Was it though? How many 747's had, to that point, operated in hot weather with the air conditioning packs working full blast, and how many had exploded?
I can never understand what everyone means by..."the AC units running or working full blast".... Is that suppose to make it sound 'scarier' ?? The Air pack operates at one level. 'On.' there is no 'full blast'. lol... and Hot weather is moot, as well. unless the weather was at full blast! lol....
Imagine having the same accident in the test. And then another NTSB group try to find why the test crashed, and they do the same test again. And it crashes again. We then have a massive extinction of NTSB Agents.
Heyyy I’m a new RUclipsr who’s trying to accomplish her dream of becoming a popular creator. Please help me to reach that goal by supporting my channel!!
@@djlawlz4041 Your content is boring and self-centred. This isn't TikTok or Instagram, make interesting videos if you want subscribers, not vlogs of your boring life.
No, what are You implying? lol.... FYI: your assumption was based on (as you said) and after you insulted my intelligence....when 'You' said, "737's can't fly from the Netherlands to America'... Actually they can, but then You would not know this, which is what makes my job fun. So, seeing a KLM 737 at JFK is not some 'mystery'. :)
@@tomato-v8x lol thank you I had assumed it was but that day I dealt with two people for most of the day who refused to joke so i was a bit uncertain on assuming at thay point in time
Years ago the military required their planes to have the space as the fuel level dropped to be filled w/ non- flammable nitrogen.. Commercial airliners were also mandated to have this system after flight 800.. Whether or not it was a missile it did improve airliner safety.
Actually all boeing aircraft built after 1969 have this nitrogen feature for filling the tanks. It's actually a filter that filters out the larger oxygen molecules of air filling the tank. That info comes from a buddy of mine who has worked on those planes for almost 50 years in Dallas Texas. So, no explosion was possible.
@@KBS117 Then why did they change to the military version of explosive gases management? Because the filters system wasn't as good as hoped, that's why. This from the head of AirCanada's maintenance dept. @ an EAA 486 guest speaker event, about 7 years ago... I was president of the chapter at the time.
@@robertquick6690 I agree, but the point is this, no spark is possible in that tank, and if it is, the wasn't any fuel in it. The previous pilot states he had pumped the tank completely dry, into the wing tanks.. then we have the heat issue on the ac systems. They cannot heat the fuel that hot as they have a 140 degree max operating temp before they shut down, and the pilot has to reset the ac system to function after it cools down. Then we have ignition. For jet fuel to blow up takes the perfect ratio of air fuel mixture in the tank. Too much oxygen and it just burns, not enough, you get no ignition. We know this plane had nitrogen filters on the tanka, so maybe some oxygen did get past the filter, but it could never be enough for ignition. You add all that up, and I say it was 1 chance in a million. I used to build bombs out of 2 liter plastic jugs and used acetylene and oxygen for the explosion. I made hundreds of these as a teen ager and even built a canon.. I can tell you, it takes a perfect mixture to get an explosion.. and acetylene is way more volatile than jet fuel. And I tried using gasoline and oxygen and I never got that combo to explode. I burnt some jugs trying, but I never blew one up.. just saying, blowing that tank is next to impossible.
I was just thinking this whole thing is a lie. I done 100 different storys from ppl who wasn't there. Yet ppl who actually saw it say the same thing🤔 who in the fuck do you think I'm going to believe now 😭 it was shit down
However on another plane crash, it helps disprove the crackpots. The way Kerosene *does* burn is in explosive flash fires.. Which explains the explosions New Yorkers heard on 9/11. That and the fact that the planes (which are aluminium) were melting (due to the floors above collapsing on the burning planes, creating an impromptu furnace), and melted aluminium explodes *violently* when it comes into contact with water.. which would have come form the pipes the planes absolutely broke.
Jet fuel has to be atomized before it becomes flammable. You can throw a lit match into a bucket of jet fuel and it will put the match out. I'm a pilot. I've seen it firsthand in a demonstration performed by our local airport's Crash, Fire, and Rescue.
I think they should implement more of the "investigator taking to the camera a.k.a the viewers". It makes the viewers feel like their engage with the investigators, almost like we're also the investigator. I really like it.
Makes you wonder, did he say "Well, this is interesting. We are right" or did he say when he realized the danger say "Land the plane! Land it! For the love of God land this plane!! Mommy! Mommy! Land the plane!!Aaiiueeree!!!!"
Heyyy I’m a new RUclipsr who’s trying to accomplish her dream of becoming a popular creator. Please help me to reach that goal by supporting my channel!!
NTSB Investigator 1: "Holy smokes, I think I discovered an extremely dangerous flaw in this aircraft's design!" NTSB Investigator 2: "Really? that's fascinating! Are you thinking what I'm thinking?" NTSB Investiagor 1: Flashes evil smile - "You mean, let's get another airline, duplicate the exact conditions with all us NTSB Investigators onboard?" NTSB Investigator 2: "YES! YES! YES!" Both NTSB Investigators leap out of their seats, grab hands and skip merrily down the hallways, the other NTSB staff violently tilt their heads back laughing hysterically.
@@robshef718 Hi again, in a previous thread I asked for evidence of your claim the fuel vapors couldn't explode. I cited a bunch of evidence. Still waiting for yours. :)
YouGotRickRolled facts I’m not sure if I do wanna fly to ny I’m from my but I’m out of the city and I wanna fly back but I’m not sure if I wanna get back on a plane
The guy in the video is an actor as well as an idiot. Jet Fuel or Aviation kerosene is NOT a Flammable, but a 'Combustible' liquid.....which in the 747 fuel tank never can become 'heated' to its flash point. The rest is JUNK SCIENCE....and the video is factually Incorrect. Dun dun dunnnnnnn.
@@robshef718 "Commercial jet fuel is a pale yellow liquid with a petroleum odor. It has an auto-ignition temperature of 410°F (210°C). Its explosive limits are from 0.6 to 4.7 percent by volume in air. Coupled with its flash point, this means that at 100°F there is enough vapor in the air to reach the lower explosive limit so that even if an ignition source is not present and the fuel reaches a temperature of 410°F (and this is considerably below all common ignition sources), an explosion will occur." Source: www.fireengineering.com/2002/10/01/244558/jet-fuel/
@@sonotswifty - But why did they "'have to' recreate those scenes" in the first place? Is everyone so hooked on info-tainment that they must watch produced re-creations to experience the drama of past events? I just finished reading the NTSB transcripts of the CVR recovered from Alaska Airlines flight 261 after it crashed into the Pacific - killing all 88 aboard - because of a seized mechanical jack screw designed to actuate the horizontal stabilizer. There is more tension and distress in the printed words of that transcript than any 're-creation' imaginable, regardless of how theatrical it may be.
not a SINGLE commercial airliner before or since this event has ever spontaneously exploded mid-air. planes had been sitting on far hotter tarmacs with their AC units running in places like egypt and dubai and didnt explode. i highly doubt this happened due to a fuel tank explosion.
Look up the report. Something hit the L3 door and caused 19 small holes. Sure sounds seems like it was something on the outside. Whats explosive and causes small holes after it detonates? I can't think of one thing. I'm going to go watch Behind Enemy Lines now.
I believe it was debris from the high altitude holographic missile fired from bombs attached to the bottom of flight 11 in tandem with the planted explosives in tower 7. Not to mention to possibility of a 2nd gunman contributing to what was seen in frame 314
@@intorsusvolo7834 Yes every plane does that everywhere in the world since the dawn of time. If the aircraft is about to fly another leg it runs on its own ac, power etc for most of the turnaround.
After American Airlines 191 crashed all DC-10s were grounded. Why weren't all 747s grounded after TWA 800, if the accident was due to a fuel tank issue. It's so transparent, my dead and blind relatives can see it.
The 747 involved was to be scrapped the following year. This is how the 747-100s finished (I think the last one was broken up in 2000). The other 747s were more recent and not known to present this electrical problem. Also, airline industry fell upon the solution in 1997 : since then carriers fill the nearly empty tanks with nitrogen, replacing oxygen, so no blaze or explosion can occur. Nitrogen is also used to inflate tires for the same reason.
TWA flight 800 went down during a clear summer night off NYC's east coast. There were many people out and about that night; many of whom saw a streak of light go up into the sky and then an explosion. The US Navy was conducting exercises that night off the east coast.
Please please.... The NAVY was 185 miles south but not firing missiles. That rumor interferes with other info that most 'need' to ignore. it kills the sensationalism though. It has made Videos and has sold books due to premature distribution, but who is going to write a book and make a video and then have to 'back track'???
You do realize that the plane was at 15,000 feet? That means the plane was more than 2.5 miles high. The plane was also several miles off the coast of Long Island. Light is faster than sound. At the time you heard the explosion, the plane had already blown up about 20 seconds beforehand. Looking up, the contrails would have been illuminated by the setting sun, seen the explosion which had happened about 20 seconds beforehand, the plane already split in half with the nose falling and the rest of the plane out of control going upward.
@@robshef718 The explosion of the mid fuel tank. After that went off, it weakened the front of the airframe, causing the nose to sheer off. The engines were throttled up, so as the plane lost significant weight it initially pitched upwards and climbed.
@@easternyellowjacket276 why do you assume that people had to be alerted by sound before seeing this happen? Back before cell (phones), BC, people actually observed their environment and had a modicum of situational awareness. Those days are in the past, but it’s an interesting historical note. Now of course sheeple only look down and follow the feet of the sheeple in front of them.
@@robshef718 that because your the crazy theorist that thinks the plane just blown up from a missle that was from the navy with best source being humans a totally reliable source.
@@Powerranger-le4up there was literally a Navy ship practicing weapon tests with SAMs in the vicinity and after the plane went down it bounced. There were hundreds of witnesses. This plane WAS shot down by a missile.
@@noahtek1101The US military is not known for being very hush with their accidental shoot downs, so I’d say there is good reason to believe it wasn’t a shoot down if they deny it dickhead
More coverup BS. Since the 747-100 had a positive fuel tank venting system, and the aircraft had been airborne for over 12 minutes at the time of the explosion, it is unlikely that ANY "explosive vapor" existed in TWA 800s Center Section Tank when the aircraft exploded. As a TWA 747 Captain, I flew the 747 for months after 800 went down. The “fix” was to carry a minimum of 10,000# in that tank as “unusable” fuel as I remember. We flew it from STL to HNL in the summer. There was NO restriction on using the a/c packs on the ground or in flight.
Thank You. And what most peeps in here cant figure out... (and I was a US Navy Aircraft Handler and Fire Fighter and worked with aviation kerosene) is that Jet fuel IS NOT a flammable liquid but a COMBUSTIBLE liquid who's Flash point is very high and that the fuel is extremely stable and very low in volatility. Its properties just cannot allow for such a powerful and high energy explosion that would blow in half, the strongest plane ever built! it was a missile!
Since the claim is the ac units that heated up the fuel, then why it didnt explode on the ground where temperature is higher alongside oxygen rather than 15000ft with colder temp and less oxygen
@@ChaklitTea Of course anyone who has half a brain knows that the plane did not 'just blow up' . And the 'AC' unit DOES NOT provide any appreciable heat into the tank, as it is designed not too! It was a missile.
The speed of sound is the disqualifier for the witnesses. They didn’t look up until they heard the bang. The fuselage/wings and tail jetted straight up into the air for several thousand feet just after the bang. When they looked up they would have seen a fire streak racing upward at 400 miles per hour. Would have looked like a missle
@@steveo601 the ex-Vietnam combat pilot who saw the smoke trail leading up to and impacting the plane and who was the first aircraft to investigate the incident claims it was a missile. He even stated that multiple explosions occurred before it went down, and his experience in war zones gave him the ability to distinguish the difference between the fuel on the plane exploding, and an explosion from an explosive such as a missile warhead.
I like that one! Now of course it was [a missile] as the FAA tracked it, and reported it up the chain. And the machinists union reported the external impact on the plane. The NTSB had other plans. That an 'AC' blew a plane in half. What next?
So the plane was delayed for 2 hours and with the air conditionars right below the center fuel tank and the ac when up to 300 degress and that vapored the fuel making it very easy to catch fire and with the aging electrical system of the 747-131 bundles wires mixed with high voltage wires and low voltage wires some are so warm they can short circuit. High voltage went to where it shouldnt go. Seconds later it went to the fuel probe and then it blew up.
This is all very interesting, but the cruise missile spotted by the 200 witnesses who called the FBI and the two photographs of it probably helped as a contributing factor 😂
So the plane was delayed for 2 hours and with the air conditionars right below the center fuel tank and the ac when up to 300 degress and that vapored the fuel making it very easy to catch fire and with the aging electrical system of the 747-131 bundles wires mixed with high voltage wires and low voltage wires some are so warm they can short circuit. High voltage went to where it shouldnt go. Seconds later it went to the fuel probe and then it blew up.
@@Ultimaton100 Accept thousands saw several of the missiles, and (ready for the bomb) The FAA Radar has a missile on radar (per court documents and statements from the FAA managers in court documents) and...The 'machinists' in their report, make it clear that an EXTERNAL event, impacting the left wing root, is what started the break-up of the plane. You are so welcome!
I'm sorry, but air conditioning did not cause this. They came up with a hypothesis that fitted enough of the facts and chose that as the cause. They did not sit on a hitherto unknown fatal problem with 747s for four years either.
the plane was not downed by a SAM warhead (as the initiating event.) The missile theory would be moot given that the warhead (had that been the case) would trump the fuel, so the 'fuel exploding' is negligible.
Rob Shef They found proof by reconstructing the plane and doing tedious, lengthy, ming-boggingly critical examinations. And what have you dont to prove your "theory?" Think?
I respect more the NAVY sailors who did not detonate their missile before killing innocent people. I also commend the NAVY testing air-to-air ordinance right off shore of a major godamn airport. Negligence or on purpose. Either way, all sailors involved should be sent to GITMO. That would bring the high-ranking rats out of the shadows.
That's not true. Fuel is NOT flammable. Temperature in N Y at 8pm wasn't that high to put high pressure on the AC system. July, 8pm temp is 28c at NY. A missile hit that plane. Don't make some fools of us.
I want to say thank you for creating this episode, my great uncle and cousin passed away from this disaster. My cousin was 16 when he died, the oldest. My uncle was beloved to our family, and inspired my father to pursue his current passions. I thank my uncle for inspiring my father and making my life better because of it. I’m thankful because there’s so many rumors about what happened, including a conspiracy that it was caused by a U.S. missile striking the plane. My family is a military family. My uncle was the son of a WW2 veteran who helped free the prisoners of concentration camps. Such a theory is offensive and breaks the hearts of my family members. Science outweighs conspiracy.
An air conditioning unit would make an ineffective missile. While it has enough mass to cause serious damage at high speed an air conditioning unit couldn't really get airbourne. Why? Its not aerodynamic - big square sides mean high air resistance: requiring more fuel to accelerate and limiting manueverabiltiy Its heavy: requiring more fuel to accelerate it More fuel equal more weight: requiring more fuel, which adds weight Its not practical to launch from the surface: this would require far more fuel than an air launch It really has to be carried inside an aircraft: limiting the launch platforms for your air conditioning unit missile Conclusion: Air conditioning units make impractical missiles. Please clarify whether you wish to bulk order missiles or air conditioners from your local Boeing subsidiary
If you research the paranormal hypnotherapist Dr. Bruce Goldberg his book "Self Hypnosis" refers to a story of a woman who used hypnosis to see a premonition of a trip in which she planned booking a flight to be on TWA Flight 800. In the premonition she saw that the flight was doomed killing everyone including her. So she changed her travel plans and lived. I've always wonder if the creators of Final Destination aware and inspired by this story.
The center fuel wing tank got overheated and filled with flammable fuel vapors that bent the wiring and then all that was needed was a spark to set off that deadly tragic explosion which is indeed what happened on that night. The plane was not shot down by a missal
If this is true, then it really was a million-to-one shot that the heat actually accumulated to blow up the plane or ignite a spark or a short circuit. . . . I remain dubious.
It did not occur. IT Cant occur. PERIOD! There can NEVER be a catastrophic explosion from KEROSENE 'Vapors'...... 'Jet Fuel' is NOT a flammable.... but a 'combustible liquid', and has a very high flash point and low volatility. No spark can 'detonate VAPORS' like that. If that was the case, then every time you tried to start the jet engine, it would blow apart! Anyway, we took the NTSB to court over this and our experts impeached the NTSB report for Fraud! A judge Agreed. But the Fake news who gets $$$$$$$$ off, wont tell you about the lawsuit. They will all get to share stories about this in hell with the NTSB.
@@thisperson2517 If you own a modern gasoline powered car you have an electric fuel pump with wires in your tank. I have seen the wires burn in two and no explosion. This is gasoline not kerosene. Do you worry about that?
Hahaha, fuel reaches 200 degrees all the time in my semi truck and it never blows up. 127 is nothing... no oxygen in those tanks prevent explosions, and no wiring either... one of my high school buddies has been an A&P tech for the 747 for years, and he says anytime they enter a fuel tank on the 747, they have to wear oxygen packs, as those tanks are full of nitrogen.. no oxygen in them at all. I have 2 first cousins flying people 747's , and all of them laugh at the f.b.i's findings.. of course, most 747 and 757's are outdated and retired now..
@@cruisertechgt they have resistance meters to measure fuel levels. All wiring going into the fuel area are guarded by diodes. The diodes prevent electrical current from feeding into the fuel area, while allowing ground resistance metering from the probe to connect to the gauges. Then the 757 has 2 a/c units on that plane. Both will shut down when they get too hot.. the pilots will have to reset them once they cool down. The biggest problems is fuel jelling from getting too cold at high altitude.. heat is constantly applied to the fuel to keep it warm.. the fuel in my semi truck tanks reaches 180 degrees in the summer, as the fuel also cools the injectors and pump. 127 degrees on an oil based fuel does not scare me at all.. never seen a semi truck blow up..
Boing knew oxygen in the fuel tanks on these planes was a hazard. In 1969 they redesigned the center fuel tank on these planes, adding nitrogen generators to fill these tank with nitrogen as the fuel was sucked out. This eliminates any explosion hazard. This plane was built in 71, and it had the updated center fuel tank. The fbi is covering the navy shooting down this plane. The navy had fired 2 misses at drones that day, flight 800 had violated the navy's safe zone, and both missiles targeted the 747. I'm told the first missile targeted engine 3. The second one went into the center fuel tank and blew the nose off the plane. The facts are out there... my info comes from my best friend, who has been an a&p technician on the 747 and 757 for 35 years. He laughs at the fbi's report.
I sent an email to the FBI back then, though as a non-American I didn't know what else to do or whom to contact with information. I was a passenger on the previous flight, seat 14A (or 12A - my memory still puzzles me on that). My seat was the only one that had a leak from the overhead A/C system while we were waiting 2 hours for takeoff. A greenish liquid that messed up my shirt and the flight attendant said they could replace my shirt, though I never asked. The leak stopped when we took off. When I heard about the accident I also heard that the airplane split in around the area of my seat.
They didnt ground them, because they could not find an ignition source in any of the other identical planes. They could only make recommendations to prevent the fuel from vaporizing.
Hmmm, let's do the same thing to see if we will DIE! Madness. I would say; "....thanks for a good investigation, now we can secure the airline.... you are fired!"
It takes more than a spark to ignite fuel. It takes oxygen. The tank interior is designed, of course, to exclude oxygen, and carries a positive vapor pressure. Or no engineer would run a wire through it.
Yep...and besides that, the center tank by design, never, or can never reach its Flash point.... and this by reason of many Architectural and Physics reasons. In the most cases, due to the tanks venting, the tank is well into the lean arena, and it is difficult to ignite Aviation Kerosene anyway. It is a Combustible liquid, Not a Flammable liquid. The NTSB was cited in Federal court for fraud, and Junk Science.
@@criticalmaster9526 definitely don't do that. You should absolutely believe everything the government tells you without question, as they are right 100% therefore individual thought and expression are unneccesarry. Also beep boop beep robot
@@adriangoodman8901 So, you're claiming I'm just a "bot account" just because I don't agree with your conspiracy theory?! You know what?! I'm done talking to brainwashed people like you! Don't expect to hear any more replies from me!
How to make a cover up? Just create a daytime movie out of the incident then Hollywoodize the details 🤦🏻♂️ Scary how they get the Smithsonian to sign off and back it, now anyone who does the actual math is crazy.. 🤷🏻♂️
Watching these videos is making me realise and is also genuinely convincing me that practically every single thing inside an aircraft can make it crash (not good news!). From an autopilot system with a mind of its own, to a freaking airconditioner?!
@Robi Shefran do you even know which flight I was referring to? Because it definitely did not involve 2 airliners...... You need to stop jumping to conclusions and making assumptions on people's comments before gathering the full information on these things.
Those a/c units have a high temp cutoff of 120 degrees, and the flight engineer has to reset the ac unit once it cools down. No way it heated the empty tank hot enough for ignition. I have a friend who has been an A and P mechanic on those planes for 40 years. I have 2 cousins who have flown those jets millions of miles. They all laugh at the fbi story. Since 1969 all those planes were retrofitted with filters that scrub the oxygen molecules from the incoming air into those fuel tanks. There was no oxygen in that tank!!!! No explosion possible!!!! Plus the crew before them had pumped the center tank completely dry, no fuel in that tank for an explosion. Spark? From bad wiring? Are you frigging kidding me? Every circuit on that plane has a breaker, and the wires in that tank is diode protected.. 3 strikes and you are out.
@@julosx in that 6 years the FAA installed oxygen scrubbing filters on the fuel tanks of every jet in the world. Oxygen cannot get into those tanks. No explosion is possible, now.. the first one yes, it did happen
But I have a doubt As you go higher in altitude,the temperature should start to drop outside the aircraft and should initially cool the tanks How did it reach 127F???
Did you watch the Video? They Show and explain what & how by the A/C unit in the center of the Plain where the fuselage and wings meet is where the center fuel tank and A/C unit heated up to over 200 degrees or more past the flash point of the fuel. Not a missile as one's think.. Heat!
Sorry....my buddy was out jogging that night.......and he saw this video....known him for 40 years...as he said....he knows what he saw....not gonna change his mind...
So, to test if a plane exploded in mid air, the investigators boarded a plane and replicated the EXACT same conditions in mid air? Talk about dedication.
@@robshef718 it wasn’t the air conditioning it was the faulty wiring that was repaired with duct tape (really dumb) that allows high voltage current to jump to low voltage wiring which the low voltage wire went into the fuel tank and short circuited from the extra voltage.
Boeing: "Ah well it could never get that hot." Boeing 2019: "Ah well, MCAS would never overcorrect, so let's not tell our pilots of its existence." Boeing 2022, files for bankruptcy: "Ah well, it was a good run."
What about all the witnesses that saw the missile? They had no reason to lie. What about all the positive tests for explosive nitrates? What about all the shotgun type holes in the plane?
It was proven and explained many times over that what the witnesses saw was an optical illusion, there weren’t any positive tests for explosive nitrates, and the holes in the wreckage were from bits of the interior that blew out like shrapnel in the initial explosion.
Uh... Boeing has put its air conditioning packs underneath the centre tank for years. Every model it’s made with the exception of the 787 which uses a different system is like that. The air for the air conditioning pack is at 350F whether it’s being used to heat or cool the plane. That’s because it’s bleed air from the engines. The pack actually cools the air... first through a heat exchanger.. and then through an air cycle machine in parallel with another heat exchanger. The resulting air is so cold it has to be heated up with raw bleed air even in cooling mode. What’s interesting is that they didn’t think of the hydraulic fluid cooling system. It uses fuel to cool the fluid... and uses the very hot hydraulic fluid to keep the fuel from freezing at high altitudes. It’s inside the tank... not next to it insulated by insulation and several layers of metal in a compartment that is vented to atmosphere.
Yes, the AC/ Air pack system has been successfully used as it was designed, for years...Until the fear tactics from the corrupt NTSB created a head ache. Thanks for be the only other person in here in many years who actually understand the Air Pack system. I could not have said it better. But in all cases, the AC/ Air packs had no part in the crash, and cannot have had any part in the accident.
Yes...Never. The Unit is designed to remove heat, not keep it around, but the heat itself, in engineering terms, does not and cannot get the fuel in the tank to get 127 F. The fuel never gets that hot, not even close. and actually barely gets above the local ambient temp on the ground. It has to do with convection, conduction and radiation. Your cars engine, as an example, gets pretty damn hot, but you don't get 'that heat' radiating into the cars cabin. On a cold winters day, your cars engine heat alone, WONT heat the cars cabin...the heat needs to be routed as it is to force heat into the cabin. The pack bays are vented and there are heat exchangers to cool the bypass heat, but the 'radiated' 'heat' if you will, is very little as far as not being able to be 'radiating into the tank'. Your refrigerator compressor gets HOT...but radiates very very very little heat. You could have a room heater in the next room, as an example, and turned up HOT, but NONE of that heat is going to make it to the next room. its a myth that the fuel tank got sizzling hot and just ready to blow!
Actually yes, they never get that hot. This was just the only thing they could pull out of their behind to have an alternative to grim and tragic reality that the US navy accidentally shot down TWA800. At the time already the an organization of aeroplane machinists, who were involved in the investigation came out in opposition to the center fuel tank ignition theory, naming an "external high pressure event" as caused that tore up the plane, followed by ignition of the fuel now exposed to multiple heat sources and plenty of oxygen. Also an interim report for congress named an external explosion as cause. And 10 years ago already six(!!!) investigators of the original ntsb investigation came out saying that all evidence pointed towards an external explosion and that the FBI meddled heavily with the investigation.
Flight 800 was a land to air missile. We live on this island, we live here. The government couldn't keep us quiet and still can't. We know what we saw.
96 out of 500 questioned witnesses saw a missile head for the plane. The military official giving explanation the following day wasn't even looking at the camera. Not to mention that this wasn't the only incident of that nature in that area. Coincidence?
The "96" number refers to the number of people who saw the initiating event. The rest of the witnesses looked up after the event and therefore, did not seeing anything beforehand.
Nope. You cant 'detonate' Jet fuel. It's impossible. Jet fuel is not a flammable, but a combustible liquid. Jet fuel lacks the chemical energy to be a High energy material. ruclips.net/video/EYFF_1HSgDU/видео.html
Second to the nutty missile conspiracy theorists (motive?), many people have little concept of science if they believe the dozen who survived the first blast were "terrified out of their minds". The decompression/deceleration from the explosion greatly mitigated the plane's 500mph speed, causing injuries consistent with an extreme collision. This can be corroborated in the medical examiner's report, which also stated that the g-force winds were so extreme, all the passengers' clothes were ripped off. In respect to physics, I think it's safe to say that there was NO time to comprehend something went seriously wrong on that flight.
The missile theory isn't as nutty-sounding as you think. The Navy fired two missles from one of two submarines and 21 surface vessels in that area that were conducting missile tests exercises. The missiles were seeking out drones fired from one of the surface vessels,.......TWA 800 breached the perimeter of the military exercise airspace. The first missile targeted the heat signature from the third engine of TWA 800, then the second missile targeted that explosion. The issue with those center fuel tanks did exist,....up until 1969. In that year, Boeing completely redesigned the center fuel tank system for the 747. The TWA 800 aircraft was built in 1971, therefore, the fuel tank issue did not exist for that aircraft. The Clinton administration, FAA, and NTSB used the 'center fuel tank' theory as propaganda to cover for the Navy's grave mistake.
@@trueknowledgeispower You didn't include a link. However, I've already perused everything I've needed to for the past twenty-three years and still find the NTSB's conclusion more credible. We might as will revisit other cases of airplane accidents where proper maintenance wasn't done and write that off as a conspiracy, coverup, etc., too. Boeing was successfully sued, the airline and manufacturer was lawyered to the teeth, and yet they didn't try to make a case that the crash was from a friendly fire missile. What's your theory on that? Fear of the Clintons? I never cared for them either, but such poisoning of the well only gives them more leverage to stifle critics and continue defiling U.S. politics.
To determine a motive, one would need to know who did it, and the lack of such knowledge does not dismiss the credible accounts of hundreds of witnesses on the ground and in the air describing a rising missile. What is interesting about the witness testimony is that none of it was used in court...the only people who could do that are people involved in national security, and only if they cite “national security reasons.” When they do that, even _the existence_ of the eyewitness statements cannot be brought up in court. So even though we don’t know WHO shot down the plane, we know by eyewitness testimony WHAT brought it down, and we can reasonably deduce WHY that information was not brought up in court. The USG is involved...either acting to protect itself, or to protect some other “interest” (allies, organized crime/terrorist organization, etc). Yes, the rest would be conjecture. But the missile theory is not.
Exactly Brian. But we have peeps in here who know nothing about AC...... yet THEY, have ALL the answers. The entire architecture of the system was extremely sane, not to mention that Kerosene is the Least likely fuel to detonate! I am former Navy Aircraft handler so I know. Never had a plane "Blow up" on the Flight deck for a fuel reason...because it was hot out!
I was on a B747 course when this occurred. I had 3 instructors with a combined experience of 105 years. They said no way. With my own research for the planned flight time the center wing tank would have been empty. Mains 1 2 3 4 would have had fuel and their respective pumps operating. CWT pumps would have been off. No fuel no pumps no spark no explosion. Was definitely a missile. Probably from the USS Vincennes.
gerry erbsleben So what? That just means you can fly a plane. You’re not an engineer designing these damn things. You’re not a physicist either! If you think hundreds of sailors would keep quite about something like this for over 2 decades when even a private blow job was leaked nearly right away, you’re just delusional. The NTSB report says it all. It’s your problem if you choose not to believe it.
When undertakes a rating on an aircraft, a basic engineering and systems knowledge is required. One does not have to be a physicist to understand that if there was no fuel in the tank with the pumps off there can e no explosion. The 747 200 can carry 160 tons of fuel. 60 in the cwt. There was adequate fuel in the main tanks to conduct a transatlantic flight without the requirement for fuel in the cwt. Eyewitness testimony. If you care to research; the USS Vincennes was responsible for downing an Iranian airliner. The IFF failed to resolve an Iranian F14 Tomcat and selected the airliner instead. A failure of this system is probably responsible for TWA 800. No issues here then of keeping the crew and government (NTSB included) quiet. Don't accept everything the media throws at you at face value. This your problem. You are however entitled to your opinion.
