• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

New TWA Flight 800 film coming out

TheRedWorm said:
And why should anyone care what you're pretending to think at the current moment?
Click to expand...

Because experts want a reinvestigation of the TWA 800 incident. And my hypothesis is a valid option for alternative explanations of what actually happened. The official hypothesis is just one out of many possible. And in ordinary circumstances, the official hypothesis would be the most likely one because of many experts spending years coming up with the hypothesis, but then we wouldn't have other experts (and even past experts from the official investigation if I have understood it correctly) wanting a reinvestigation.
 
Anders Lindman said:
Because experts want a reinvestigation of the TWA 800 incident. And my hypothesis is a valid option for alternative explanations of what actually happened. The official hypothesis is just one out of many possible. And in ordinary circumstances, the official hypothesis would be the most likely one because of many experts spending years coming up with the hypothesis, but then we wouldn't have other experts (and even past experts from the official investigation if I have understood it correctly) wanting a reinvestigation.
Click to expand...

Not as mod:

Your hypothesis, and I use that term extremely loosely, is a waste of my precious 0's and 1's.
 
This is easy Anders;

1/ Stop saying people who died didn't
2/ Stop using the word "hypothesis" until you have learned it's meaning.

Other than that, continue posting your drivel. No-one cares.
 
ehcks said:
Oops, wrong thread.

Just to redeem this post:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tVZzdtnZaJk

In July 2007, a simple spark in a chemical storage facility destroyed all of it and damaged many nearby buildings with shrapnel and debris.
Click to expand...

If I'm not mistaken, it happened in an almost-empty oil tanker too.

ETA: Actually, google "empty tank explosion" for multiple examples.
 
Last edited:
TheRedWorm said:
You are aware that both step up and step down transformers exist, right?
Click to expand...

So, the low voltage wires were wound in such way that they caused a voltage step up of the 115 volt wires? That's incredibly far-fetched.
 
Last edited:
Anders Lindman said:
So, the low voltage wires were wound in such way that they caused a voltage step up of the 115 volt wires? That's incredibly far-fetched.
Click to expand...

You've wasted enough of our pixels.

State why cables carrying 115v can't create a spark when shorted and why that spark cant ignite fuel fumes.
 
Anders Lindman said:
So, the low voltage wires were wound in such way that they caused a voltage step up of the 115 volt wires? That's incredibly far-fetched.
Click to expand...



115 volts by itself could easily cause a spark. Hell, I've heated things to ignition with a 9 volt battery. And besides, I'm sure there are more than enough people with much more electrical knowledge here for you to ignore.
 
Horatius said:
I was doing a bit of looking into this question earlier. It's just barely plausible that a man portable anti aircraft missile could do this. The plane exploded at about 16 000 feet, which is near the limit of such missiles. There were various types available at that time, which reported maximum ranges between 16 and 20 000 feet.

So, if they had one of the best available, and were skilled enough to make one of the hardest shots they could attempt, it's possible.

Of course, it still needs to be shown that this was actually done, and also leaves open the question of why, if they had access to the weapons and the skills to use them, they didn't use them again? They'd have to have had more than just one missile in order to learn how to use them this well. Would they really have blown off all but one in practice?
Click to expand...

Is range the same thing as ceiling? The Federation of American Scientists lists nandheld missiles like the Stinger, and SA-14, -16, -18 as having ranges of 5 km + or - a few tenths but with operational ceilings as only between 3 and 3.5 km.

The other problem with the handheld missile theory is that the handheld missiles only contain a few pounds of explosives. Would that be enough to cause an immediate, catastrophic explosion? Especially since most of these missiles having infrared seeking guidance and would be drawn to an engine.
 
ComfySlippers said:
You've wasted enough of our pixels.

State why cables carrying 115v can't create a spark when shorted and why that spark cant ignite fuel fumes.
Click to expand...

The 115 volt cables didn't go into the fuel tank. It was low voltage cables that went into the tank.
 
TheRedWorm said:
115 volts by itself could easily cause a spark. Hell, I've heated things to ignition with a 9 volt battery. And besides, I'm sure there are more than enough people with much more electrical knowledge here for you to ignore.
Click to expand...

But then you would need a direct short circuit of the cables inside the tank. Plus those cables in turn would need to have been connected electrically to the 115 volt cables through some accident such as failure in cable isolation on both the low voltage cable and one or more of the high voltage cables. So a triple failure. Because the cables going in to the fuel tank had very low voltage and current. You being able to cause ignition with a 9 volt battery is because it was able to generate a large enough current. Plus the cables going in to the fuel tank had thick nylon covering and filled with isolation material. So an incredible series of failures would have been required to come anything close to producing such spark.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom