New Insights into TWA 800?

I can't really speak intelligently to what the AEGIS does in their spare time, but I would guess it doesn't involve lobbing SM-2's into busy NYC departure/arrival corridors.
Aegis lies off the coast and reads minds.....well not exaclty, but IF there was an Aegis ship anywhere within a couple hundred miles of TWA 800 (and as I recall there wasn't), they would have had a very good recorded radar picture of anything that came remotely close to the 747.
 
BTW, those were not F-15's at Ramstein in 1982 -- F-4E's, replaced by F-16's in 1985.

Tracing it back in history: While the flight that lost the sidewinder took off from Ramstein, it was a plane from the 36th fighter wing in Bitburg, and they had F15s (lots of them).
 
Tracing it back in history: While the flight that lost the sidewinder took off from Ramstein, it was a plane from the 36th fighter wing in Bitburg, and they had F15s (lots of them).

True about Bit. Spent a couple of nights in a shelter using CBW gear there on a Blue Two visit back in the mid 80's. ein Bit, Bitte.

Cheers
 
I intentionally used the term "stateside" because that is an important difference between the scenario surrounding this conspiracy theory, and the real world incidents listed in this thread (the Tomcat/F-4 shoot down, the USAFE F-15, etc). All of those mishaps occurred in a deployed environment, be it on the ship, or at a forward airfield on a Cold War alert.
The 86th TFW was home-based at Ramstein, not deployed from the states. The USAF stateside units deployed to air bases where there were no units already stationed -- more dispersed that way. BTDT on both sides of the pond.

It is common to carry live missiles in that environment.
True. As I said before, it was common to fly straight off Zulu Alert with the live AIM's aboard at the end of your shift. However, for some reason, they never let us do that with us we flew off Victor Alert -- they always downloaded the weapons before we were allowed to launch.

I can't really speak intelligently to what the AEGIS does in their spare time, but I would guess it doesn't involve lobbing SM-2's into busy NYC departure/arrival corridors.
There were no AEGIS ships within shooting range of TW800 -- that was checked just to be absolutely certain.
 
Tracing it back in history: While the flight that lost the sidewinder took off from Ramstein, it was a plane from the 36th fighter wing in Bitburg, and they had F15s (lots of them).
Yes, they did. But like the 86th at Ramstein, they were home-based in Europe, not forward deployed from the states, and had a Zulu Alert commitment. Perhaps they'd launched off Zulu from Bit, got weather diverted to Ramstein, and then were on their way home. :dunno:
 
The 86th TFW was home-based at Ramstein, not deployed from the states. The USAF stateside units deployed to air bases where there were no units already stationed -- more dispersed that way. BTDT on both sides of the pond.

True. As I said before, it was common to fly straight off Zulu Alert with the live AIM's aboard at the end of your shift. However, for some reason, they never let us do that with us we flew off Victor Alert -- they always downloaded the weapons before we were allowed to launch.

There were no AEGIS ships within shooting range of TW800 -- that was checked just to be absolutely certain.

I think we are fully in agreement on this one. What I meant by saying the 86th (or whomever) was "deployed" was that they weren't stateside in a peacetime posture. Copy about not always carrying live rounds, but I think it is fair to say that such an environment, "deployment" or not, involved a lot more live weapons than the states. Am I right? Or more importantly, it explains why the guys in the story were packing heat, when it is a comparative non-issue back in conus.

And you and I both know that an AEGIS didn't shoot TWA 800 down.
 
I think we are fully in agreement on this one. What I meant by saying the 86th (or whomever) was "deployed" was that they weren't stateside in a peacetime posture.
In Air Force lingo, "deployed" just means away from your home base. When I was in the 20th at Upper Heyford, we "deployed" to Zag or Incirlik for vis weps dets, and then "redeployed" back to the Stack when we were done. In the Navy, Whidbey was "home," and we "deployed" to Westpac on the boat.

Copy about not always carrying live rounds, but I think it is fair to say that such an environment, "deployment" or not, involved a lot more live weapons than the states. Am I right?
I don't think so. Just like the states, the only folks who regularly loaded and flew with live ordnance were the air defense ("Zulu") alert folks, whether the F-15's at Bit or Kef, the F-4's at Ramstein, etc. It was pretty much the same for the ANG F-101/106/4/16 folks sitting air defense alert on the perimeters of the US at places like Seymour Johnson NC (that's the guys who ran into the Beech Baron trying to ID it over the Atlantic --with live weapons aboard but no attempt to shoot), Atlantic City NJ, Bangor ME, Portland OR, and wherever it was in ND where the Happy Hooligans were based (Fargo?). Not much of that left now, however -- the Maineiacs out of Bangor are flying KC-135's, and the Hooligans are running drones -- some come-down for ANG units who kicked the regulars' butts at William Tell all the time.

On the conventional air to mud side, I probably did more live bomb work out of Cannon AFB NM than out of Upper Heyford UK -- not enough places to drop live bombs in Europe, but quite a few in the USA. Of course, we only did that a couple of time a year, but on the other hand, we dropped practice bombs on the ranges on a daily basis, and the air-air folks rarely let anything go off the airplane (intentionally or otherwise). Of course, conventional weapons were not our primary mission at Upper Heyford -- and if we ever launched with those other live bombs aboard, it would not have been a training mission.
 
Last edited:
In Air Force lingo, "deployed" just means away from your home base. When I was in the 20th at Upper Heyford, we "deployed" to Zag or Incirlik for vis weps dets, and then "redeployed" back to the Stack when we were done. In the Navy, Whidbey was "home," and we "deployed" to Westpac on the boat.

I don't think so. Just like the states, the only folks who regularly loaded and flew with live ordnance were the air defense ("Zulu") alert folks, whether the F-15's at Bit or Kef, the F-4's at Ramstein, etc. It was pretty much the same for the ANG F-101/106/4/16 folks sitting air defense alert on the perimeters of the US at places like Seymour Johnson NC (that's the guys who ran into the Beech Baron trying to ID it over the Atlantic --with live weapons aboard but no attempt to shoot), Atlantic City NJ, Bangor ME, Portland OR, and wherever it was in ND where the Happy Hooligans were based (Fargo?). Not much of that left now, however -- the Maineiacs out of Bangor are flying KC-135's, and the Hooligans are running drones -- some come-down for ANG units who kicked the regulars' butts at William Tell all the time.

On the conventional air to mud side, I probably did more live bomb work out of Cannon AFB NM than out of Upper Heyford UK -- not enough places to drop live bombs in Europe, but quite a few in the USA. Of course, we only did that a couple of time a year, but on the other hand, we dropped practice bombs on the ranges on a daily basis, and the air-air folks rarely let anything go off the airplane (intentionally or otherwise). Of course, conventional weapons were not our primary mission at Upper Heyford -- and if we ever launched with those other live bombs aboard, it would not have been a training mission.

Oh absolutely, I just dropped more bombs in NV than I probably ever will anywhere else unless something goes really wrong. I was speaking specifically to air-to-air ordnance. Apparently the alert guys either carried a lot more than we do, or they barely did at all. Makes sense, given various factors. That said, my point is/was that there weren't combat loaded Tomcats trolling for widebody jets over the Hamptons the night that -800 went down. If there were Tomcats within 300 miles, they were chocked and chained and the crews were probably entertaining the wives and daughters of the girls from syracuse :)
 
and wherever it was in ND where the Happy Hooligans were based (Fargo?). Not much of that left now, however -- the Maineiacs out of Bangor are flying KC-135's, and the Hooligans are running drones --

The now pretty unhappy hooligans also fly a pair of C21s whose key mission is to 'keep the ND congressional delegation off the secretary of defenses throat' :D. Saturday morning they do touch+gos until anyone who needs to maintain flying status had their boxes checked and/or they are out of budgeted gas money. The unit was slated to get C27s but that got nixed when the DoD decided that those would all go to AF units.
The loss of the flying mission didn't stop DoD and congress from building us a snazzy new airport fire station for 4.8mil. 24/7 a contingent of ANG firefighters maintains ARFF index 3 to protect 2 old lears that dont fly and a bunch of guys in cubicles who pilot drones. The airport authority and the city of fargo thank the US taxpayer for such generous service.
 
Article 92, actually -- Failure to Obey a Lawful Order or Regulation. Article 90 (Assaulting or willfully disobeying superior commissioned officer) isn't relevant.

Thank you for the correction.

...and your secret is safe with us:D
 
No clue on the Reg. But every Class A Mishap investigation I participated in started with the discussion of the need for complete openness AND the need to keep the information confidential to assure the cause is identified and rectified. That's just like the NTSB BTW, since I was asked by the NTSB on occasion to supply technical information or analysis.

Cheers

How in the world does confidentiality contribute to safety? There are liability and political reasons why confidentiality is requested, not to mention not telling the bad guys that certain weapon systems don't work.
 
Because it allows people to talk without worrying about retribution.

It is that simple. :yes:

The people who need the info to fix a design or procedure get the info.

Cheers
 
Last edited:
Oh absolutely, I just dropped more bombs in NV than I probably ever will anywhere else unless something goes really wrong. I was speaking specifically to air-to-air ordnance. Apparently the alert guys either carried a lot more than we do, or they barely did at all. Makes sense, given various factors. That said, my point is/was that there weren't combat loaded Tomcats trolling for widebody jets over the Hamptons the night that -800 went down. If there were Tomcats within 300 miles, they were chocked and chained and the crews were probably entertaining the wives and daughters of the girls from syracuse :)
Roger all.
 
How in the world does confidentiality contribute to safety?
It gets people to admit what they screwed up. Otherwise, they'd "lawyer up", take the Fifth, and refuse to talk. Then we'd never figure out what went wrong so we'd never be able to fix the problem.
 
It gets people to admit what they screwed up. Otherwise, they'd "lawyer up", take the Fifth, and refuse to talk. Then we'd never figure out what went wrong so we'd never be able to fix the problem.
granted.
 
Y'know, Bobanna's got me thinking. I think he might be right...maybe JetA can't explode in a fuel tank.

But there also isn't any evdence of an outside explosion. Since no one has ever performed a controlled experiment demonstrating how an external explosion could bring down a plane without leaving any physical evidence of said outseide explosion, I don't believe that occurred.

And since no one has ever conducted a controlled experiment of how some other explosive material could detonate inside an aircraft without leaving tell-tale residue of its products of combustion behind, I don't believe an explosive device inside the plane caused it's destruction.

Considering all of that, my leading theory is that Flight 800 did not actually explode and fall out of the sky, and that somebody somewhere made a really big mistake in reporting that. Clearly such an incident could not ever possibly have happened based on the evidence and test results available today.
 
Y'know, Bobanna's got me thinking. I think he might be right...maybe JetA can't explode in a fuel tank.
He's wrong -- it can, and it has, in both experiments and real world accidents. You can start by getting a copy of the papers presented at the FAA/SAE Transport Fuel Flammability Conference on October 7 -9,1997 in Washington, D.C. Should be available from SAE. In it you'll find one presentation titled "Results and Assessment of the Fuel Tank Ullage Hazard State of the Art" -- the author's name may be familiar to you.
 
But there is one question that does seem to go unanswered.. why weren't the 747 grounded after they made the initial finding and why is there no AD to cover the wiring harness..

Or, I am just not doing that good a research on this?

SFAR 88 and EWIS resulted. Both really huge. There were ADs issued on a number of aircraft too.
 
Burning <(does not equal)> Explosion

And that's all I have to say about that - Forrest Gump
 
Burning DOES equal explosion, if there's a vessel to contain the pressure.
Depends on a lot of factors, but the bursting of a container due to the overpressure of burning is not the same as an "explosion" as those terms are used in the combustion world. Here are some references:
http://www.ddtexperts.com/psep2010a.pdf
http://www2.galcit.caltech.edu/EDL/projects/JetA/Glossary.html
http://www.nist.gov/el/fire_research/upload/R0002187.pdf (I trained under Mowrer and Vikestad, and wrote Reference 2).
 
Depends on a lot of factors, but the bursting of a container due to the overpressure of burning is not the same as an "explosion" as those terms are used in the combustion world.

Agreed, the failure mode of the vessel has the largest impact. Just pointing out that explosion and detonation are two different things.
Burning <> Detonation, but Burning CAN equal Explosion when there's a vessel involved.

In the context of this, we are largely talking about atomized fuel between the Lower Explosive Limit and Upper Explosive Limit. But the blanket statement that burning<>explosion is incorrect. Burning<>detonation is a true statement.
 
Depends on a lot of factors, but the bursting of a container due to the overpressure of burning is not the same as an "explosion" as those terms are used in the combustion world. Here are some references:
http://www.ddtexperts.com/psep2010a.pdf
http://www2.galcit.caltech.edu/EDL/projects/JetA/Glossary.html
http://www.nist.gov/el/fire_research/upload/R0002187.pdf (I trained under Mowrer and Vikestad, and wrote Reference 2).
Roger, but even if it wasn't an explosion, the best way to get the average idiot to understand that the fuel ignited, and the over pressure blew critical parts of the fuselage apart would be to say "the gas tank blew up"

And as I posted before, it really wouldn't take much pressure in the tank to sufficiently damage the plane to make the break up inevitable.
 
Burning DOES equal explosion, if there's a vessel to contain the pressure.

There are plenty of fires in closed containers where the fire can consume oxygen faster than the heat can cause expansion, thus causing an implosion.
 
There are plenty of fires in closed containers where the fire can consume oxygen faster than the heat can cause expansion, thus causing an implosion.
I can see the fire going out if the oxidant is consumed, but it would be a very unusual fuel/oxidant combination which would result in less gas in the vessel after the combustion. Generally speaking, there has to be a cooling fluid applied to the container to cause the combustion product gases to contract to get that result.
 
There are plenty of fires in closed containers where the fire can consume oxygen faster than the heat can cause expansion, thus causing an implosion.

Seems improbable given Boyle's equation....
 
I can see the fire going out if the oxidant is consumed, but it would be a very unusual fuel/oxidant combination which would result in less gas in the vessel after the combustion. Generally speaking, there has to be a cooling fluid applied to the container to cause the combustion product gases to contract to get that result.

Ah....and now that's the 2nd part that I errantly omitted.:)
 
Yeah -- the old trick of dropping a lit cigarette into an almost empty gas can, then putting on the cap and turning a hose on it. Looks like Mongo jumped on it.
 
Everybody in USAFE was briefed on the accident when it happened. That's not consistent with what we were told.

I was in USAFE at the same time, and Ron is exactly correct. It does bother me that the shooter recently made Admiral (just like his Dad did).

It certainly is possible for an aircraft fuel tank to spontaniously explode, as happened to Philippine Airlines Flight 143.

Does this sound familar:

The air temperature had been high at the time of the accident, about 35 °C (95 °F), while the Boeing 737-300 was parked at Manila. The air conditioning packs, located beneath the center wing fuel tank of the 737 had been running on the ground before pushback (approximately 30 to 45 minutes). The center wing fuel tank, which had not been filled since March 9, 1990, likely contained some fuel vapors. Shortly after pushback a powerful explosion in the center fuel tank pushed the cabin floor violently upwards. The wing tanks ruptured, causing the airplane to burst into flames.

This is exactly the TWA 800 scenario. It happened in 1990, luckily before takeoff.

Whatever caused the TWA 800 fuel tank explosion, it was NOT a missile. TWA 800 was out of the envelope for a manpad, manpads hit engines, not fuselages, and no manpad has nearly enough energy to cut as 747in half. Even an air-to-air missile can't do that. For example, KAL-007 flew for over ten minutes after it was hit by an air-to-air missile.

The only kind of missile that could cut an airliner in half would be a very large radar guided surface to air missile, like an SA-5 or Patriot. A weapon like that injects its target with thousands of fragmentation sharps and also a devastating pressure wave. The missile and the target merge into one mass of metal.

No missile components were found in the wreckage. No holes in the aircraft's skin.

No missile can cut a B747 in half and leave no trace.

There have been a few instances of civil airplanes being hit by inadvertent missile fire. The best example was Siberia Airlines Flight 1812, which was accidentally shot down by an Ukrainian SA-5 (aka S-200) missile.

In that case the aircraft skin was peppered with holes and missile components were found embedded in the wreckage.

For 18 years I was a Wild Weasel and Raven Electronic Warfare Officer. We studied radars and missiles every day. We had to know the details of how they kill airplanes, so we could kill them before they killed us.

I spent a year running a live weapons range. I've operated over dozen different friendly and not-so-friendly SAM systems. Whatever killed TWA 800, it wasn't a missile.

And of course the whole notion that an inadvertent missile firing could be kept a secret by the thousands of people who would know about it beyond ridiculous. Not only would an entire ship's crew, from the captain to the laundry tech would have to stay silent for decades, the FBI (who inventoried all the missiles in the darn Navy), the Navy supply system, and the entire NTSB would be in on the conspiracy. Only an idiot, or Alex Jones would believe that.

One wonders why the guy peddling this movie didn't speak up at the time?

I wish the government could operate tenth as effectively as the conspiracy story sellers would have us believe. If government could, socialism would work.

Strong message follows.
 
Whatever caused the TWA 800 fuel tank explosion, it was NOT a missile. TWA 800 was out of the envelope for a manpad, manpads hit engines, not fuselages, and no manpad has nearly enough energy to cut as 747in half. Even an air-to-air missile can't do that. For example, KAL-007 flew for over ten minutes after it was hit by an air-to-air missile.

...No missile can cut a B747 in half and leave no trace.

There have been a few instances of civil airplanes being hit by inadvertent missile fire. The best example was Siberia Airlines Flight 1812, which was accidentally shot down by an Ukrainian SA-5 (aka S-200) missile.

In that case the aircraft skin was peppered with holes and missile components were found embedded in the wreckage.
...
I wish the government could operate tenth as effectively as the conspiracy story sellers would have us believe. If government could, socialism would work.

Perfectly said.
The comments on history of SAMs hitting large commercial airliners is exactly what I was thinking. Like the DHL plane in Iraq. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_Baghdad_DHL_attempted_shootdown_incident
 
I was in USAFE at the same time, and Ron is exactly correct......

Whatever caused the TWA 800 fuel tank explosion, it was NOT a missile....

One thing that smells like a conspiracy: You and Ron were in the same place, at the same time, in the same operational community, and you claim to not know each other, yet you're both trying to convice us of the same thing.....

CONSPIRACY:D:D:D
 
One thing that smells like a conspiracy: You and Ron were in the same place, at the same time, in the same operational community, and you claim to not know each other, yet you're both trying to convice us of the same thing.....

CONSPIRACY:D:D:D

Truth is............. They could tell us............ but... then they would have to kill us...:eek:;):D
 
Back
Top