Flight 800 Speculation

[Bill Greenwood]

In 1996 a TWA airliner took off from N Y and then broke up in the air and crashed into the ocean.
The official cause of the crash was an internal flaw, I think it was found to be an electrical short that resulted in an internal fuel tank explosion.

Now there is a new movie or report the claims that the plane was shot down by a missile. I am not an expert on this and haven't researched it, other than just the news reports.
But, most likely it is nonsense, just as when these rumors started after the accident.

Three things:
1 If a missile hit the plane, the wreckage, which has mostly been recovered, would show that impact.
2. If a US ship fired the missile and there was secrecy about this, it would have to involve hundreds of people on the ship and the radar tracking.

And 3rd, and what I want to focus on today is that when this happened I was a member of the T-34 Association. One of our other members was a photographer and writer, who wrote the missile story. The source was a member who had been in the military and claimed to have inside knowledge of the missile firing and result. It had a ring of truth to it, at least for 6 months or so. Both people were EAA members.

Finally the man admitted that he made the whole story up, it was not a twist or an exaggeration of the facts, it was created out of thin air. No real explanation was given of his motive. I don't think he was seeking any money or was paid any.

I can't recall his name. I know the author's name, but I am not going to give it since I think they wrote the story with sincere believe in the source. I have one of their warbird photographs on my wall now and consider them a friend, but I recall the story when I look at it.

People love consipiracy and cover up stories, especially when they are aimed at the govt.

[Joe Delene]

I'll stick with the fuel vapor ignition theory, until SOLID evidence points elsewhere.

[Chris Henry]

I am not a conspiracy person, but there are a lot of odd things that took place during that investigation.

[Wrongway Feldman]

If back in 1996 there was the proliferation of cell/smart phone cameras as there are now.
One has to wonder if multiple people would of caught a picture or video of the incident.
That just might of shed a different light on whether there was a internal or external explosion.

[58boner]

I have had the privilege of working on the 747 Classic for many years. Been in every fuel tank of series 100, 200, and 400 aircraft. Don't buy the vapor explosion theory, never did.
Most folks I know with experience on the plane share my feelings.
The statistics don't work. How many millions of safe flight hours and suddenly one just explodes? Frayed wires in the fuel tank or dry bay?
You would not believe how many fuel quantity issues I have seen that were caused by a loose wire on a probe...and no explosion.

[martymayes]

I have had the privilege of working on the 747 Classic for many years. Been in every fuel tank of series 100, 200, and 400 aircraft. Don't buy the vapor explosion theory, never did.
Most folks I know with experience on the plane share my feelings.
The statistics don't work. How many millions of safe flight hours and suddenly one just explodes? Frayed wires in the fuel tank or dry bay?
You would not believe how many fuel quantity issues I have seen that were caused by a loose wire on a probe...and no explosion.

Not just one. Philippine Airlines Flight 143 was not a 747, but it was a nearly identical event.

Just like lottery numbers can fall in place for someone to win, so can the exact conditions required for this to happen. The odds are very much against it, but there's always that 1:175,000,000 chance.

[Bill Greenwood]

58boner, While you may have seen many intact fuel tanks of 747 s on the ground.
But I doubt if you have seen the debris of THE tank from THIS airplane in the NTSB hangar.

According to one of the investigators being interviewed on tv last night, this tank had all the walls blown outward, indicating an internal explosion, not a force from an explosion outside the tank going inward.

And a similar incident on the ground in Madrid in 1976.

Of course, this man could be part of the cover up and not telling the truth.

[martymayes]

Of course, this man could be part of the cover up and not telling the truth.

Yes, there are 1000's walking around with the truth but they are not talking. They have a secret handshake and everything.

[Matt Gonitzke]

Not just one. Philippine Airlines Flight 143 was not a 747, but it was a nearly identical event.

Just like lottery numbers can fall in place for someone to win, so can the exact conditions required for this to happen. The odds are very much against it, but there's always that 1:175,000,000 chance.

Or even two...according to a recent AvWeb article there have been at least 3 other fuel tank explosions on roughly similar vintage Boeing aircraft.

[martymayes]

Or even two...according to a recent AvWeb article there have been at least 3 other fuel tank explosions on roughly similar vintage Boeing aircraft.

There's enough reasonable doubt in the Thai airline explosion to give it a pass. Can't say conclusively one way or the other. Nonetheless, there have been a few military transport types where a fuel tank exploded. Perhaps the type fuel they use makes it more probable.

FWIW, I think the probability is low enough in commercial transport aircraft to NOT justify fuel inerting, which would cause even more problems.