@@theredbaron1043 IF YOU'RE SAYING YOU ARE A 747 PILOT, THEN YOUR CHIEF PILOT NEEDS A CHECK RIDE. YOU KNOW NOTHING ABOUT WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT! IT'S YOUR OPINION, AND QUITE FRANKLY OFFENSIVE TO PEOPLE WHO KNOW FIRST HAND WHAT HAPPENED, AND WHO HAVE LOST FAMILY MEMBERS AND FRIENDS. THAT WOULD INCLUDE ME! THE LOSS OF TWA 800 WAS NOTHING MORE THAN A CATASTROPHIC MECHANICAL FAILURE, DUE TO THE EXPLOSION OF THE CENTER TANK, WHICH RESULTED IN THE SUBSEQUENT BREAKUP OF THE AIRCRAFT! PERIOD!
"Holy Crow!, this is off the charts" ....okay leave it to beaver, watch your language there....holy smokes. Where did they get this freaking actor? The way he speaks (his words and emphasis) is not how anyone would naturally talk.
Heyyy I’m a new RUclipsr who’s trying to accomplish her dream of becoming a popular creator. Please help me to reach that goal by supporting my channel!!
Let's start with the assumption that it was NOT a missal and try to prove a random theory from there, that's never happened before on a million other flights...
Yes. The NTSB "exploding Kerosene tank" is a ridiculous and unfounded argument, and which we proved such, in federal court. its IMPOSSIBLE to 'detonate' a 747 fuel tank with a spark. like its impossible to cook a steak in the freezer. CANT HAPPEN.
@@ey7290 Wow! You are a 'science smith' aren't ya! But unfortunately, you are 'Not' an Aviation Expert... as am I, (former U.S. NAVY AVIATION BOATSWAIN.) nor do you understand the physics and chemistry involved in the situation. 'Aviation Kerosene' or 'jet fuel', is an extremely stable and non volatile fuel. That means that Jet fuel is very hard to ignite; about as hard to ignite, as a jar of peanut butter. 'Aviation kerosene' is Not a Flammable, but a Combustible liquid. It has a very high Flash point, but 'Flash point' does not mean HIGH ENERGY detonation. Not as the NTSB had errantly theorized that it was like a bomb. The "vapors" contain very very very little energy.... thus if your idea (which its not) was right, then every time they tried to start a jet engine, it would blow apart. Jet fuel which is Kerosene, is a Combustible. It has to Be 'misted' (as it is inside the engine) in order to burn. You can lite matches or make sparks all day long, but you are not going to get Kerosene vapors to 'detonate' with the power of a bomb. Here are a few educational video's for you. ruclips.net/video/7nL10C7FSbE/видео.html / ruclips.net/video/EYFF_1HSgDU/видео.html
I like how he talking to us as we’re part of investigation
Yeah really helps to make you feel like you're part of the investigation.
123 likes
jal 123 has left the chat
Yikes.. that was one of the most terrifying plane crash that ever existed.
Its a good format. They should use it more often 😁
It was a missile that brought it down! BIG government coverup!
>let's do a test flight to see if these conditions made the plane explode
>test flight explodes
There was no fuel in the sensored tank
*surprised Pikachu face*
*and then they don’t have any proof because the plane exploded*
I was waiting for that like when he went to put the phone on the holder just BOOM💥
>lets test the circumstances that led to the test flights' crash that went to test another flight crash.
Jesus, that test they did was super dangerous.
TheGr8stManEvr was thinking the same thing lol
TheGr8stManEvr There was no fuel in the sensored tank.
please explain more of your thoughts. thanks.
Was it though? How many 747's had, to that point, operated in hot weather with the air conditioning packs working full blast, and how many had exploded?
I can never understand what everyone means by..."the AC units running or working full blast".... Is that suppose to make it sound 'scarier' ?? The Air pack operates at one level. 'On.' there is no 'full blast'. lol... and Hot weather is moot, as well. unless the weather was at full blast! lol....
"I think this is how they crashed, lemme do the exact thing real quick to check"
Bruh what about simulation hangers
Comrade Stalin no fuel in the selective tanks.
Don't think they could simulate the altitude. Ambient temp drops the higher the altitude.
It was a missile strike that destroyed the plane because this test did NOT destroy the plane they tested it on.
Comrade Stalin right. I was like... so you’re gonna recreate the same thing that blew them up with you in it??? That’s dedication.
A short circuit in the wiring made its way into the fuel tank
Me: **Looks at my air conditioner**
**Softly** "Don't"
5 seconds later:
FBI OPEN UP!!
Air conditioner: alright sorry
Imagine having the same accident in the test. And then another NTSB group try to find why the test crashed, and they do the same test again. And it crashes again. We then have a massive extinction of NTSB Agents.
Lol
They could not duplicate in the UK The NTSB with a static B747-100
With their mass extinction.. new jobs would be created
@@Highflight1000because UK did not have C!A
“According to Boeing”
Oh here we go again
Boeing actually provided data contrary to the NTSB demands for 'a tank issue'.. we sued the NTSB in court and proved NTSB fraud.
@@robshef718 Ok then, what made plane go BOOM? (any mention of a missile will be laughed at)
Heyyy I’m a new RUclipsr who’s trying to accomplish her dream of becoming a popular creator. Please help me to reach that goal by supporting my channel!!
@@djlawlz4041 NO and stop begging
@@djlawlz4041 Your content is boring and self-centred. This isn't TikTok or Instagram, make interesting videos if you want subscribers, not vlogs of your boring life.
You know it’s good when you are watching this using inflight Wi-Fi on an airplane
Then it explodes lol
How was your flight?
Meh, im too cheao for the wifi and prefer my security. Ill just use cell signal. Also have fun dialing 911 at 6 miles about the tower and going 300mph
Actually there was no wifi as the accident happened in 1996
@@annetteslife Gavin Li1117 meant that like Right now he/she was watching this on an airplane in 2019 with wifi of the plane
Gotta love the KLM 737s at JFK Airport
Yeah lol. Might as well just add some Qantas 737s and some other 737s
You do know what an INTERNATIONAL airport is????
'I' never said that a '737 could fly from the Netherlands to America'. Where, did you get 'that' from? lol.
Rob Shef well then what were you implying
No, what are You implying? lol.... FYI: your assumption was based on (as you said) and after you insulted my intelligence....when 'You' said, "737's can't fly from the Netherlands to America'... Actually they can, but then You would not know this, which is what makes my job fun. So, seeing a KLM 737 at JFK is not some 'mystery'. :)
"This is off the charts"
*Digital readings with no chart lines* : Pikachu face
Gonna assume sarcasm but please tell me if it wasn't?
@@RedfootAllAmericanAnthro it's called a joke
@@tomato-v8x lol thank you I had assumed it was but that day I dealt with two people for most of the day who refused to joke so i was a bit uncertain on assuming at thay point in time
@@RedfootAllAmericanAnthro no worries lol, some people in the youtube comment section can be quite a hassle sometimes 😂
Years ago the military required their planes to have the space as the fuel level dropped to be filled w/ non- flammable nitrogen.. Commercial airliners were also mandated to have this system after flight 800.. Whether or not it was a missile it did improve airliner safety.
Actually all boeing aircraft built after 1969 have this nitrogen feature for filling the tanks. It's actually a filter that filters out the larger oxygen molecules of air filling the tank. That info comes from a buddy of mine who has worked on those planes for almost 50 years in Dallas Texas. So, no explosion was possible.
@@KBS117 Then why did they change to the military version of explosive gases management? Because the filters system wasn't as good as hoped, that's why. This from the head of AirCanada's maintenance dept. @ an EAA 486 guest speaker event, about 7 years ago... I was president of the chapter at the time.
@@robertquick6690 I agree, but the point is this, no spark is possible in that tank, and if it is, the wasn't any fuel in it. The previous pilot states he had pumped the tank completely dry, into the wing tanks.. then we have the heat issue on the ac systems. They cannot heat the fuel that hot as they have a 140 degree max operating temp before they shut down, and the pilot has to reset the ac system to function after it cools down. Then we have ignition. For jet fuel to blow up takes the perfect ratio of air fuel mixture in the tank. Too much oxygen and it just burns, not enough, you get no ignition. We know this plane had nitrogen filters on the tanka, so maybe some oxygen did get past the filter, but it could never be enough for ignition.
You add all that up, and I say it was 1 chance in a million. I used to build bombs out of 2 liter plastic jugs and used acetylene and oxygen for the explosion. I made hundreds of these as a teen ager and even built a canon.. I can tell you, it takes a perfect mixture to get an explosion.. and acetylene is way more volatile than jet fuel. And I tried using gasoline and oxygen and I never got that combo to explode. I burnt some jugs trying, but I never blew one up.. just saying, blowing that tank is next to impossible.
This makes me think of the SR-71
Actually, that model plane was modified in 1969 to have those nitrogen filters on the tanks. So, this plane had nitrogen in those empty tanks.
Nobody:
Not a single soul:
NTSB: *we need to prove fuel is flammable*
JET FUEL is not a Flammable, but a Combustible Liquid. signed: former US NAVY Aviation Boatswain. :)
I was just thinking this whole thing is a lie. I done 100 different storys from ppl who wasn't there. Yet ppl who actually saw it say the same thing🤔 who in the fuck do you think I'm going to believe now 😭 it was shit down
@@robshef718 you obviously don't know anything about chemistry.
lol.... So, please. *Do tell us* everything _you_ know about Aviation kerosene and _your_ professional experience with it!
@@GiordanDiodato its not flammable, but its combustible.
If if gets mixed with air, BOOM.
"Jet fuel isn't flammable in its liquid form" my life is a lie
However on another plane crash, it helps disprove the crackpots.
The way Kerosene *does* burn is in explosive flash fires..
Which explains the explosions New Yorkers heard on 9/11.
That and the fact that the planes (which are aluminium) were melting (due to the floors above collapsing on the burning planes, creating an impromptu furnace), and melted aluminium explodes *violently* when it comes into contact with water.. which would have come form the pipes the planes absolutely broke.
Jet fuel has to be atomized before it becomes flammable. You can throw a lit match into a bucket of jet fuel and it will put the match out. I'm a pilot. I've seen it firsthand in a demonstration performed by our local airport's Crash, Fire, and Rescue.
@@georgemallory797 diesel is the same way..
It is not the liquid that burns. It is the vapour.
I think they should implement more of the "investigator taking to the camera a.k.a the viewers". It makes the viewers feel like their engage with the investigators, almost like we're also the investigator. I really like it.
What great acting!! Hey idiots absorb this propaganda!!!! So what? You still need oxygen and a spark.
cringe
It's like Red Alert games all over again
@@ChaklitTea shut up 🤣
@@ChaklitTea no u
Makes you wonder, did he say "Well, this is interesting. We are right" or did he say when he realized the danger say "Land the plane! Land it! For the love of God land this plane!! Mommy! Mommy! Land the plane!!Aaiiueeree!!!!"
3:12 “holy crow”
I haven't heard that phrase since the early 80s.
@@tomservo5007 Bruhhhhhhh I heard like 1 year ago
I think my grandpa must have been on the investigation team.
@@khonwang6263 its funny cause you said like
Heyyy I’m a new RUclipsr who’s trying to accomplish her dream of becoming a popular creator. Please help me to reach that goal by supporting my channel!!
NTSB Investigator 1: "Holy smokes, I think I discovered an extremely dangerous flaw in this aircraft's design!"
NTSB Investigator 2: "Really? that's fascinating! Are you thinking what I'm thinking?"
NTSB Investiagor 1: Flashes evil smile - "You mean, let's get another airline, duplicate the exact conditions with all us NTSB Investigators onboard?"
NTSB Investigator 2: "YES! YES! YES!"
Both NTSB Investigators leap out of their seats, grab hands and skip merrily down the hallways, the other NTSB staff violently tilt their heads back laughing hysterically.
Boi you put too much effort on that comment
Sounds like a pretty normal day at the NTSB to me.
investiagor
Boi that's so many comment
Was there a point?
They took down the full episode. RIP
Why
Oceanbrave u have to buy it
Props to the people who were brave enough to go on the test flight though.
Why? The so called "flight test was fake science, and not based in anything factual.
@@robshef718 Aircraft Manufacturers save billions of dollars by calming some missile was responsible
@@robshef718
Hi again, in a previous thread I asked for evidence of your claim the fuel vapors couldn't explode. I cited a bunch of evidence. Still waiting for yours. :)
@@robshef718 OH MY GOSH YOUR EVEN HERE FROM THE ANIMATION, ITS LIKE YOUR A VIRUS.
People have been brave enough to get on 747s for decades.
After watching all these videos I'm not sure if I want to get onto a plane
The problem has been solved. The aviation industry learns from it's mistakes.
You’re much safer flying now than in 1996 when this happened
You are more likely to die at the hands of another motorist than on a plane
YouGotRickRolled facts I’m not sure if I do wanna fly to ny I’m from my but I’m out of the city and I wanna fly back but I’m not sure if I wanna get back on a plane
There is a saying I learned in aviation. “Policies are written in blood”
So shit has to happen unfortunately
0:25 "Let's start with the first one..... (dramatic pause) -- Flammability." DUN DUN DUNNNNN!
The guy in the video is an actor as well as an idiot. Jet Fuel or Aviation kerosene is NOT a Flammable, but a 'Combustible' liquid.....which in the 747 fuel tank never can become 'heated' to its flash point. The rest is JUNK SCIENCE....and the video is factually Incorrect. Dun dun dunnnnnnn.
@@robshef718 "Commercial jet fuel is a pale yellow liquid with a petroleum odor. It has an auto-ignition temperature of 410°F (210°C). Its explosive limits are from 0.6 to 4.7 percent by volume in air. Coupled with its flash point, this means that at 100°F there is enough vapor in the air to reach the lower explosive limit so that even if an ignition source is not present and the fuel reaches a temperature of 410°F (and this is considerably below all common ignition sources), an explosion will occur."
Source: www.fireengineering.com/2002/10/01/244558/jet-fuel/
Why would a documentary need acting? And why poor acting?
I still prefer original or stock footage.
Exactly! I mean at least make it look realistic if you are going to act it out.
Right cause if a plane crashes in the middle of the ocean I’ll be waiting for it there to record it
It's more a tv show than a documentary. Besides, documentaries are not really the standard for truth in the media.
God guys, it's a cheap tv channel... Chill out
@@sonotswifty - But why did they "'have to' recreate those scenes" in the first place? Is everyone so hooked on info-tainment that they must watch produced re-creations to experience the drama of past events? I just finished reading the NTSB transcripts of the CVR recovered from Alaska Airlines flight 261 after it crashed into the Pacific - killing all 88 aboard - because of a seized mechanical jack screw designed to actuate the horizontal stabilizer. There is more tension and distress in the printed words of that transcript than any 're-creation' imaginable, regardless of how theatrical it may be.
Why am I binge watching these videos?
It's more binge worthy as hell's kitchen
@@mulsanne1 It's more binge worthy than MLP:FIM
You’re nostalgic for National Geographic’a Mayday/Air Crash Investigation series
Ur nort alone
640k views yet no comments? MAKES SENSE
Next they should do one on jet fuel and steel beams
Or Zyklon B staining concrete
there is no steal beams in any airplane. plane beams are made or aluminum and titanium or both
@@hassangoli8080 It's a 9/11 conspiracy joke
nathan V 👍. WTC 7 = Flight 800 = BS = government coverups.
r/wooosh
not a SINGLE commercial airliner before or since this event has ever spontaneously exploded mid-air. planes had been sitting on far hotter tarmacs with their AC units running in places like egypt and dubai and didnt explode. i highly doubt this happened due to a fuel tank explosion.
Look up: ' Ray Lahr/ motion/PDF ' Then look up ' Ray Lahrs FOIA lawsuit against the NTSB ' Pass it along.
Yes, this fake investigation is garbage. The plans was hit with misses that failed to abort. Navy boats launched them.
How else do you think safety regulations come to be dickhead?
Look up the report. Something hit the L3 door and caused 19 small holes. Sure sounds seems like it was something on the outside. Whats explosive and causes small holes after it detonates? I can't think of one thing. I'm going to go watch Behind Enemy Lines now.
I believe it was debris from the high altitude holographic missile fired from bombs attached to the bottom of flight 11 in tandem with the planted explosives in tower 7. Not to mention to possibility of a 2nd gunman contributing to what was seen in frame 314
These vids are so addicting
Temperature drops 2 degrees for every 1k altitude. At 14k, A/C could be relaxed.
sillyone52062 they said most of the ac working time was several hours before take-off
That's assuming standard ICAO atmosphere is in place, which is basically never.
@@intorsusvolo7834 Yes every plane does that everywhere in the world since the dawn of time. If the aircraft is about to fly another leg it runs on its own ac, power etc for most of the turnaround.
NY at 8pm isn't that hot. AC wasn't under stress. They simply lie.
After American Airlines 191 crashed all DC-10s were grounded. Why weren't all 747s grounded after TWA 800, if the accident was due to a fuel tank issue. It's so transparent, my dead and blind relatives can see it.
....because no other missiles hit any other 747 planes.
@@trueknowledgeispower Because no missile hit any 747 whatsoever.
The 747 involved was to be scrapped the following year. This is how the 747-100s finished (I think the last one was broken up in 2000). The other 747s were more recent and not known to present this electrical problem. Also, airline industry fell upon the solution in 1997 : since then carriers fill the nearly empty tanks with nitrogen, replacing oxygen, so no blaze or explosion can occur. Nitrogen is also used to inflate tires for the same reason.
TWA flight 800 went down during a clear summer night off NYC's east coast. There were many people out and about that night; many of whom saw a streak of light go up into the sky and then an explosion. The US Navy was conducting exercises that night off the east coast.
If you haven’t seen it, check out the current article at American Thinker.
Please please.... The NAVY was 185 miles south but not firing missiles. That rumor interferes with other info that most 'need' to ignore. it kills the sensationalism though. It has made Videos and has sold books due to premature distribution, but who is going to write a book and make a video and then have to 'back track'???
You do realize that the plane was at 15,000 feet? That means the plane was more than 2.5 miles high. The plane was also several miles off the coast of Long Island. Light is faster than sound. At the time you heard the explosion, the plane had already blown up about 20 seconds beforehand. Looking up, the contrails would have been illuminated by the setting sun, seen the explosion which had happened about 20 seconds beforehand, the plane already split in half with the nose falling and the rest of the plane out of control going upward.
@@robshef718 The explosion of the mid fuel tank. After that went off, it weakened the front of the airframe, causing the nose to sheer off. The engines were throttled up, so as the plane lost significant weight it initially pitched upwards and climbed.
@@easternyellowjacket276 why do you assume that people had to be alerted by sound before seeing this happen? Back before cell (phones), BC, people actually observed their environment and had a modicum of situational awareness. Those days are in the past, but it’s an interesting historical note. Now of course sheeple only look down and follow the feet of the sheeple in front of them.
Next up "could this chicken coming cause the AC too explode
I haven't read any of them, but I'm guessing there are a lot of bat shit-crazy theories if I were to scroll down.
scroll up.....lol....
Rob Shef wot
@@robshef718 is THE fucking conspiracytard on this video.
@@robshef718 that because your the crazy theorist that thinks the plane just blown up from a missle that was from the navy with best source being humans a totally reliable source.
I never said that the plane was blown up by the navy? *Like ripping a band aid off* :)
They really need to quit, that plane was shot out of the sky..period
Visit where the accident aircraft is. There’s no way it was a missile. They even have the remains of the fuel tank that exploded.
@@Powerranger-le4up there was literally a Navy ship practicing weapon tests with SAMs in the vicinity and after the plane went down it bounced. There were hundreds of witnesses. This plane WAS shot down by a missile.
@@noahtek1101 um the Normandy ship wasn’t even in range your argument is invalid
@@noahtek1101The US military is not known for being very hush with their accidental shoot downs, so I’d say there is good reason to believe it wasn’t a shoot down if they deny it dickhead
More coverup BS. Since the 747-100 had a positive fuel tank venting system, and the aircraft had been airborne for over 12 minutes at the time of the explosion, it is unlikely that ANY "explosive vapor" existed in TWA 800s Center Section Tank when the aircraft exploded. As a TWA 747 Captain, I flew the 747 for months after 800 went down. The “fix” was to carry a minimum of 10,000# in that tank as “unusable” fuel as I remember. We flew it from STL to HNL in the summer. There was NO restriction on using the a/c packs on the ground or in flight.
Thank You. And what most peeps in here cant figure out... (and I was a US Navy Aircraft Handler and Fire Fighter and worked with aviation kerosene) is that Jet fuel IS NOT a flammable liquid but a COMBUSTIBLE liquid who's Flash point is very high and that the fuel is extremely stable and very low in volatility. Its properties just cannot allow for such a powerful and high energy explosion that would blow in half, the strongest plane ever built! it was a missile!
Since the claim is the ac units that heated up the fuel, then why it didnt explode on the ground where temperature is higher alongside oxygen rather than 15000ft with colder temp and less oxygen
@@ChaklitTea Of course anyone who has half a brain knows that the plane did not 'just blow up' . And the 'AC' unit DOES NOT provide any appreciable heat into the tank, as it is designed not too! It was a missile.
All eyewitnesses: “It was a missile”
Smithsonian: “air conditioning”
The speed of sound is the disqualifier for the witnesses. They didn’t look up until they heard the bang. The fuselage/wings and tail jetted straight up into the air for several thousand feet just after the bang. When they looked up they would have seen a fire streak racing upward at 400 miles per hour. Would have looked like a missle
@@steveo601 the ex-Vietnam combat pilot who saw the smoke trail leading up to and impacting the plane and who was the first aircraft to investigate the incident claims it was a missile. He even stated that multiple explosions occurred before it went down, and his experience in war zones gave him the ability to distinguish the difference between the fuel on the plane exploding, and an explosion from an explosive such as a missile warhead.
I like that one! Now of course it was [a missile] as the FAA tracked it, and reported it up the chain. And the machinists union reported the external impact on the plane. The NTSB had other plans. That an 'AC' blew a plane in half. What next?
@@steveo601 You need to go back to skewl. The speed of your brain needs fixin.
So the plane was delayed for 2 hours and with the air conditionars right below the center fuel tank and the ac when up to 300 degress and that vapored the fuel making it very easy to catch fire and with the aging electrical system of the 747-131 bundles wires mixed with high voltage wires and low voltage wires some are so warm they can short circuit. High voltage went to where it shouldnt go. Seconds later it went to the fuel probe and then it blew up.
This is all very interesting, but the cruise missile spotted by the 200 witnesses who called the FBI and the two photographs of it probably helped as a contributing factor 😂
Ok, so Now we have a Cruise missile in the theory?? next, what...an ICBM???
Except nobody saw a missile and there aren’t any photographs of it. 🤦♂️
So the plane was delayed for 2 hours and with the air conditionars right below the center fuel tank and the ac when up to 300 degress and that vapored the fuel making it very easy to catch fire and with the aging electrical system of the 747-131 bundles wires mixed with high voltage wires and low voltage wires some are so warm they can short circuit. High voltage went to where it shouldnt go. Seconds later it went to the fuel probe and then it blew up.
Also the fbi agreed with the ntsb later.
@@Ultimaton100 Accept thousands saw several of the missiles, and (ready for the bomb) The FAA Radar has a missile on radar (per court documents and statements from the FAA managers in court documents) and...The 'machinists' in their report, make it clear that an EXTERNAL event, impacting the left wing root, is what started the break-up of the plane. You are so welcome!
Wow some people just tried to keep cool then *KABOOM* Really Sad....
I'm sorry, but air conditioning did not cause this. They came up with a hypothesis that fitted enough of the facts and chose that as the cause. They did not sit on a hitherto unknown fatal problem with 747s for four years either.
"Something created a spark to ignite the fuel..." Yeah, like a surface to air missile
the plane was not downed by a SAM warhead (as the initiating event.) The missile theory would be moot given that the warhead (had that been the case) would trump the fuel, so the 'fuel exploding' is negligible.
bluehorseshoe444 lol
bluehorseshoe444 A damaged wire in the tank caused the spark.
and where did you come up with that crazy theory? Oh, that's right...the NTSB..... which stands for 'Not The Smartest Bunch!'....
Rob Shef They found proof by reconstructing the plane and doing tedious, lengthy, ming-boggingly critical examinations. And what have you dont to prove your "theory?" Think?
"How Air Conditioning Caused TWA Flight 800 to Explode" - That is the biggest pile of bull______ I have ever heard!!!!!
Thank You..... Pass this along: twa800.com/news/nlj-9-18-06.htm
twa800.com/lahr/motion.pdf
twa800.com/lahr/affidavits/x-ray-lahr.pdf
I saw the actual Mayday episode and when they did the test I thought,"oh my goodness don't blow up!"
Theory is wrong.
Only a moron, non pilot would believe this.
Gotta respect those people who went up to do the test
I respect more the NAVY sailors who did not detonate their missile before killing innocent people.
I also commend the NAVY testing air-to-air ordinance right off shore of a major godamn airport.
Negligence or on purpose.
Either way, all sailors involved should be sent to GITMO.
That would bring the high-ranking rats out of the shadows.
You gotta do what you gotta do
That's not true. Fuel is NOT flammable. Temperature in N Y at 8pm wasn't that high to put high pressure on the AC system. July, 8pm temp is 28c at NY. A missile hit that plane. Don't make some fools of us.
ruclips.net/video/7nL10C7FSbE/видео.html
then:
ruclips.net/video/EYFF_1HSgDU/видео.html
Don’t believe everything you are being fed.
www.raylahr.com/Cert-Pet-4-21-10.pdf
I want to say thank you for creating this episode, my great uncle and cousin passed away from this disaster. My cousin was 16 when he died, the oldest. My uncle was beloved to our family, and inspired my father to pursue his current passions. I thank my uncle for inspiring my father and making my life better because of it. I’m thankful because there’s so many rumors about what happened, including a conspiracy that it was caused by a U.S. missile striking the plane. My family is a military family. My uncle was the son of a WW2 veteran who helped free the prisoners of concentration camps. Such a theory is offensive and breaks the hearts of my family members. Science outweighs conspiracy.
im so sorry for your loss 💔
"Air conditioning" aka missile
AKA air conditioning
@@Willaev aka missile....
@@kirilmihaylov1934 AKA air conditioning
?
An air conditioning unit would make an ineffective missile.
While it has enough mass to cause serious damage at high speed an air conditioning unit couldn't really get airbourne.
Why?
Its not aerodynamic - big square sides mean high air resistance: requiring more fuel to accelerate and limiting manueverabiltiy
Its heavy: requiring more fuel to accelerate it
More fuel equal more weight: requiring more fuel, which adds weight
Its not practical to launch from the surface: this would require far more fuel than an air launch
It really has to be carried inside an aircraft: limiting the launch platforms for your air conditioning unit missile
Conclusion: Air conditioning units make impractical missiles. Please clarify whether you wish to bulk order missiles or air conditioners from your local Boeing subsidiary
If you research the paranormal hypnotherapist Dr. Bruce Goldberg his
book "Self Hypnosis" refers to a story of a woman who used hypnosis to see a
premonition of a trip in which she planned booking a flight to be on TWA
Flight 800. In the premonition she saw that the flight was doomed
killing everyone including her. So she changed her travel plans and
lived. I've always wonder if the creators of Final Destination aware
and inspired by this story.
The center fuel wing tank got overheated and filled with flammable fuel vapors that bent the wiring and then all that was needed was a spark to set off that deadly tragic explosion which is indeed what happened on that night.
The plane was not shot down by a missal
This was the only 4th wall break I’ve ever seen in a Smithsonian video, but very well done.
If this is true, then it really was a million-to-one shot that the heat actually accumulated to blow up the plane or ignite a spark or a short circuit. . . . I remain dubious.
It did not occur. IT Cant occur. PERIOD! There can NEVER be a catastrophic explosion from KEROSENE 'Vapors'...... 'Jet Fuel' is NOT a flammable.... but a 'combustible liquid', and has a very high flash point and low volatility. No spark can 'detonate VAPORS' like that. If that was the case, then every time you tried to start the jet engine, it would blow apart! Anyway, we took the NTSB to court over this and our experts impeached the NTSB report for Fraud! A judge Agreed. But the Fake news who gets $$$$$$$$ off, wont tell you about the lawsuit. They will all get to share stories about this in hell with the NTSB.
@@robshef718 No, it wouldn't blow up every time you start the engine, because there's no spark to ignite it unlike here in TWA's case.
@@thisperson2517 If you own a modern gasoline powered car you have an electric fuel pump with wires in your tank. I have seen the wires burn in two and no explosion. This is gasoline not kerosene. Do you worry about that?
Sounds insane to do a test like that .
Hahaha, fuel reaches 200 degrees all the time in my semi truck and it never blows up. 127 is nothing... no oxygen in those tanks prevent explosions, and no wiring either... one of my high school buddies has been an A&P tech for the 747 for years, and he says anytime they enter a fuel tank on the 747, they have to wear oxygen packs, as those tanks are full of nitrogen.. no oxygen in them at all.
I have 2 first cousins flying people 747's , and all of them laugh at the f.b.i's findings.. of course, most 747 and 757's are outdated and retired now..
@@KBS117 fuel quantity indication probes are there no?
@@cruisertechgt they have resistance meters to measure fuel levels. All wiring going into the fuel area are guarded by diodes. The diodes prevent electrical current from feeding into the fuel area, while allowing ground resistance metering from the probe to connect to the gauges. Then the 757 has 2 a/c units on that plane. Both will shut down when they get too hot.. the pilots will have to reset them once they cool down. The biggest problems is fuel jelling from getting too cold at high altitude.. heat is constantly applied to the fuel to keep it warm.. the fuel in my semi truck tanks reaches 180 degrees in the summer, as the fuel also cools the injectors and pump. 127 degrees on an oil based fuel does not scare me at all.. never seen a semi truck blow up..
@@KBS117 great explanation thank you!
Boing knew oxygen in the fuel tanks on these planes was a hazard. In 1969 they redesigned the center fuel tank on these planes, adding nitrogen generators to fill these tank with nitrogen as the fuel was sucked out. This eliminates any explosion hazard. This plane was built in 71, and it had the updated center fuel tank. The fbi is covering the navy shooting down this plane. The navy had fired 2 misses at drones that day, flight 800 had violated the navy's safe zone, and both missiles targeted the 747. I'm told the first missile targeted engine 3. The second one went into the center fuel tank and blew the nose off the plane. The facts are out there... my info comes from my best friend, who has been an a&p technician on the 747 and 757 for 35 years. He laughs at the fbi's report.
I sent an email to the FBI back then, though as a non-American I didn't know what else to do or whom to contact with information. I was a passenger on the previous flight, seat 14A (or 12A - my memory still puzzles me on that). My seat was the only one that had a leak from the overhead A/C system while we were waiting 2 hours for takeoff. A greenish liquid that messed up my shirt and the flight attendant said they could replace my shirt, though I never asked. The leak stopped when we took off.
When I heard about the accident I also heard that the airplane split in around the area of my seat.
Wow that’s sounds real
Pilot: ay fam it’s kinda hot in here lemme turn on the Air conditi-
If this is all true, it begs the question; why wasn't the 747 fleet grounded?? Hmmmm.......
They didnt ground them, because they could not find an ignition source in any of the other identical planes. They could only make recommendations to prevent the fuel from vaporizing.
Yeah the whole thing smells of bs
That is one dedicated investigator.
Next up: Jet Fuel Can Melt Steel Beams
pretty much how the wtc fell
They didn’t have to melt 🤡
How do I watch the full Episode?This seems like shorten summary of the actual vdo.Can anyone help?
Hmmm, let's do the same thing to see if we will DIE! Madness.
I would say;
"....thanks for a good investigation, now we can secure the airline.... you are fired!"
It takes more than a spark to ignite fuel. It takes oxygen. The tank interior is designed, of course, to exclude oxygen, and carries a positive vapor pressure. Or no engineer would run a wire through it.
Yep...and besides that, the center tank by design, never, or can never reach its Flash point.... and this by reason of many Architectural and Physics reasons. In the most cases, due to the tanks venting, the tank is well into the lean arena, and it is difficult to ignite Aviation Kerosene anyway. It is a Combustible liquid, Not a Flammable liquid. The NTSB was cited in Federal court for fraud, and Junk Science.
Rob Shef we got an expert here👏🏻
And why should I take the word of RUclips commenters over the word of the NTSB (which is a government agency).
@@criticalmaster9526 definitely don't do that. You should absolutely believe everything the government tells you without question, as they are right 100% therefore individual thought and expression are unneccesarry. Also beep boop beep robot
@@adriangoodman8901 So, you're claiming I'm just a "bot account" just because I don't agree with your conspiracy theory?! You know what?! I'm done talking to brainwashed people like you! Don't expect to hear any more replies from me!
Just like final destination when the plane exploded in the air🤧but this is sad
Malaysia’s World final destination is inspired by this sad crash
That’s cause Vólee Air Flight 180 from Final Destination was confirmed to be based off of TWA Flight 800.
The real TWA flight 800 also had highschool kids on board taking a class trip to Paris
I think this crash inspired Final Destination. But I'm not 100% sure.
@@pollypockets508 It did, but the least we can see is the movie was pretty far from what actually happened during TWA 800.
How to make a cover up? Just create a daytime movie out of the incident then Hollywoodize the details 🤦🏻♂️ Scary how they get the Smithsonian to sign off and back it, now anyone who does the actual math is crazy.. 🤷🏻♂️
*It was a missile, and NO ONE is going to silence me with threats!*
You must be fun at parties
@@CarbonMonoxxide
If you only knew.
@@thomasg4324 no thanks, I’m full.
@@CarbonMonoxxide
Oh I wasn't offering.
Blah blah blah
The recreation with the corny acting really detracts from this.
seconds from disaster is better watch it
Watching these videos is making me realise and is also genuinely convincing me that practically every single thing inside an aircraft can make it crash (not good news!). From an autopilot system with a mind of its own, to a freaking airconditioner?!
@Robi Shefran do you even know which flight I was referring to? Because it definitely did not involve 2 airliners......
You need to stop jumping to conclusions and making assumptions on people's comments before gathering the full information on these things.
@@tasha3757 Still, two airliners fell victims of these flaws, but with 6 years between each other.
Or a stereo system inside the walls.
Those a/c units have a high temp cutoff of 120 degrees, and the flight engineer has to reset the ac unit once it cools down. No way it heated the empty tank hot enough for ignition. I have a friend who has been an A and P mechanic on those planes for 40 years. I have 2 cousins who have flown those jets millions of miles. They all laugh at the fbi story. Since 1969 all those planes were retrofitted with filters that scrub the oxygen molecules from the incoming air into those fuel tanks. There was no oxygen in that tank!!!! No explosion possible!!!! Plus the crew before them had pumped the center tank completely dry, no fuel in that tank for an explosion. Spark? From bad wiring? Are you frigging kidding me? Every circuit on that plane has a breaker, and the wires in that tank is diode protected.. 3 strikes and you are out.
@@julosx in that 6 years the FAA installed oxygen scrubbing filters on the fuel tanks of every jet in the world. Oxygen cannot get into those tanks. No explosion is possible, now.. the first one yes, it did happen
But I have a doubt
As you go higher in altitude,the temperature should start to drop outside the aircraft and should initially cool the tanks
How did it reach 127F???
This was internal under the center fuel tank... Getting Hot...
Did you watch the Video? They Show and explain what & how by the A/C unit in the center of the Plain where the fuselage and wings meet is where the center fuel tank and A/C unit heated up to over 200 degrees or more past the flash point of the fuel. Not a missile as one's think.. Heat!
What Missile????
Some Guy, come on it was over 45K feet high.. Look at the Video and learn...
@@quasicode6954 "fuel doesn't explode like this"
But it does.
At 14,000 ft., the outside temp was just too high and cold to vaporize the fuel oil. The outside temp MUST be taken as a factor and NOT ignored.
They also ignored the air content inside the fuel tank. Fuel needs a certain amount of oxygen to explode.
@@mach6893 you forgot that it takes hot air from the engines and cools it down
@@jonahmoran3751 True, and that's how the fuel vapors reached ignition temperature.
It wasn’t a fuel tank problem. 😂 It was a missile strike.
Actually it makes the ignition point lower.
Sorry....my buddy was out jogging that night.......and he saw this video....known him for 40 years...as he said....he knows what he saw....not gonna change his mind...
So, to test if a plane exploded in mid air, the investigators boarded a plane and replicated the EXACT same conditions in mid air?
Talk about dedication.
No actually it was to merely make up fake data for the NTSB fake report.
Yeah, it wasn't the AC
Thank You.....
nice tin foil hat.
it was not the 'air conditioner', if that is what is troubling you.
@@robshef718 it wasn’t the air conditioning it was the faulty wiring that was repaired with duct tape (really dumb) that allows high voltage current to jump to low voltage wiring which the low voltage wire went into the fuel tank and short circuited from the extra voltage.
Boeing: "Ah well it could never get that hot."
Boeing 2019: "Ah well, MCAS would never overcorrect, so let's not tell our pilots of its existence."
Boeing 2022, files for bankruptcy: "Ah well, it was a good run."
now talk about a 'conspiracy' kook. You fit the bill. get your facts..... 'before'.....
Smithsonian, that paragon of objectivity.
you are being a wise guy....right?
"According to Boeing ...." Well there's your problem right there.
Jet fuel is not a flammable liquid. Rut roh..
Not sure about kerosene but the combustion chamber of a diesel engine exceeds 400 degrees for the fuel to ignite.
My dad's dad's ex girlfriend's classmates dog"s old owner's uncle's wife was on that Plane. Respects to her soul.
So the uncle of your supposed grandma's friend?
Still working on this cover-up. Witnesses saw a missle
D W Which witnesses? “Which” is the operative word here.
Kim Jong-un Hey fatty...sup?
@@starventure long time ago. I was only 40. Witness in boats off the coast of NY
What about all the witnesses that saw the missile? They had no reason to lie. What about all the positive tests for explosive nitrates? What about all the shotgun type holes in the plane?
All 'explained away"....You know how that goes.
It was proven and explained many times over that what the witnesses saw was an optical illusion, there weren’t any positive tests for explosive nitrates, and the holes in the wreckage were from bits of the interior that blew out like shrapnel in the initial explosion.
Over a dozen witnesses saw an optical illusion. Hahahaha!
@@easy3088 Yes, that’s literally how optical illusions work… anyone can see them… 🤷♂️
@@Ultimaton100 mass Histaria. Ok dude.
They lie to you about everything, said A retired airforce person.
Uh... Boeing has put its air conditioning packs underneath the centre tank for years. Every model it’s made with the exception of the 787 which uses a different system is like that.
The air for the air conditioning pack is at 350F whether it’s being used to heat or cool the plane. That’s because it’s bleed air from the engines. The pack actually cools the air... first through a heat exchanger.. and then through an air cycle machine in parallel with another heat exchanger. The resulting air is so cold it has to be heated up with raw bleed air even in cooling mode.
What’s interesting is that they didn’t think of the hydraulic fluid cooling system. It uses fuel to cool the fluid... and uses the very hot hydraulic fluid to keep the fuel from freezing at high altitudes. It’s inside the tank... not next to it insulated by insulation and several layers of metal in a compartment that is vented to atmosphere.
Yes, the AC/ Air pack system has been successfully used as it was designed, for years...Until the fear tactics from the corrupt NTSB created a head ache. Thanks for be the only other person in here in many years who actually understand the Air Pack system. I could not have said it better.
But in all cases, the AC/ Air packs had no part in the crash, and cannot have had any part in the accident.
The air conditioning packs story seems plausible because Philippine Airlines Flight 143 exploded in 1990 for the same probable reasons.
Boeing: It can never get that hot
Air conditioning units: *never?* 👀
Yes...Never. The Unit is designed to remove heat, not keep it around, but the heat itself, in engineering terms, does not and cannot get the fuel in the tank to get 127 F. The fuel never gets that hot, not even close. and actually barely gets above the local ambient temp on the ground. It has to do with convection, conduction and radiation. Your cars engine, as an example, gets pretty damn hot, but you don't get 'that heat' radiating into the cars cabin. On a cold winters day, your cars engine heat alone, WONT heat the cars cabin...the heat needs to be routed as it is to force heat into the cabin. The pack bays are vented and there are heat exchangers to cool the bypass heat, but the 'radiated' 'heat' if you will, is very little as far as not being able to be 'radiating into the tank'. Your refrigerator compressor gets HOT...but radiates very very very little heat. You could have a room heater in the next room, as an example, and turned up HOT, but NONE of that heat is going to make it to the next room. its a myth that the fuel tank got sizzling hot and just ready to blow!
Actually yes, they never get that hot. This was just the only thing they could pull out of their behind to have an alternative to grim and tragic reality that the US navy accidentally shot down TWA800.
