# Anybody up for a TWA 800 discussion? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 27, 2009, 1:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anybody-up-for-a-twa-800-discussion/490944 "2009-03-27T01:32:39Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 10
**Author:** ![Jetblast](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/71c47a/32.png) [@Jetblast](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jetblast)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2009, 5:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anybody-up-for-a-twa-800-discussion/490944/181 "2009-05-14T17:07:05Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > After more than ten years I would expect that the evidence for a missile or bomb to become stronger, instead when I see groups like the National Geographic and others replicating experiments that come up confirming the original results then it is no wonder that very few can take those conspiracy “experts” seriously. > > The clear attempt at ignoring the evidence that showed that heat was an issue in the 747s central tanks is done precisely because it is one deadly item for the pet theories of the conspiracy theorists. ``` I find it laughable that internet people refer to credible industry insiders as 'conspiracy theorists' while referencing 'National Geographic' (a Washington-based magazine) as a source. 'National Geographic' used the government's data as its source. That, of course, *isn't* a circular argument according to our great debaters. In my mind 'GiGo' would have more credibility if he attempted to answer the bomb test or reddish residue information. How did they manage to depart to Hawaii from St Louis with a completely empty plane a half-hour before departure? I must have missed the answer to that one. And how did a bomb test agent manage to spill bomb residue all over the outside of the plane when he was on record as saying the government misrepresented what he did that day and he was careful with his explosives materials? And what about the NASA scientist who protested he did no seat glue test? In my mind you can't ignore this and still pretend credibility. GiGo? ``` ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2009, 5:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anybody-up-for-a-twa-800-discussion/490944/182 "2009-05-14T17:10:18Z")
> [@Jetblast](#): > > whose science is sound and provable When do you plan to show that? > [@](#): > > The 225mph average includes the mach 4 fastest speed the formulas required for periods in between the sweeps. When do you plan to show us those “formulas”? > [@](#): > > Nowhere does anyone answer for why the CIA video doesn’t show any ejecta plume? When do you plan to show where such a plume exists? > [@](#): > > But here we are with the discussion being drawn into a pissing contest where it can be done away with by people not really interested in the truth. If you know what the truth is, as you say, then show us. ---
**Author:** ![dropzone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dropzone/32/7515_2.png) [@dropzone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dropzone)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2009, 5:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anybody-up-for-a-twa-800-discussion/490944/183 "2009-05-14T17:18:43Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > Your diesel relies on a compression ratio of 15 to one and a high pressure spray to vaporize it and raise the temperature.. You can pour it on the ground and throw matches on it all day long and it won’t ignite. You can let it sit and “vaporize” all day long and it won’t ignite. It’s absolutely critical to the event that it occurred at altitude because the fuel would not have vaporized enough to create a significant explosion. The flash point of Diesel fuel is 100F. Sure, it ain’t gasoline, but the tank was warmer than that. [From here:](http://tc.engr.wisc.edu/uer/uer00/author2/content.html) > [@](#): > > The temperature inside the central fuel tank of TWA Flight 800 was unusually high, and probably played a significant role in the explosion. When fuel is heated, a greater portion of it exists as vapor, thus increasing the fuel-air ratio. NTSB officials, who originally thought that the temperature in the central fuel tank was 36°C (97°F), now think that the temperature was at least as high as 46°C (115°F) [NTSB d, 1997] and maybe as high as 53°C (127°F) [McKenna, 1997b]. Boeing has performed simulations that show that on a 27°C (81°F) day, fuel vapors in the central fuel tank of a 747 are in an explosive state for 4.5 of the 6 hours on a typical flight [Adcock, 1998]. But yeah, altitude had a strong effect: > [@](#): > > In addition to temperature, pressure (or altitude) affects the fuel-air ratio. As altitude increases, more fuel evaporates due to decreasing ambient pressure. Therefore, the fuel-air ratio increases with increasing altitude. A graph representing the relationship between the minimum temperature needed for an ignition of Jet A fuel and altitude is shown in Figure 5. As this chart illustrates, the minimum temperature needed to ignite the fuel decreases as the altitude increases. The minimum flammability temperature at 13,800 ft. is about 26°C (79°F), well below the reported temperature of 46°C (115°F) in the central fuel tank of TWA Flight 800. > > Until recently, a key point that has been neglected is that the minimum ignition energy needed to ignite the fuel also decreases with increasing temperature. Researchers at California Institute of Technology, performing tests for the NTSB, found that by increasing the temperature in a fuel tank from 38°C (100°F) to 60°C (140°F), the ignition energy required is reduced by a factor of 100,000 [Wilkinson, 1997]. This exponential relationship means at higher temperatures, a very weak spark will cause ignition. In other words, the fuel-air ratio, temperature, pressure, and ignition energy combined on Flight 800 to create a unique environment highly conducive to explosion. So my idea is to take a CWT, give it glider wings and tail, tow it to 15,000’, then set it off. It may not tell us anything that can’t be learned by simulations or just thinking about it, but it would be way cool! ---
**Author:** ![CannyDan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cannydan/32/548_2.png) [@CannyDan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CannyDan)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2009, 5:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anybody-up-for-a-twa-800-discussion/490944/184 "2009-05-14T17:19:11Z")
> [@Jetblast](#): > > \ I find the attempt to use what is clearly an invalid reference to Brumley to overturn something that isn’t directly answered less than honest. \ And I think your insult goes beyond the acceptable bounds for this forum. I quoted at random one of a group of search results on the man’s name, since you will not favor us with sources for your “information”. This happened to be an interview with Brumley in 1999. You declare it “invalid” merely because you find it contradicts rather than bolsters your assertions. Then you malign your own “witness of high credibility” as himself a dupe, or even a member of the cover-up. Your own credibility now approaches nadir. As for allowing one single source to be all the source (links) we need to understand a complex issue, well, if you could have said anything that would actually lower your abysmal credibility, this would be it. ---
**Author:** ![CurtC](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ce73a5/32.png) [@CurtC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CurtC)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2009, 5:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anybody-up-for-a-twa-800-discussion/490944/185 "2009-05-14T17:19:12Z")
Now National Geographic is in on the conspiracy, which is obvious because they’re located in Washington, DC. I hope someone is keeping track, the conspiracy is getting really big. Jetblast, the current issue to be resolved is the claim that there was debris a half-mile from the flight path, eight seconds after the explosion. You’re trying to change the subject, but I’m going to persist in asking you until we see your evidence. ---
**Author:** ![Jetblast](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/71c47a/32.png) [@Jetblast](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jetblast)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2009, 5:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anybody-up-for-a-twa-800-discussion/490944/186 "2009-05-14T17:22:29Z")
> [@Rick](#): > > So let me get this straight. > The government recovered about 98% of TWA 800. (which if you think about it is pretty amazing seeing how it was under about 100 feet or so of water) > However along with that 2% of the plane they did not recover they also did not recover 100% of the Al Qaeda suicide plane or the two missiles that you are claiming were fired at it. > What do you suppose the odds of that happening are? Personally I believe the odds are slim and none. And Slim just left town. ``` If NTSB collected that high a percentage of the wreckage it would most likely have found the burned boil in the wiring where the short circuit jumped wires. And we haven't even touched FBI not being able to locate the black boxes in such shallow water. (Boxes that were later found to have data removed) The investigation is well-known to have had a secret search area sealed off to special divers for several weeks. Your argument fails because Brumley saw an aircraft come right at his USAir flight. This aircraft wasn't investigated. The 'ghost blip' is just one more excuse by NTSB in a long-list of which they seem to have an unlimited amount of opportunities without risk. There was a second witness, a surfer, who saw lights diving towards Flight 800 because he was at an offshore angle enough to see them. Your argument assumes a sincere investigation by NTSB. I think we've shown more than enough to show that isn't deserved. Why did the investigation ignore the plane Brumley saw? And what is your opinion on the military's most sensitive electronic surveillance plane being turned off at the time if we are talking believability here? ``` ---
**Author:** ![Jetblast](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/71c47a/32.png) [@Jetblast](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jetblast)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2009, 5:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anybody-up-for-a-twa-800-discussion/490944/187 "2009-05-14T17:29:37Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Should be make the conclusion that we need to add also Caltech to the conspiracy? 🙂 ``` What the Cal Tech investigation is showing is that a fuel explosion is possible in a 747 center tank. What I would compare it to is an experiment that shows that the much more volatile fuel, gasoline, is capable of creating a blast in an automobile tank. We could do an extensive sophisticated-science analysis of this showing how it is easily possible. But most people know car gas tanks don't usually explode on their own. The official investigation never found any proof of a center wing tank explosion as the initiating event in the crash. And, if you read the Cal Tech material closely, it basically says this. ``` ---
**Author:** ![Jetblast](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/71c47a/32.png) [@Jetblast](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jetblast)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2009, 5:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anybody-up-for-a-twa-800-discussion/490944/188 "2009-05-14T17:37:09Z")
> [@CannyDan](#): > > And I think your insult goes beyond the acceptable bounds for this forum. ``` Note CannyDan conspicuously doesn't answer the point. 1 - From his original statements Brumley very clearly stands as a missile witness and CAN be accurately described as so. 2 - This rock solid circumstantial evidence will be ignored by our debaters in order to ruminate over sophist analysis of the material and how it is offered. ``` ---
**Author:** ![CannyDan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cannydan/32/548_2.png) [@CannyDan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CannyDan)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2009, 6:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anybody-up-for-a-twa-800-discussion/490944/189 "2009-05-14T18:21:56Z")
> [@Jetblast](#): > > Note CannyDan conspicuously doesn’t answer the point. > > ``` > 1 - From his original statements Brumley very clearly stands as a missile witness and CAN be accurately described as so. > > 2 - This rock solid circumstantial evidence will be ignored by our debaters in order to ruminate over sophist analysis of the material and how it is offered. > > ``` \*\*Jetblast \*\*doesn’t apologize for his/her gratuitous insult. You had a point? Your 1-- We still have only your word, no citation, for these supposed original statements. And you yourself declare them to be at odds with the 1999 interview I quoted and cited. Discrepancies like this can be settled by examining evidence. Since you have presented none beyond your own assertions, and I have presented the man’s own words, the preponderance of evidence is in my favor. Your 2- We’re not ignoring anything, we’re having too much fun. But the only thing rock solid displayed in this thread is your mind. You came to some conclusion, set it in concrete, then warped all reality to fit. Good play! ---
**Author:** ![Rick](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/9f8e36/32.png) [@Rick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rick)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2009, 6:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anybody-up-for-a-twa-800-discussion/490944/190 "2009-05-14T18:23:27Z")
> [@Jetblast](#): > > What the Cal Tech investigation is showing is that a fuel explosion is possible in a 747 center tank. What I would compare it to is an experiment that shows that the much more volatile fuel, gasoline, is capable of creating a blast in an automobile tank. We could do an extensive sophisticated-science analysis of this showing how it is easily possible. But most people know car gas tanks don’t usually explode on their own. > > ``` > The official investigation never found any proof of a center wing tank explosion as the initiating event in the crash. And, if you read the Cal Tech material closely, it basically says this. > > ``` now you are playing on my side of the street. Automotive fuel systems is one of my areas of expertise. The reason auto fuel tanks don’t explode is that the mixture is too rich to ignite inside the tank. Gasoline being much more volatile than diesel/Jet A keeps the mixture far richer than what can support combustion. Gasoline will only combust in a fairly narrow range of air fuel mixtures. Under normal conditions the fuel tank of a diesel car/truck the mixture remains too lean to support combustion. However the conditions in the CWT of TWA 800 do not mirror those of an automotive fuel system. First off there are the AC units that were transferring heat into the tank. The warmer it gets, the richer the mixture. Secondly is the climb to altitude. Diesel cars and trucks don’t get to 13,000 feet from sea level in the same (or anywhere near the same) amount of time as a 747. (DUH!) As the air pressure decreased it made the mixture richer. Anyone that knows anything about fuel systems would know this. Between the low amount of fuel in the tank, the heat transferred into the tank via the AC units and the climb to altitude the mixture got plenty rich enough to support combustion. > [@](#): > > And we haven’t even touched FBI not being able to locate the black boxes in such shallow water. (Boxes that were later found to have data removed) This is a true statement. Sorta. Disingenuous at best, a outright distortion of the truth most likely, and a damn lie at the worst case scenario. [Do you mean this cockpit voice recorder](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bEZl3f8EXNQ)? 🙂 You are correct that the FBI didn’t recover the CVR recorder. The FBI does have divers and and equipment for recovery of stuff of the ocean bottom. The CVR was recovered by the U.S. Navy. Wait a minute. I just re-read your quote above. If the boxes were never recovered, then how were they later found to have data removed? My brain is starting to hurt. Look, either the boxes were recovered or they were not recovered. If they were not recovered, they NO ONE would have any idea of the condition or completeness of any data recorded by them. You can’t argue both side of this. It is customary around here that when you find your self at the bottom of a self dug hole to put down the shovel and stop digging. You might want to consider that. Still waiting for that radar data… ---
**Author:** ![CurtC](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ce73a5/32.png) [@CurtC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CurtC)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2009, 6:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anybody-up-for-a-twa-800-discussion/490944/191 "2009-05-14T18:25:13Z")
Jetblast, it seems that you’re desperately trying to change the subject. What is the evidence for the debris that was supposedly a half-mile from the flight path eight seconds after the explosion? ---
**Author:** ![Rick](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/9f8e36/32.png) [@Rick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rick)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2009, 7:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anybody-up-for-a-twa-800-discussion/490944/192 "2009-05-14T19:23:28Z")
There you go asking for the radar data again. I asked first. ---
**Author:** ![RedSwinglineOne](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/a9adbd/32.png) [@RedSwinglineOne](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RedSwinglineOne)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2009, 7:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anybody-up-for-a-twa-800-discussion/490944/193 "2009-05-14T19:40:44Z")
> [@Rick](#): > > There you go asking for the radar data again. > I asked first. **samclem** asked for it in post #54. ---
**Author:** ![Rick](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/9f8e36/32.png) [@Rick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rick)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2009, 7:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anybody-up-for-a-twa-800-discussion/490944/194 "2009-05-14T19:44:19Z")
> [@RedSwinglineOne](#): > > **samclem** asked for it in post #54. Damn! ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2009, 8:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anybody-up-for-a-twa-800-discussion/490944/195 "2009-05-14T20:30:51Z")
> [@dropzone](#): > > The flash point of Diesel fuel is 100F. At 100F it will produce almost no vapor so don’t go down that road. If it wasn’t at altitude there would not be enough flame front to breech the tank. That is what I was addressing in your post regarding people who test it themselves and claimed it would not create a significant explosion. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2009, 8:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anybody-up-for-a-twa-800-discussion/490944/196 "2009-05-14T20:52:52Z")
What a pathetic reply. > [@Jetblast](#): > > I find it laughable that internet people refer to credible industry insiders They might had been credible before, nowadays they are not credible as even their math and evidence is suspect. > [@Jetblast](#): > > as ‘conspiracy theorists’ while referencing ‘National Geographic’ (a Washington-based magazine) as a source. ‘National Geographic’ used the government’s data as its source. That, of course, _isn’t_ a circular argument according to our great debaters. Who do you think you are fooling here? That only works by ignoring on purpose the recreations of the experiments done for the documentary cameras. > [@Jetblast](#): > > In my mind ‘GiGo’ would have more credibility if he attempted to answer the bomb test or reddish residue information. So it was a bomb now? I’m getting the feeling that this is now like the 9/11 conspiracy theorists that are saying that beside the planes that crashed not being passenger planes, that there were \*\*also \*\*bombs planted. > **[TWA Flight 800](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TWA_Flight_800)** > > TWA Flight 800\[a\] was a regularly scheduled international passenger flight from John F. Kennedy International Airport in New York City, United States, to Fiumicino Airport in Rome, Italy, with a stopover at Charles de Gaulle Airport in Paris, France. On July 17, 1996, at approximately 8:31 p.m. EDT, twelve minutes after takeoff, the Boeing 747-100 exploded and crashed into the Atlantic Ocean near East Moriches, New York.: 1  > All 230 people on board died in the crash; it is the third-deadliest... > [@](#): > > Initial examination of the wreckage revealed potential explosive residue on three samples of material from separate locations in the airplane wreckage; further testing determined that one contained traces of cyclotrimethylenetrinitramine (RDX), another nitroglycerin, and the third a combination of RDX and pentaerythritol tetranitrate (PETN).[8] None of the sample locations correlated to the source of the explosion in the center wing tank. There was none of the readily apparent damage caused by a high-explosive detonation in an aircraft found on any of the structure or contents.[22] The reason why it is more likely that the residue was indeed left from a past security exercise? The residues did not had the same composition. > [@Jetblast](#): > > How did they manage to depart to Hawaii from St Louis with a completely empty plane a half-hour before departure? I must have missed the answer to that one. \*\*CurtC \*\*mentioned the Brumley quote with source and then you dismissed it in the most inept way with no counter evidence. He then said that “if you could have said anything that would actually lower your abysmal credibility, this would be it.” However this idea of assuming that all the fuel tanks were empty certifies that your ignorance knows no bounds. As in the case of the Gimly Glider, the central tank in Boeing planes is (or was, as procedures were changed after the central tank explosion of the TWA) filled last or left almost empty. It is mainly used for very long distance flights. You are completely ignorant of the wing fuel tanks, and clearly ignorant of many other items. [http://faalessons.workforceconnect.org/l2/TWA/des/](http://faalessons.workforceconnect.org/l2/TWA/des/) > [@Jetblast](#): > > And how did a bomb test agent manage to spill bomb residue all over the outside of the plane when he was on record as saying the government misrepresented what he did that day and he was careful with his explosives materials? Even the FBI (that conducted the tests) reported that when the things did go underwater that that explains why residue was found drifting. > [@Jetblast](#): > > And what about the NASA scientist who protested he did no seat glue test? In my mind you can’t ignore this and still pretend credibility. I ignore it because this item is not clear, please produce a cite and once again if you are referring to a missile you have to explain why 3 different components were found outside some locations. > **[Newsday | Long Island's & NYC's News Source](https://www.newsday.com)** > > Breaking News, data & opinions in business, sports, entertainment, travel, lifestyle, plus much more. Newsday.com is the leading news source for Long Island & NYC. > [@](#): > > But a senior law enforcement source said yesterday the residue is an adhesive used to bind plastic parts in airplanes. The heat created by the explosion that destroyed the plane apparently caused it to look the way it did, the source said. Another source close to the investigation said there were many more than 15 seats that had the substance on them. > > A federal lab investigator familar with the early chemical analysis of the TWA 800 debris said that even if the tests did find that range of chemical elements, ``I don’t think you could ever make a conclusion based on an elemental analysis alone. There’s nothing that makes that unique to a missile. Those are all common elements. They are all over the place.‘’ > > Ramona Northington, the lab’s director, would not confirm the test. But asked about the newspaper’s conclusion, she said, ``We don’t understand it either.‘’ My conclusion is, that you really do not know even the basics of why the bomb and missile theories were discounted. > [@Jetblast](#): > > GiGo? You are forgetting the “busted” part, indeed you are the one that is posting garbage out, I’m here to bust ideas that \*\*pretend \*\*that they are good. ---
**Author:** ![CannyDan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cannydan/32/548_2.png) [@CannyDan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CannyDan)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2009, 9:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anybody-up-for-a-twa-800-discussion/490944/197 "2009-05-14T21:53:15Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > \ > \*\*CurtC \*\*mentioned the Brumley quote with source and then you dismissed it in the most inept way with no counter evidence. He then said that “if you could have said anything that would actually lower your abysmal credibility, this would be it.” However this idea of assuming that all the fuel tanks were empty certifies that your ignorance knows no bounds.\ Credit where due, friend-- that was me, not **CurtC**. Otherwise, excellent post. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2009, 10:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anybody-up-for-a-twa-800-discussion/490944/198 "2009-05-14T22:26:13Z")
> [@CannyDan](#): > > Credit where due, friend-- that was me, not **CurtC**. > > Otherwise, excellent post. :o Ah well, sorry for that **CannyDan**. What gets me is that the reason JetBlast was not dealing before with the central tank issue was because in reality he does not know anything about the plane components or procedures. His many “We know” are suspect when we now consider his demonstrated ignorance. Under those conditions it is clear to me that he is not reliable when discriminating what is good or bogus evidence. ---
**Author:** ![dropzone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dropzone/32/7515_2.png) [@dropzone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dropzone)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2009, 10:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anybody-up-for-a-twa-800-discussion/490944/199 "2009-05-14T22:45:07Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > At 100F it will produce almost no vapor so don’t go down that road. If it wasn’t at altitude there would not be enough flame front to breech the tank. That is what I was addressing in your post regarding people who test it themselves and claimed it would not create a significant explosion. And THAT’s why I want to make a CWT glider. Well, that and the part about blowing stuff up. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2009, 11:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anybody-up-for-a-twa-800-discussion/490944/200 "2009-05-14T23:18:50Z")
> [@dropzone](#): > > And THAT’s why I want to make a CWT glider. Well, that and the part about blowing stuff up. It only takes one sentence to put things into perspective. What does 20 psi overpressure relate to in sticks of dynamite. When you have that perspective then people understand why the plane didn’t separate at the hard points. The weaker skin panels blow out and the result is a severely weakened monocoque frame which is exposed to 400 knot winds. The result would tear the plane apart in one bang whoosh. I’ll chip in for the glider. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anybody-up-for-a-twa-800-discussion/490944.md?page=9) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anybody-up-for-a-twa-800-discussion/490944.md?page=11)