Everon 0 #1 August 22, 2005 I recently read an article by a structural engineer for TWA where he claims he is certain a meteor brought down the airliner. If said meteor were as large as a football, it would be seen as a streak appearing to go upwards (as witnessed by 150+). There were reports of sonic booms (which a meteor of that size would cause) and shaking windows on Long Island. I know there have been several conspiracy theories concerning this tragedy. This guy seems to make sense. Could an explosion of the central fuel tank 11 miles away cause windows to shake? What's your opinion? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Rookie120 0 #2 August 22, 2005 QuoteI recently read an article by a structural engineer for TWA Unemployed I assume now? Quotehe claims he is certain a meteor brought down the airliner. And how did he come to this conclusion? QuoteThere were reports of sonic booms Fuel tanks exploding tend to be noisy. QuoteI know there have been several conspiracy theories concerning this tragedy. Your count is a little short. There are tons of theories. QuoteThis guy seems to make sense Not really. Where was he when the NTSB had there investigation going on. This was one of the most expensive investigations in US aviation history and they clearly ruled out the meteor stuff. You will have to do some digging since the report is over 13,000 pages long since the lawyers got involved with this one.If you find yourself in a fair fight, your tactics suck! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Everon 0 #3 August 22, 2005 No, he's retired. Noisy, yes. Sonic boom? Never. Anyway, here's the site: www.icstars.com/Flight800/TWAflt800.html I haven't much knowledge in these areas so rip away if you find errors. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
davedlg 0 #4 August 22, 2005 At first my reaction to this was to think that the odds of this happening would have to be astronomically high...something on the order of one in a trillion. While researching this I came across this article about meteors and Flight 800. It is well researched and written. One astronomy professor from Columbia was quoted, Quotethe appropriate question to ask in this situation is, 'What are the odds, throughout the history of commercial aviation, of a meteor striking an airplane such that it would penetrate the plane's fuel tanks?' We considered the number of planes in the world, the fraction of the time they spend in the air, their size, and the number of meteors entering the atmosphere per day, etc. Based on those numbers, we derived a probability of about 10 percent. So it does seem somewhat in the realm of possibility of things that could happen. Based on some evidence, an astrophysist from Rhodes said Quote"Despite the incredibly small odds, I think the meteoric hypothesis for the downing of TWA Flight 800 is the best I have heard.... However, a NASA researcher saidQuote"To my knowledge, there have been no reports of airplanes being struck, however. If one were hit, it would be more likely to occur on the ground than in the air, because airplanes spend more time overall on the ground. And finally, even if one were hit in flight by a meteorite, it would be unlikely to cause an explosion of the sort that ended the flight of TWA Flight 800 last year." So my opinion? At first it seemed like the odds of such a thing happening were way too small, however given some of this information, it now seems possible. I still doubt that this is what actually happened...but it does carry some merit.. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
airtwardo 7 #5 August 22, 2005 I think I'd have to go with the NTSB report on this one... It was a questionable design to begin with IMHO, add to the fact that the Military doesn't trust the very TYPES of wires that failed, replacing existing similar A/C wiring with better product a decade prior to Flt. 800. ~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Rookie120 0 #6 August 22, 2005 QuoteI haven't much knowledge in these areas so rip away if you find errors. I'm not gonna rip you at all. I just hate these jag-offs who sit around thinking up bullshit but dont have an ounce of proof and were nowhere in sight when the NTSB was investigating. The NTSB report eliminates the meteour theory. Quote Noisy, yes. Sonic boom? Never Never? Why not? The sonic boom that I have heard right above my head sounded completely different than the one that was 5 miles away. I dont know what the 747 fuel tank sounds like exploding so I have no reference.If you find yourself in a fair fight, your tactics suck! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Rookie120 0 #7 August 22, 2005 QuoteIt was a questionable design to begin with IMHO, I dont have any 747 experience so I dont understand the entire wire amd pump problem.If you find yourself in a fair fight, your tactics suck! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
airtwardo 7 #8 August 22, 2005 QuoteQuoteIt was a questionable design to begin with IMHO, I dont have any 747 experience so I dont understand the entire wire and pump problem. *** Several wires run through the center fuel cell, the connectors themselves being exposed to both fuel and vapor...according to NTSB test data, there is a minor chance of ignition in the cell if the wires or connectors are cororreded. That's when they are covered by fuel, the chance of ignition goes up considerably if the center cell is MT and only contains vapor. The fuel cells could be filled with an inert gas that would retard the chance of an ignition, but that wouldn't be cost effective, nor would re-wiring the A/C as the Military did when THEY realized the danger. Cheaper to just pay off the families next time one goes BOOM! Believe me...if Boeing could have blamed 800 on a rock from space...they WOULD HAVE! ~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Everon 0 #9 August 22, 2005 A fuel tank explosion would only give off a few pounds TNT equivalent - not enough for a sonic boom at that distance. IMHO, all federal agencies are lacking in competence - NASA, NTSB, NSA - all of them. That's why I don't put too much credence into the NTSB's investigation. I mean, as far as the missle theory is concerned, they didn't even ask the correct questions of the chemist who tested the "3M" material on the seats. And I doubt you are old enough to remember the NRC investigation into three mile island. A "low-life" inspector warned of the shortfalls of Babcock and Wilcox reactors long before the tragedy. They clearly didn't listen. And of course NASA and Challenger..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Rookie120 0 #10 August 22, 2005 QuoteSeveral wires run through the center fuel cell, the connectors themselves being exposed to both fuel and vapor...according to NTSB test data, there is a minor chance of ignition in the cell if the wires or connectors are cororreded. That's when they are covered by fuel, the chance of ignition goes up considerably if the center cell is MT and only contains vapor. Doesnt make sence to me. What is causeing the spark for ignition? Wires sparking, chaffing, bare wires from burned insulation?If you find yourself in a fair fight, your tactics suck! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,991 #11 August 22, 2005 >The NTSB report eliminates the meteour theory. No it doesn't. It just goes with the most likely theory, which isn't the same as eliminating a less likely theory. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,444 #12 August 22, 2005 QuoteThey clearly didn't listen Something to consider is that nearly any complex project will have people working for it who say "it won't work, and here's why" to just about anything. You have to listen to all of those because they have the potential of being right. Then you have to make the right decision 100% of the time. If you wait for complete consensus on every single action on a large complex project, it will never move. Some people are naturally extremely cautious, just as some take too many chances. Some people are naturally argumentative, and will say whatever it takes to get people going. When the guy who says "that won't work" about every new thing says "that won't work," it's hard to judge. Of course, when it turns out he was right after all, THEN he should have been listened to. I'm not real big on conspiracies -- too many people will do anything to get on Oprah or Jerry Springer or something like that. Too many newspapers will interview you to get your "exclusive story." As far as the overall competence of large systems -- they have a lot of people who really want to do the right thing. They don't always. Wendy W.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pilotdave 0 #13 August 22, 2005 Quotenot enough for a sonic boom at that distance What could that possibly mean? Dave Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Rookie120 0 #14 August 22, 2005 QuoteA fuel tank explosion would only give off a few pounds TNT equivalent - not enough for a sonic boom at that distance. And you are sure of this how? QuoteIMHO, all federal agencies are lacking in competence - NASA, NTSB, NSA - all of them Out of those the Ntsb is the only one who I trust. The reason I personaly dont like the 800 report is because all the lawyers that got involved when the missle and comet and all the other crap got thrown around. Beside that I would trust the NTSB with there investigations. QuoteI mean, as far as the missle theory is concerned, they didn't even ask the correct questions of the chemist who tested the "3M" material on the seats. How do you know what questions they asked? What should have they asked? Quote And I doubt you are old enough to remember the NRC investigation into three mile island. A "low-life" inspector warned of the shortfalls of Babcock and Wilcox reactors long before the tragedy. They clearly didn't listen. And of course NASA and Challenger..... I dont know jack about nuclear reactors so I'm not even gonna comment.If you find yourself in a fair fight, your tactics suck! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jtval 0 #15 August 22, 2005 billions of theories none of them proven. I may have been the ancient egyptians. once we fooled with king tut's tomb it may have released an invisible phoenix that was looking for prey. then again it could have been a short in the fuel tankMy photos My Videos Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Rookie120 0 #16 August 22, 2005 Quotebillions of theories none of them proven. I may have been the ancient egyptians. once we fooled with king tut's tomb it may have released an invisible phoenix that was looking for prey. then again it could have been a short in the fuel tank LOL, I needed a good laugh.If you find yourself in a fair fight, your tactics suck! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
airtwardo 7 #17 August 22, 2005 A fuel tank explosion would only give off a few pounds TNT equivalent *** Please qualify that... I have some experience with both 'TNT' and fuel / vapor ignition, as well as various other forms of 'noise makers'.. I strongly disagree with your statement. ~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jtval 0 #18 August 22, 2005 glad i could help. I dont understand how someone who hasn't done any research , seen the plane, at least discussed the idea with theNTSB and the such can call them incompetant. I'm not saying that they know WTF happened but I buy 2 theories. the fuel tank. the terrorist attack. (beacuse so monay people swore they saw something rising UP to that a/c and that was the night of the crash that those reports started coming in.) it could have been the military exercise/ radar comm. that caused it to explode...and it may have been aliens. but one thing is for sure. when the great ball of light shows up over the lake with 4400 people init I'll ask themMy photos My Videos Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jtval 0 #19 August 22, 2005 someone correct me if I am wrong. I know in the world of aviation sonic boom refers to breaking the sound barrier. but isn't a sonic boom simply a "BOOM" that emits sound? I mean if you hear and explosion I can see how soem may think it was a sonic boom. either way I dont think a meteor, a missle, an invisible phoenix would be able to break the sound barrier. (although I am not fully sure of the pheonix)My photos My Videos Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
HydroGuy 0 #20 August 22, 2005 The government can cover up whatever the hell it wants. My bet is Al Quaida shot the thing down with a Stinger missle...and we covered it up. Why? To save an already failing industry that we subsidize the shit out of with taxpayer dollars. And because it would be a nightmare explaing how a Stinger missle we supplied the Taliban made it into Long Island Sound and downed an airliner.Get in - Get off - Get away....repeat as neccessary Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tumbler 0 #21 August 22, 2005 Aliens.... always blame the aliens. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
airtwardo 7 #22 August 22, 2005 The government can cover up whatever the hell it wants. *** Yeah right... I'll believe the governmet can work together enough to cover ANYTHING up when they get my mail here on time... ...and the same Police Force that can't thin out traffic after a Dodger game conspired to frame OJ! ~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Knobee 0 #23 August 22, 2005 Quote>The NTSB report eliminates the meteour theory. No it doesn't. It just goes with the most likely theory, which isn't the same as eliminating a less likely theory. Occam, your razor is calling... Those that have not jumped can not understand Those that have jumped can not explain. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Rookie120 0 #24 August 22, 2005 QuoteMy bet is Al Quaida shot the thing down with a Stinger missle...and we covered it up. Why? To save an already failing industry that we subsidize the shit out of with taxpayer dollars. And because it would be a nightmare explaing how a Stinger missle we supplied the Taliban made it into Long Island Sound and downed an airliner. And the clues that sent you in this direction are?If you find yourself in a fair fight, your tactics suck! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Rookie120 0 #25 August 22, 2005 QuoteAliens.... always blame the aliens. I prefer to blame the Germans.If you find yourself in a fair fight, your tactics suck! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
