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?When do you plan to show that?
When do you plan to show us those “formulas”?
When do you plan to show where such a plume exists?
If you know what the truth is, as you say, then show us.
The flash point of Diesel fuel is 100F. Sure, it ain’t gasoline, but the tank was warmer than that. From here:
But yeah, altitude had a strong effect:
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!
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.
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.
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? 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. 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!
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.
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? 
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…
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?
There you go asking for the radar data again.
I asked first.
samclem asked for it in post #54.
Damn!
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.
What a pathetic reply.
They might had been credible before, nowadays they are not credible as even their math and evidence is suspect.
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.
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.
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.
**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/
Even the FBI (that conducted the tests) reported that when the things did go underwater that that explains why residue was found drifting.
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.
My conclusion is, that you really do not know even the basics of why the bomb and missile theories were discounted.
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.
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.
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.