flight 800
- Thread starter stevew
- Start date
I don't believe it was a spontaneous fuel tank explosion. At the time I was working with some very smart electrical engineers with intimate knowledge of the 747 FQIS (fuel quantity indicating system) and they said was no way that the "accepted" version of the story was plausible. The missile story makes more sense.
Utter BS. I've had informal and formal aircraft accident investigation courses, in school and as part of my job. This accident is used as a case study for witness interviews.
The reason is that witnesses are the absolute best and worst resources for an accident or event. They were often the only person there and contain critical information, yet they'll make up absolutely crazy things and honestly believe them. The human mind is amazing when it comes to "filling in the gaps" or "making the story emotionally satisfying by changing it around".
There were several physical reasons why some of the eyewitness accounts were completely invalid/made up. It had to do with the angles, objects blocking the view, and just flat out the wrong direction. Then there was the MANPADs thing, and how the range wouldn't even add up, not to mention no real evidence anyway. I think there were also issues with the navy ship in terms of it's position, systems and capability that would have also made this impossible.
Once an eyewitness reported seeing a "missile" though, it spread like wildfire and took off, as those ideas often do. It was a fairly difficult investigation, but quite a few KC-135s have been lost to a similar fuel tank spontaneous ignition situation, as well as boeing had to go and design and refit lots of aircraft. I'm sure that there would have been crazy protests if the engineering and science for the fix didn't make any sense. Airlines have their own engineering departments too and they would have raised all hell if they had to put in something that is completely useless like a nitrogen/fumes suppression system. They have recourse to fight those types of things if they want and they are generally pretty good at doing so if it's something that's not really beneficial.
http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=2457&dat=19891005&id=sKlJAAAAIBAJ&sjid=Tg4NAAAAIBAJ&pg=2179,988577
http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19710603-1
http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19820319-0
Those are just a few, but there were more accidents that caused explosions relative to the fuel pumps/wires. The latest one in Afghanistan might be one as well. When fuel pumps and wires are immersed in fuel, you can't get a fire. When there are vapors though and there is no more fuel covering those things, it can be very hazardous.
A very expensive trajectory analysis was done on the wreckage that was found. This also helped to identify the root cause of the problem. This is something that is not often done, but given how intact the main sections were, it was more indicitive of something ripping apart the aircraft from inside, not from being hit and damaged by a missile. There's far more to it, but I'd have to refresh on the particulars of the accident.
The so-called "investigators" that are making this claim now are not really all that different than the eyewitnesses they believe. We are all human and it often doesn't take much for us to believe what we want to believe.
The reason is that witnesses are the absolute best and worst resources for an accident or event. They were often the only person there and contain critical information, yet they'll make up absolutely crazy things and honestly believe them. The human mind is amazing when it comes to "filling in the gaps" or "making the story emotionally satisfying by changing it around".
There were several physical reasons why some of the eyewitness accounts were completely invalid/made up. It had to do with the angles, objects blocking the view, and just flat out the wrong direction. Then there was the MANPADs thing, and how the range wouldn't even add up, not to mention no real evidence anyway. I think there were also issues with the navy ship in terms of it's position, systems and capability that would have also made this impossible.
Once an eyewitness reported seeing a "missile" though, it spread like wildfire and took off, as those ideas often do. It was a fairly difficult investigation, but quite a few KC-135s have been lost to a similar fuel tank spontaneous ignition situation, as well as boeing had to go and design and refit lots of aircraft. I'm sure that there would have been crazy protests if the engineering and science for the fix didn't make any sense. Airlines have their own engineering departments too and they would have raised all hell if they had to put in something that is completely useless like a nitrogen/fumes suppression system. They have recourse to fight those types of things if they want and they are generally pretty good at doing so if it's something that's not really beneficial.
http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=2457&dat=19891005&id=sKlJAAAAIBAJ&sjid=Tg4NAAAAIBAJ&pg=2179,988577
http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19710603-1
http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19820319-0
Those are just a few, but there were more accidents that caused explosions relative to the fuel pumps/wires. The latest one in Afghanistan might be one as well. When fuel pumps and wires are immersed in fuel, you can't get a fire. When there are vapors though and there is no more fuel covering those things, it can be very hazardous.
A very expensive trajectory analysis was done on the wreckage that was found. This also helped to identify the root cause of the problem. This is something that is not often done, but given how intact the main sections were, it was more indicitive of something ripping apart the aircraft from inside, not from being hit and damaged by a missile. There's far more to it, but I'd have to refresh on the particulars of the accident.
The so-called "investigators" that are making this claim now are not really all that different than the eyewitnesses they believe. We are all human and it often doesn't take much for us to believe what we want to believe.
Last edited:
I've always been of the opinion that some things with Flight 800 just kind of don't add up. While I'm not ready to go full tinfoil, I also think NTSB's explanation is a bit of a stretch, even when it comes to the chain of events that typically proceed any major aircraft accident. The missile "theory" has been around for a long time, whether it be a Navy Missile or Al-Qaeda's first US strike seems to be a matter of your personal delusion. I've kind of come to the conclusion that this particular event is just something horrible that happened that we will probably never be able to totally explain. Sure it's unsatisfying, but so are lots of things.
Last edited:
The FBI interviews of witnesses was a joke, only summaries were documented, not the actual words of the witnesses. Terrible handling of witness data.
While the missle theroy seems interesting, there was no evidence of an external explosion like you would have had with a missile, no pitting, cratering, petalling or hot gas washing per the report.
This accident happened while I was in grad school studying aircraft accident investigation, so I've followed it for years. You'd be hard pressed to convince me it was something other than a fuel/air explosion in the CWT caused by some aging aircraft issue.
While the missle theroy seems interesting, there was no evidence of an external explosion like you would have had with a missile, no pitting, cratering, petalling or hot gas washing per the report.
This accident happened while I was in grad school studying aircraft accident investigation, so I've followed it for years. You'd be hard pressed to convince me it was something other than a fuel/air explosion in the CWT caused by some aging aircraft issue.
I blame these guys.
Too many passengers were farting, then a static electricity induced spark, and the rest was history.