At the time already the an organization of aeroplane machinists, who were involved in the investigation came out in opposition to the center fuel tank ignition theory, naming an "external high pressure event" as caused that tore up the plane, followed by ignition of the fuel now exposed to multiple heat sources and plenty of oxygen.
Also an interim report for congress named an external explosion as cause.
And 10 years ago already six(!!!) investigators of the original ntsb investigation came out saying that all evidence pointed towards an external explosion and that the FBI meddled heavily with the investigation.
Flight 800 was a land to air missile. We live on this island, we live here. The government couldn't keep us quiet and still can't. We know what we saw.
Dumbass
I love the eye witness Vietnam fighter pilot who also says the same thing.
@@emknight84 funny, I get it. But I never fought any wars so I don't have flashbacks 😅😅
Fake news.
96 out of 500 questioned witnesses saw a missile head for the plane. The military official giving explanation the following day wasn't even looking at the camera. Not to mention that this wasn't the only incident of that nature in that area. Coincidence?
QuasiBiscuit857 then they are not a witness lmao
The "96" number refers to the number of people who saw the initiating event. The rest of the witnesses looked up after the event and therefore, did not seeing anything beforehand.
It wasn't the air conditioning. It was bare high voltage lines, touching a low voltage fuel probe line, inside the fuel tank.
Nope. You cant 'detonate' Jet fuel. It's impossible. Jet fuel is not a flammable, but a combustible liquid. Jet fuel lacks the chemical energy to be a High energy material. ruclips.net/video/EYFF_1HSgDU/видео.html
That would be a little unnerving to be one of the people onboard while reproducing those conditions.
Do we really need dramatic reenactment of investigators looking at binders and clipboards?
Yes...
1:20
No one:
737: does a long range from amsterdam to jfk
Second to the nutty missile conspiracy theorists (motive?), many people have little concept of science if they believe the dozen who survived the first blast were "terrified out of their minds". The decompression/deceleration from the explosion greatly mitigated the plane's 500mph speed, causing injuries consistent with an extreme collision. This can be corroborated in the medical examiner's report, which also stated that the g-force winds were so extreme, all the passengers' clothes were ripped off. In respect to physics, I think it's safe to say that there was NO time to comprehend something went seriously wrong on that flight.
The missile theory isn't as nutty-sounding as you think. The Navy fired two missles from one of two submarines and 21 surface vessels in that area that were conducting missile tests exercises.
The missiles were seeking out drones fired from one of the surface vessels,.......TWA 800 breached the perimeter of the military exercise airspace. The first missile targeted the heat signature from the third engine of TWA 800, then the second missile targeted that explosion. The issue with those center fuel tanks did exist,....up until 1969. In that year, Boeing completely redesigned the center fuel tank system for the 747. The TWA 800 aircraft was built in 1971, therefore, the fuel tank issue did not exist for that aircraft. The Clinton administration, FAA, and NTSB used the 'center fuel tank' theory as propaganda to cover for the Navy's grave mistake.
@@trueknowledgeispower Sources?
@@abyssiccoronation .well,.....did you go to the link?
@@trueknowledgeispower You didn't include a link. However, I've already perused everything I've needed to for the past twenty-three years and still find the NTSB's conclusion more credible. We might as will revisit other cases of airplane accidents where proper maintenance wasn't done and write that off as a conspiracy, coverup, etc., too. Boeing was successfully sued, the airline and manufacturer was lawyered to the teeth, and yet they didn't try to make a case that the crash was from a friendly fire missile. What's your theory on that? Fear of the Clintons? I never cared for them either, but such poisoning of the well only gives them more leverage to stifle critics and continue defiling U.S. politics.
To determine a motive, one would need to know who did it, and the lack of such knowledge does not dismiss the credible accounts of hundreds of witnesses on the ground and in the air describing a rising missile.
What is interesting about the witness testimony is that none of it was used in court...the only people who could do that are people involved in national security, and only if they cite “national security reasons.” When they do that, even _the existence_ of the eyewitness statements cannot be brought up in court.
So even though we don’t know WHO shot down the plane, we know by eyewitness testimony WHAT brought it down, and we can reasonably deduce WHY that information was not brought up in court.
The USG is involved...either acting to protect itself, or to protect some other “interest” (allies, organized crime/terrorist organization, etc).
Yes, the rest would be conjecture. But the missile theory is not.
Nice bit of propaganda. Even old 747's don't have fuel tank explosions. Much too well designed for that.
Exactly Brian. But we have peeps in here who know nothing about AC...... yet THEY, have ALL the answers. The entire architecture of the system was extremely sane, not to mention that Kerosene is the Least likely fuel to detonate! I am former Navy Aircraft handler so I know. Never had a plane "Blow up" on the Flight deck for a fuel reason...because it was hot out!
@@robshef718 They've been indoctrinated well.
WOW!
The air conditioning system got THAT hot?!
Well now they know and can stop that from happening again!
I was on a B747 course when this occurred.
I had 3 instructors with a combined experience of 105 years. They said no way.
With my own research for the planned flight time the center wing tank would have been empty.
Mains 1 2 3 4 would have had fuel and their respective pumps operating.
CWT pumps would have been off.
No fuel no pumps no spark no explosion.
Was definitely a missile.
Probably from the USS Vincennes.
gerry erbsleben Well these instructors were obviously wrong.
@@lecorsaire2283 no they were not.
I have 2700 hours on B747.
Do your own research.
gerry erbsleben So what? That just means you can fly a plane. You’re not an engineer designing these damn things. You’re not a physicist either! If you think hundreds of sailors would keep quite about something like this for over 2 decades when even a private blow job was leaked nearly right away, you’re just delusional. The NTSB report says it all. It’s your problem if you choose not to believe it.
When undertakes a rating on an aircraft, a basic engineering and systems knowledge is required.
One does not have to be a physicist to understand that if there was no fuel in the tank with the pumps off there can e no explosion.
The 747 200 can carry 160 tons of fuel. 60 in the cwt. There was adequate fuel in the main tanks to conduct a transatlantic flight without the requirement for fuel in the cwt.
Eyewitness testimony.
If you care to research; the USS Vincennes was responsible for downing an Iranian airliner. The IFF failed to resolve an Iranian F14 Tomcat and selected the airliner instead. A failure of this system is probably responsible for TWA 800. No issues here then of keeping the crew and government (NTSB included) quiet.
Don't accept everything the media throws at you at face value. This your problem.
You are however entitled to your opinion.
@@theredbaron1043 IF YOU'RE SAYING YOU ARE A 747 PILOT, THEN YOUR CHIEF PILOT NEEDS A CHECK RIDE. YOU KNOW NOTHING ABOUT WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT! IT'S YOUR OPINION, AND QUITE FRANKLY OFFENSIVE TO PEOPLE WHO KNOW FIRST HAND WHAT HAPPENED, AND WHO HAVE LOST FAMILY MEMBERS AND FRIENDS. THAT WOULD INCLUDE ME! THE LOSS OF TWA 800 WAS NOTHING MORE THAN A CATASTROPHIC MECHANICAL FAILURE, DUE TO THE EXPLOSION OF THE CENTER TANK, WHICH RESULTED IN THE SUBSEQUENT BREAKUP OF THE AIRCRAFT!
PERIOD!
"Holy Crow!, this is off the charts" ....okay leave it to beaver, watch your language there....holy smokes. Where did they get this freaking actor? The way he speaks (his words and emphasis) is not how anyone would naturally talk.
I'm guessing he didn't write the script
Holy crow you might be right about his acting, it's off the chigity chain fam.
Why is it that no other 747 exploded during these conditions? Maybe they didn’t factor in the missile.
Capt America 👍
Because they're wiring were not as bad and thus no ignition.
Simple.
The wiring caused a spark in the fuel tank
Just imagine if the plane exploded during the test flight. They would have do a flight accident investigation on a flight accident investigation.
Heyyy I’m a new RUclipsr who’s trying to accomplish her dream of becoming a popular creator. Please help me to reach that goal by supporting my channel!!
@@djlawlz4041 please stop
air conditioning didnt make it explode, it was a shorted wire that travled through the fuel tanks, it ignited the jet fuel gases
the air con got the fuel warmed up enough to ignite.
A fault in the center line fuel tank caused a fire. The fault was the surface to air missile that exploded just outside the aircraft.
2:32 death wish
You think?
To many witnesses observed it being shot down
and its ON RADAR!!!
Bullshit
Cooked investigation
Let's start with the assumption that it was NOT a missal and try to prove a random theory from there, that's never happened before on a million other flights...
Yes. The NTSB "exploding Kerosene tank" is a ridiculous and unfounded argument, and which we proved such, in federal court. its IMPOSSIBLE to 'detonate' a 747 fuel tank with a spark. like its impossible to cook a steak in the freezer. CANT HAPPEN.
@@robshef718 Light a match in a petrol station or better yet, cause a spark with 2 wires, you will ignite the fuel vapors, not the liquid
@@ey7290 Wow! You are a 'science smith' aren't ya! But unfortunately, you are 'Not' an Aviation Expert... as am I, (former U.S. NAVY AVIATION BOATSWAIN.) nor do you understand the physics and chemistry involved in the situation. 'Aviation Kerosene' or 'jet fuel', is an extremely stable and non volatile fuel. That means that Jet fuel is very hard to ignite; about as hard to ignite, as a jar of peanut butter. 'Aviation kerosene' is Not a Flammable, but a Combustible liquid. It has a very high Flash point, but 'Flash point' does not mean HIGH ENERGY detonation. Not as the NTSB had errantly theorized that it was like a bomb. The "vapors" contain very very very little energy.... thus if your idea (which its not) was right, then every time they tried to start a jet engine, it would blow apart. Jet fuel which is Kerosene, is a Combustible. It has to Be 'misted' (as it is inside the engine) in order to burn. You can lite matches or make sparks all day long, but you are not going to get Kerosene vapors to 'detonate' with the power of a bomb. Here are a few educational video's for you. ruclips.net/video/7nL10C7FSbE/видео.html / ruclips.net/video/EYFF_1HSgDU/видео.html
@@ey7290 you can throw a match on jet fuel and it will just snuff out.
They're dumb instead of using ac just open a window
...
I hope that's a joke
This kid...
It's a joke right or are you serious
Or open the moon roof