with The Bozeian, all the way. Likely an accidental shootdown by USN.

posted on Oct, 2 2018 @ 09:33 AM

edit on 10/2/2018 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 2 2018 @ 09:58 AM
This eye-witness account is really terrifying. Taken rather soon after the incident, it leaves you to ask, why lie about it?

"It was what we would best describe as a boat flare, a reddish object going up. It went up and a few seconds later we saw an explosion in the sky. I can't say if it came off shore or on shore. At first, we thought it was a boat flare. It zigzagged a little. We thought it was strange. Then, several seconds later, we saw an eruption of fire. We never heard anything. We saw a fireball, and at that point we identified what was an aircraft. We could see it fluttering down. We were the third boat on Long Island to report the incident to the Coast Guard. It was something going up to it beforehand. Yes, I saw flaming debris go down. Something attracted us to the area before it exploded. And even my wife and my oldest daughter, we all were witnesses to it. There definitely was something there first before the aircraft went down." - Donald Eick, Flight 800 eye-witness; October 20, 1997; The Press-Enterprise, Riverside, CA.
Credits: the site I referenced a few posts back

posted on Oct, 2 2018 @ 08:53 PM
a reply to: thebozeian

Explain on how one launches a missile without everyone of the crew not knowing about it

Such a launch make tremendous amount of noise, smoke and vibration

Have 300 + men on the ship who would know of missile launch - why have not heard anything about it

Say not into conspiracy theories - try explain this ……...

posted on Oct, 2 2018 @ 08:58 PM
a reply to: charlyv

Many witnesses report streak of light

TWA 800 was in a climb out after leaving JFK going from 13,000 to 15,000 when explosion occurred

The cockpit separated leaving fuselage still in climb trailing burning jet fuel until rolled out and plunged into ocean

posted on Oct, 3 2018 @ 08:01 AM
a reply to: firerescue
Ok firstly you seem to be under the misconception that I was implying that no missiles were ever launched, I'm not saying that. As far as I am concerned missiles were indeed launched during an exercise, but one which went horribly wrong. From a security point of view only the personnel in the CIC would be directly aware of what was going on and what targets were being displayed. That limits the total number of people to probably around 25-30 not 300+. It is not beyond reason that all those who were present on that day and privy to this information were sworn to secrecy with threat of life in a dark hole in Leavenworth for breaching this, and nobody wants that fate. Much has also been made of the fact that extensive checks were made of missile inventories but its not beyond the bounds of reason that those records could be doctored or duplicate serial numbers could be created. It would be difficult but not impossible. For example it is now generally believed that Singapore has been using duplicate tail numbers to hide the fact that they have probably received a greater number of F-15SG's than was publicly contracted for. So doing the same for 2-3 missiles shouldn't be that hard.

Second, unlike many conspiracies there are a credible number of witnesses who have post investigation publicly both individually and as a group testified that the eyewitness accounts attributed to them in official reports are not what they said, further they also assert to having been directly intimidated by people claiming to be Govt agents to say that they were mistaken and must have seen something else. Additionally a number of the witnesses were very credible including one who just so happened to be a forensic engineer, pretty much the next best thing to one of them being an NTSB investigator or Boeing 747 design engineer. His account is very clear regarding the sequence of events and the fact that the smoke trail rose up to meet the aircraft, not the other way around.

Thirdly, there are the radar traces that were very carefully examined by one of the best experts alive today. What he found was he believed irrefutable evidence of high speed objects consistent with the detonation of a military grade explosive at supersonic velocities that far outstripped what could occur in a fuel vapor explosion.

Fourth, the head of the NTSB investigation resigned. He was one of their most senior and respected investigators and he quit sighting interference by other Govt agencies. This included finding people claiming to be from the FBI in the secured hangar where the aircraft wreckage was being collected and observed removing components and hitting others with hammers to change there shape in the middle of the night, not exactly a forensic practice now is it?

Fifth, lack of a similar accident before or since in the 747 family. I dont know how many other people here have ever worked on 747's other than maybe Zaph, but I have and extensively. I am not aware of any other fuel tank incident even remotely similar to this in the last 50 years of 747 operations. Yes it has happened in other aircraft for other reasons but not this exact one. And as someone who holds a current fuel tank entry permit I am acutely aware that in reality the vapor levels you would actually see inside a sealed tank in use, even with minimal fuel would essentially eliminate the likelihood of an ignition sequence no matter how much sparking source you apply once you go well above the Upper Explosive Limit. It doesn't matter how hot it gets, fires and explosions need oxygen and lots of it to initiate and vapor rich fuel tanks dont have enough.

Sixth, a seeming lack of impetus to enact an AD permanent fix quickly. When s#it goes badly wrong with aircraft, manufacturers, investigators and regulators move very quickly, sometimes within days or hours, at least to ground and investigate. Follow up action happens quickly after which usually involves repeat inspections and permanent fixes following as quickly as possible. In the case of the 747 centre wing tank CWT it took till late 2009, about 13+ years from TWA 800 to retrofit the first Nitrogen inerting system. I am currently involved heavily in acquitting various SB's and permanent fixes on an A-380 fleet that are of far less potential concern and they are happening infinitely faster than that 747 fix. And I should really know because I was involved in that very first 747 CWT Nitrogen inerting system fitted anywhere in the world, which leads me to number seven.

Seventh, as part of that very first retrofit installation Boeing sent a small team of four engineering specialists to assist us with it. One of this team also happened to be the then head of 747 engineering development. During a briefing to the assembled workforce they had a Q and A session at the end. I rather innocently asked the question, "are you certain that arcing wiring harnesses in the CWT is what caused the explosion onboard TWA 800?" I was expecting the standard reply and wasn't thinking about any ulterior motive as at that time I was convinced that the official explanation given was in fact the cause. However his response and body language raised an alarm in me. He was evasive and non committal in a way I had not expected, and what struck me as really odd is that it was not a question that I thought would be outside the reasonable bounds of being asked. It was a logical question to which a man in his position I would have expected to practice a standard corporate agreed answer. Instead he appeared reluctant to discuss it and really didn't say "yes" as I would have thought. Rather he muttered something along the lines of "err, well... its the most likely explanation we think", and he had this completely unconvincing look on his face like he knew he was lying and suddenly didn't want to be there.

Look I am perfectly happy to be proven wrong or at least partly wrong, and as I said I dont buy into the vast number of conspiracy theories because I know the truth is usually different, but in this case I think the evidence, motive and capability is there for this to be true. Sometimes good people do bad things because they believe its the lesser of two evils. Covering up what really happened to TWA 800 may well be one of those things.

edit on 3-10-2018 by thebozeian because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 3 2018 @ 08:35 AM
A guy that used to sit across the hall worked for TWA. He told me Boeing would get lots of contracts if they took the hit for it.

They did and they have.

posted on Oct, 3 2018 @ 08:52 AM
a reply to: mikell

Considering Boeing and Airbus have had a duopoly for decades, it's a safe bet they would have gotten them anyway.

posted on Oct, 3 2018 @ 06:36 PM
a reply to: Zaphod58
Agreed, I have head that story before and dont buy it anymore than you do and for the same reasons.

posted on Oct, 3 2018 @ 07:30 PM
a reply to: Zaphod58

TWA 800 was not the only aircraft that suffered center fuel tank explosion

warm day, in the center wing tank (CWT) that is within the contours of the fuselage. These fuel tanks are located in the vicinity of external equipment that heats the fuel tanks. The National Transportation Safety Board's (NTSB) final report on the crash of TWA 747 concluded “The fuel air vapor in the ullage of the TWA flight 800 CWT was flammable at the time of the accident.” NTSB identified “Elimination of Explosive Mixture in Fuel tanks in Transport Category Aircraft” as Number 1 item on its Most Wanted List in 1997.

FAA considered fuel tank inerting system where the empty space would be filled with inert or oxygen depleted gases

Estimated to cost 35 billion dollars to retro fit existing Airbus and Boeing airliner

FAA then implemented rules that require aircraft companies to modify aircraft (Airbus 320, Boeing 747) where the Air conditioning system has chance of heating up the center fuel tank enough to vaporize fuel there

Center tanks are normally left empty (actually 2 % fuel level or less) - tests showed running AC systems for long periods
could significant heat the tank and fuel to create explosive mixture

posted on Oct, 3 2018 @ 10:31 PM
Center Tank Controversy, TWA800

However, the cockpit switch for the fuel pump was found in the "off" position and the cockpit voice record did not record the flight crew turning it on. The NTSB Chairman's report of November 15th, 1996 made it quite clear that no evidence existed of fault in the fuel probes and pump system of the center tank. Never-the-less, the "frayed wire in the center tank" theory continues to be the cause for the explosion and crash promoted by the government.
Rivero article

It must be said however, that just because the fuel pump transfer switch was not on, it does not mean there was not a hot wire in the fuel tank.

posted on Oct, 3 2018 @ 10:45 PM

edit on 10/3/2018 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 3 2018 @ 10:45 PM
I get the TWA-800 incident has been hashed around here on ATS ad-nauseum. Perhaps most just do not care anymore.
However, it is unofficially unsolved for so many.

new topics

top topics

<<   2 >>

log in