Started By
Message

re: Flight 800 crash animation

Posted on 3/2/25 at 11:21 pm to
Posted by okietiger
Chelsea F.C. Fan
Member since Oct 2005
41888 posts
Posted on 3/2/25 at 11:21 pm to
There are a pretty insane amount of eyewitnesses who saw a second object going towards the plane. From all over the shoreline, and on the water.
Posted by dewster
Chicago
Member since Aug 2006
25947 posts
Posted on 3/2/25 at 11:40 pm to
Too many eye witness accounts for this incident that conflict with the NTSB’s conclusion. I don’t buy it. Never did.
Posted by jmh5724
Member since Jan 2012
2485 posts
Posted on 3/3/25 at 4:48 am to
Eye witness accounts of anything are highly inaccurate for the most part
Posted by No Colors
Sandbar
Member since Sep 2010
12070 posts
Posted on 3/3/25 at 5:04 am to
quote:

went wrong in the live fire zone of the ocean that was nearby
quote:

Some new secret system screwed up and evidently locked onto Flight 800 and not the target drone.


So there was a live fire missile zone testing new secret technology.... (checks notes)...in the transatlantic flight path immediately off the coast of....(checks notes).... New York?

Did you even stop for one microsecond to see how absolutely asinine that entire premise is?
quote:

My friend (RIP) heard this directly from his high ranking cousin

Ahhh. I didn't understand that you were trolling. I just thought at first that you were stupid.

Posted by Auburn80
Backwater, TN
Member since Nov 2017
8873 posts
Posted on 3/3/25 at 5:30 am to
quote:

doubt it, but a lot of people on the Navy side who were involved in the accident had to know. There had to be a lot of guilty consciences.


That many guilty consciences cannot keep a secret. Plus, light travels faster than sound so anybody on the beach would have seen the flash prior to hearing the explosion. That doesn’t make it a missile.
Posted by cypresstiger
The South
Member since Aug 2008
12410 posts
Posted on 3/3/25 at 6:07 am to
his drunk cousin
—and a few posts down:
I know people

—-I see….
Posted by AUTimbo
Member since Sep 2011
3116 posts
Posted on 3/3/25 at 6:18 am to
quote:

Top secret stuff will always get a smoke screen and cover-up.


Doesn't always have to be top secret

During Desert Storm I was a contractor in SA. Two incidents I can remember off the top of my head.

First one was a AF Reserve KC-135 that lost two engines off of the same wing mid flight. Official storyline said they hit an air pocket and went into an uncontrolled dive. Pullout caused excess g's and the pylon to engine mounts broke. Plane landed (terrific job by the aircrew) but blew out the majority of the tires on landing.
Found out later on the real story was the pilot bet co-pilot they could exceed official top speed of a tanker and the excessive g pull out exceeded engine mount bolts limit, and at the bottom of their dive two of the engines tore off and kept going.

Second incident was a midair between a KC-135 and an F-111 from either RAF Upper Heyford or Lakenheath. Official story was F-111 finished top off of fuel and hit air pocket causing collision between the two birds.
Funny thing is when a plane drops off from a refuel they drop back and roll off allowing the next bird to position on the tanker. So why did the 111 collide with the front cockpit area of the tanker?

REAL story was the pilot of the 111 went to college with the pilot or co of the tanker. Wanted to show off for his bud so when they came off the refueling probe they went to full afterburner in order to go under the tanker and then pull up in front of the nose in a vertical climb. What the pilot didn't count on was the slipstream coming off the the tanker pulled his bird up and into the tanker as he moved towards the front of the tanker. ( Think the vacuum of an 18-wheeler semi that pulls you towards it when you pass on the interstate).
The wing of the 111 scraped across the front / crew area of the tanker so hard it literally left the brown and green camo paint of the 111 across the pilots side and nose of the grey KC tanker, as well as scorching/melting part of the cockpit area.
Both planes landed at their respective airfields safely but it could have easily been an aeronautical disaster for both.

When I left months after Desert Storm was over both the KC's were in hangers still on the base. Word had it the US was trying to sell them to the Saudi's at one hell of a bargain. ;)
Posted by Zakatak
Member since Nov 2011
367 posts
Posted on 3/3/25 at 6:27 am to
quote:

quote: Electrical short makes an explosion with highly volatile jet fuel and air mixture. Why is this so hard to believe?

The Cal Tech tests on the jet fuel within the specified temperature range couldn't ignite it with a spark. They had to use a torch.


People don’t understand that jet fuel is essentially kerosene which is a number 1 diesel. The flash point and volatility are much much safer than gasoline. But they hear jet fuel and assume it must be explosive like rocket fuel.

Get it burning and it will burn hot but it’s hard to ignite initially without proper vaporization and heat.
Posted by cyarrr
Prairieville
Member since Jun 2017
3746 posts
Posted on 3/3/25 at 7:05 am to
quote:

So there was a live fire missile zone testing new secret technology.... (checks notes)...in the transatlantic flight path immediately off the coast of....(checks notes).... New York?

Did you even stop for one microsecond to see how absolutely asinine that entire premise is?


One could make a similar argument against the DC plane/helicopter crash report.

I don't know what the truth is, but the report is inconsistent with what many people alleged to have witnessed. If it happened intentionally or by accident it's plausible that it could have been covered up. Much easier to deny this in 1996 before smart phones were a thing.
Posted by i am dan
NC
Member since Aug 2011
28235 posts
Posted on 3/3/25 at 8:17 am to
quote:


I downloaded the complete Cal Tech jet fuel test. I think the modem at the time was 56k and it took forever. I always had a curiosity about aircraft accidents because my father was one of the countries top aircraft accident investigators.

Cal Tech couldn't get the fuel to ignite with a spark at the specified temperature range. They had to resort to a torch.


Your thing sounds a lot like jet fuel doesn't burn hot enough to melt steel in a twin tower.

just messing. I don't remember this accident. Horrible though. Goodness.
This post was edited on 3/3/25 at 10:08 am
Posted by Wtodd
Tampa, FL
Member since Oct 2013
68130 posts
Posted on 3/3/25 at 8:23 am to
Brought to you by The Weather Channel, US Government propaganda specialist
Posted by The Boat
Member since Oct 2008
171743 posts
Posted on 3/3/25 at 8:27 am to
quote:

Get it burning and it will burn hot but it’s hard to ignite initially without proper vaporization and heat.

The AC units on this 747 were directly below the center fuel tanks. TWA 800 was late to push back by more than an hour. It was the middle of July. The ACs were cranking and working hard in the summer heat. The NTSB ran a test flight with the same scenario and discovered the AC units reached 350 degrees and the heat caused the temp inside the fuel tank to reach 127 degrees. Almost 30 degrees above the flash point.
Posted by Auburn1968
NYC
Member since Mar 2019
23062 posts
Posted on 3/3/25 at 10:32 am to
quote:


You keep bringing up this completely irrelevant point, it's jet fuel vapors in the tank that are easily ignitable and highly flammable.


Cal Tech did the vapor tests heating the jet fuel to the specified temperature. A spark failed to ignite it. I downloaded the entire report back in the day. Took for bloody ever to down load back then. They had to use a torch to get it to ignite.

Posted by TDTOM
Member since Jan 2021
21000 posts
Posted on 3/3/25 at 10:34 am to
quote:

Not sure what else to say here.


Probably nothing.
Posted by mtntiger
Asheville, NC
Member since Oct 2003
28440 posts
Posted on 3/3/25 at 10:58 am to
This is my question too.

If that video is to be believed, the fuel ignited between the wings. If that happened, then why did the front of the plane break off way in front of the explosion and not at the point of the explosion?
Posted by Auburn1968
NYC
Member since Mar 2019
23062 posts
Posted on 3/3/25 at 10:58 am to
quote:

Your thing sounds a lot like jet fuel doesn't burn hot enough to melt steel in a twin tower.

just messing. I don't remember this accident. Horrible though. Goodness.


I'm old and had a lot of family on Long Island at the time. Brother in law had his ocean fishing boat near his house and close to the crash site. He kept his ship to shore radio on a lot to talk to his fishing buddies and get tips to where the good spots were. His fishing buddies out on the water said a missile just shot down an airliner.

He took his boat out and spent the night pulling bodies from the water.

PS. Did a little work on a high rise apartment fire some years ago. The fire was nothing but furniture, carpeting and such, but the whole floor was gutted and there was a photograph of twisted steel beams. The whole building was condemend.
Posted by GetCocky11
Calgary, AB
Member since Oct 2012
53227 posts
Posted on 3/3/25 at 11:04 am to
That would have been one horrifying end for those passengers who weren't killed in the initial explosion.
Posted by 777Tiger
Member since Mar 2011
82925 posts
Posted on 3/3/25 at 11:04 am to
quote:

hen why did the front of the plane break off way in front of the explosion and not at the point of the explosion?


Posted by Rambler
Coastal Landmass
Member since Jan 2011
1430 posts
Posted on 3/3/25 at 11:39 am to
I'm a retired aerospace engineer, and I do not believe the official findings, even if I ignore all the reports about a missile. Several of us discussed this at work when the simulation video was released. First, a center fuel tank explosion is not going to just cleanly separate the forward fuselage section and leave the rest of the aircraft to happily continue flying along. (The report claimed that the aircraft pitched up and gained altitude and that's what people were seeing instead of a missile.) The whole damn aircraft is going to come apart.

Second, the regular news briefings that went on for weeks were given by Jim Kallstrom of the FBI field office in New York, not by the NTSB. Let me know the next time you see that. The NTSB is primary, and they would call in the FBI if they see evidence of a crime.

Third, that video looks like the one released at the time, and it's been altered. (It didn't originate with the Weather Channel, obviously.) When I saw it on the nightly news at that time, I was shocked. It had a logo saying that it was produced by the CIA. (I know a lot of you won't believe that, but it was again discussed at work the next day.) Let me know what other accident simulations are done by the CIA instead of the NTSB.

Fourth, a design flaw would have immediately grounded the 747 fleet for inspections or reworks, and I don't recall this happening.

As to what actually happened, I don't know, but I don't believe the official narrative based on things I personally witnessed.
Posted by 777Tiger
Member since Mar 2011
82925 posts
Posted on 3/3/25 at 11:44 am to
quote:

leave the rest of the aircraft to happily continue flying along.


all of the control surfaces still intact and engines running, it would "fly" for a bit

quote:

I don't recall this happening.



they required inspection of wiring harnesses in the fuel tanks of all Boeing wide bodies to be inspected and require the fuel pumps in center tanks to be turned off with 1000lbs. remaining to allow the scavenge system to capture the rest
first pageprev pagePage 3 of 5Next pagelast page

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on X, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookXInstagram