Now that the media has bilked TWA-800 for all it's worth and even all but the most die hard conspiracy nuts are bored, an objective view has shown that the real cause was an accident. The center fuel tank exploded.
The center fuel tank sits on top of several air conditioning units that generate a lot of heat. When the center tank is empty or near empty the air/fuel mixture gets hot enough to be explosive. When fuel is transferred between port and starboard tanks, it goes through pipes the pass through the center fuel tank. Under some conditions static electricity is generated by the moving fuel that can cause a spark. The rest is history.
Speaking anonymously, one investigator said that the fuel tank was highly suspected from the moment they got the first big sections off of the bottom of the ocean.
NTSB has made a strong recommendation for the FAA to release an immediate bulletin and that all 747's are at risk, even though it is a pretty low risk.
The press was of course irresponsible again, so sure it was some evil, gun toting, terrorist that planted a bomb. Instead of investigators looking at the situation from an objective perspective they were forced to spend months proving it was not a bomb or missile instead of researching what it was.
To all you government conspiracy nuts that accused the Military, you owe them an apology and hopefully you can feel a little better about the people who put their life on the line for the rest of us.
I am sorry all those people died, but given the options I am really glad it was an accident, I think most of us are big enough to understand that accidents happen.
In article <32b458a2.4661...@Concord01.news.internex.net>, b...@ezon.com (BobJ.) wrote: >> Now that the media has bilked TWA-800 for all it's worth and even all >> but the most die hard conspiracy nuts are bored, an objective view has >> shown that the real cause was an accident. The center fuel tank >> exploded.
It's interesting that out of over 1,000 Boeing 747s, this has never been seen before.
The NTSB points to "similar incidents" such as:
1) A 1990 a Philippine Airlines 737 that blew up on push-back. The cause was never determined.
2) A 1989 explosion of an Avianca 727 on take-off due to a bomb underneath a passenger's seat exploding which ignited the center fuel tank.
3) 1976 explosion of an Iranian Air Force Boeing 747 which was struck by lightning before exploding.
So if they suspected the center fuel take in these earlier explosions, why was nothing done about it? And if they are just now assuming that the center fuel take was a problem in those other crashes, why would they use those crashes as examples of previous problems with center fuel tanks, when it's obvious that the cause of those explosions is still unclear?
The NTSB has not claimed that the TWA explosion/crash was caused by mechanical failure, and It will be interesting to see what Boeing has to say about this. (Note the 12/14/96 Reuter's story which quotes ". . it [NTSB] stopped short of blaming mechanical reasons for the July 17 crash that killed all 230 people on board".
I don't presume to know the cause of the accident, and I hope (out of all the possible explanations) that it was something that can be corrected like mechanical failure. But I'm still plagued by the thought of over 100 people seeing a streak of light from the ground skyward right before the explosion. This in conjunction with an Aviation Week & Space Technology article a few years back which noted the increasing dangers of potential terrorist attacks using shoulder launched missiles (remember all of those missing Stinger missiles?).
One final thought that should alarm us all: If the terrorists of the world hadn't already thought of using a shoulder fired missile to take down an arriving/departing passenger aircraft, they will have now.
Spimby wrote: > So if they suspected the center fuel take in these earlier explosions, > why was nothing done about it?
Expense. There isn't proof that the center fuel tank has a flaw that definitively caused any of these acidents. Filling the empty space in the tank with inert gas - the FAA recommendation - takes time and money. Safety measures need to be implemented based on their costs versus their helpfulness. This one didn't pass muster.
> This in conjunction with an Aviation Week & Space Technology > article a few years back which noted the increasing dangers of potential > terrorist attacks using shoulder launched missiles (remember all of those > missing Stinger missiles?).
> Now that the media has bilked TWA-800 for all it's worth and even all > but the most die hard conspiracy nuts are bored, an objective view has > shown that the real cause was an accident. The center fuel tank > exploded.
We found out that the center fuel tank exploded about a week after the accident. The investigation is about WHY it exploded. That's where the three theories come into play. There is no definitive evidence to support any one theory at this point. I'm guessing there never will be, either.
> The center fuel tank sits on top of several air conditioning units > that generate a lot of heat. When the center tank is empty or near > empty the air/fuel mixture gets hot enough to be explosive. When fuel > is transferred between port and starboard tanks, it goes through pipes > the pass through the center fuel tank. Under some conditions static > electricity is generated by the moving fuel that can cause a spark. > The rest is history.
That's the theory. But that's not the NTSB's explanation yet.
> Speaking anonymously, one investigator said that the fuel tank was > highly suspected from the moment they got the first big sections off > of the bottom of the ocean.
Speaking publically, this is what both Francis and Kallstrom have said for quite some time.
> The press was of course irresponsible again, so sure it was some evil, > gun toting, terrorist that planted a bomb. Instead of investigators > looking at the situation from an objective perspective they were > forced to spend months proving it was not a bomb or missile instead of > researching what it was.
The investigators have always said there are three theories. The press focussed on a bombing, surely, but the NTSB has
> I am sorry all those people died, but given the options I am really > glad it was an accident, I think most of us are big enough to > understand that accidents happen.
And I think most of us are intelligent enough to realize that the government is merely telling people such as yourself what they want to hear.
You be sure to let us know when that "exploding center tank" can account for 150 witnesses to a missile.
> I am sorry all those people died, but given the options I am really > glad it was an accident, I think most of us are big enough to > understand that accidents happen.
Here's another question for you, Bob.
Now that we "know" TWA800 was "an accident" are all those new "security measures" going to be rescinded?
b...@ezon.com (BobJ.) wrote: >Now that the media has bilked TWA-800 for all it's worth and even all >but the most die hard conspiracy nuts are bored, an objective view has >shown that the real cause was an accident. The center fuel tank >exploded. >The center fuel tank sits on top of several air conditioning units >that generate a lot of heat. When the center tank is empty or near >empty the air/fuel mixture gets hot enough to be explosive.
Wow! It's great that they now have a conclusive explanation for the crash of TWA 800 - NOT! (NTSB: 747 Fuel Tanks Pose Threat, East Hampton, N.Y. (AP) NTSB spokesman Peter Goelz said "We are not even close to issuing a probable cause" of the crash.) - from Dec. 4, 1996 Pittsburgh Tribune-Review
Do you know how many uneventful 747 flights there have been since the plane's inception? Why hasn't there ever been 1 single case of this happening, other than in the case of flight 800?
What about the 159 credible witnesses who all saw a streak of light hit the plane in the same area of the sky at the same time that the plane went down? 159 unconnected identical delusions I suppose.
Conspiracy theorists are nothing but a bunch of crackpots. There was even one theory that the government was injecting unknowing citizens with deadly plutonium and uranium. Those idiots will believe anything.
On Sat, 14 Dec 1996 06:07:03 -0500, Alan Miles <ami...@interport.net> wrote:
>BobJ. wrote:
>> Now that the media has bilked TWA-800 for all it's worth and even all >> but the most die hard conspiracy nuts are bored, an objective view has >> shown that the real cause was an accident. The center fuel tank >> exploded.
>We found out that the center fuel tank exploded about a week after the >accident. The investigation is about WHY it exploded. That's where the >three theories come into play. There is no definitive evidence to >support any one theory at this point. I'm guessing there never will be, >either.
That is just not true, they were looking for a bomb that may have exploded a fuel tank, but the focus was not the fuel tank itself.
>> The center fuel tank sits on top of several air conditioning units >> that generate a lot of heat. When the center tank is empty or near >> empty the air/fuel mixture gets hot enough to be explosive. When fuel >> is transferred between port and starboard tanks, it goes through pipes >> the pass through the center fuel tank. Under some conditions static >> electricity is generated by the moving fuel that can cause a spark. >> The rest is history.
>That's the theory. But that's not the NTSB's explanation yet.
That is what the NTSB spokesperson said yesterday, perhaps you have dated information. In term of absolutes no one can every really be sure about anything, but investigators feel pretty certain that it was an accidental explosion of the center fuel tank.
Excuse me for not being perfectly clear, I SAID ACCIDENT, accidents are not caused by missiles and bombs, those are ON PURPOSE. This was clearly a tech/mech failure.
And don't give that crap about millions of 747 flights without incident. I in no way implied that the 747 was not a very safe aircraft, given the number of flights by 747's even million to one odds are enough to take one out of the sky every now and then.
The point is that it was not a bomb or missile and they know that for a fact, or at least as close to a fact as mere humans will ever know.
On Sat, 14 Dec 1996 07:36:05 GMT, b...@ezon.com (BobJ.) wrote:
>Now that the media has bilked TWA-800 for all it's worth and even all >but the most die hard conspiracy nuts are bored, an objective view has >shown that the real cause was an accident. The center fuel tank >exploded.
>The center fuel tank sits on top of several air conditioning units >that generate a lot of heat. When the center tank is empty or near >empty the air/fuel mixture gets hot enough to be explosive. When fuel >is transferred between port and starboard tanks, it goes through pipes >the pass through the center fuel tank. Under some conditions static >electricity is generated by the moving fuel that can cause a spark. >The rest is history.
>Speaking anonymously, one investigator said that the fuel tank was >highly suspected from the moment they got the first big sections off >of the bottom of the ocean.
>NTSB has made a strong recommendation for the FAA to release an >immediate bulletin and that all 747's are at risk, even though it is a >pretty low risk.
>The press was of course irresponsible again, so sure it was some evil, >gun toting, terrorist that planted a bomb. Instead of investigators >looking at the situation from an objective perspective they were >forced to spend months proving it was not a bomb or missile instead of >researching what it was.
>To all you government conspiracy nuts that accused the Military, you >owe them an apology and hopefully you can feel a little better about >the people who put their life on the line for the rest of us.
>I am sorry all those people died, but given the options I am really >glad it was an accident, I think most of us are big enough to >understand that accidents happen.
> Now that the media has bilked TWA-800 for all it's worth and even all > but the most die hard conspiracy nuts are bored, an objective view has > shown that the real cause was an accident. The center fuel tank > exploded.
> The center fuel tank sits on top of several air conditioning units > that generate a lot of heat. When the center tank is empty or near > empty the air/fuel mixture gets hot enough to be explosive. When fuel > is transferred between port and starboard tanks, it goes through pipes > the pass through the center fuel tank. Under some conditions static > electricity is generated by the moving fuel that can cause a spark. > The rest is history. > BobJ.
Bob. How come the fuel tank would be almost empty at the beginning of a transatlantic flight?
On Sat, 14 Dec 1996 15:58:09 GMT, dave...@city-net.com wrote: >b...@ezon.com (BobJ.) wrote:
>>Now that the media has bilked TWA-800 for all it's worth and even all >>but the most die hard conspiracy nuts are bored, an objective view has >>shown that the real cause was an accident. The center fuel tank >>exploded.
>>The center fuel tank sits on top of several air conditioning units >>that generate a lot of heat. When the center tank is empty or near >>empty the air/fuel mixture gets hot enough to be explosive.
>Wow! It's great that they now have a conclusive explanation for the >crash of TWA 800 - NOT! >(NTSB: 747 Fuel Tanks Pose Threat, East Hampton, N.Y. (AP) >NTSB spokesman Peter Goelz said "We are not even close to issuing a >probable cause" of the crash.) >- from Dec. 4, 1996 Pittsburgh Tribune-Review
Well it appears that they feel they got close enough...
>Do you know how many uneventful 747 flights there have been since the >plane's inception? Why hasn't there ever been 1 single case of this >happening, other than in the case of flight 800?
I have no idea but probably millions, and actually there is at least one other incident where the center fuel tank is still amoung the probable causes. I am not paniced or even worried about getting on a 747, my point was that it is very unlikely that it was some evil bubba with a stinger, terrorist with a bomb, or military exercise.
>What about the 159 credible witnesses who all saw a streak of light >hit the plane in the same area of the sky at the same time that the >plane went down? 159 unconnected identical delusions I suppose.
What about them? How many storeis have we seen of even whole town reporting seeing phonomenon that was virtually impossible to validate, seems to me that people on the east coast are always hearing mysterious booms and and lights in the sky. I am not implying that these people did not see something, but I they did not see a missle.
>Conspiracy theorists are nothing but a bunch of crackpots. There was >even one theory that the government was injecting unknowing citizens >with deadly plutonium and uranium. Those idiots will believe >anything.
>WAKE UP!
I really wish our government was a slick as the conspiracy nuts think. Consider the skill and intelligence it would take to pull off all of these massive plots and never getting caught and never leaving any proof behind. These are the same folks that can't get a 10 dollar blow job without ending up on the front page of newspapers.
<bho...@cyberhighway.net> wrote: >> I am sorry all those people died, but given the options I am really >> glad it was an accident, I think most of us are big enough to >> understand that accidents happen.
> And I think most of us are intelligent enough > to realize that the government is merely telling > people such as yourself what they want to hear.
Yes, people like me who don't hate America so much as to believe the government intentionally smoked a passenger jet in some James Bond plot, people who don't automatically assume a terrorist is behind every disaster, people who have more faith in our military than to think even for a minute that they would accidently shoot down a plane and not come forward. People with a little common sense.
I think most reasonable people considered all of these possibilities as they appeared, but most dismissed the nonsense. It is unfortunate that we may never know the exact cause, it leaves room for people to take the unknown and turn it in to their private fantasy.
> You be sure to let us know when that "exploding > center tank" can account for 150 witnesses to > a missile.
The center tank exploding as a result of an accidental fuel explosion can't "explain" another event. I don't know or care what they say, whatever it was it was not related to the accident. Why? Because, there is absolutely no, none, zippo, zilch, not even a minuscule of evidence that the plane was struck from the outside. They found no missile fragments, no unusual metals, no chemicals that matched, no stress or metal damage consistent with a missile. Not to mention that no one has claimed responsibility for a "cause". Everything is though consistent with a high pressure explosion you would get from a gas explosion.
Here is one for you, the secret government being aware of the volatile cocktail in the center fuel tank planted a radio controlled device to spark and caused the explosion. To create the illusion of a evil terrorist attack from all those stinger missiles floating around, they had the Navy fire a tracer round in the vicinity. This was all because the man with one red shoe in seat 12C had uncovered the governments secret plot for a one world government and the invasion of America.
This person was going to Europe to enlist support for an armed defense of America from it's evil government, kind of like Franklin did in the revolution. The secret government caught on to the plan and knew that the real government could not handle it so they had to blow up the plane. The secret government is that super efficient, competent one that has been pulling off all these elaborate conspiracies for all these years and never been caught.
>> Now that the media has bilked TWA-800 for all it's worth and even all >> but the most die hard conspiracy nuts are bored, an objective view has >> shown that the real cause was an accident. The center fuel tank >> exploded.
>> The center fuel tank sits on top of several air conditioning units >> that generate a lot of heat. When the center tank is empty or near >> empty the air/fuel mixture gets hot enough to be explosive. When fuel >> is transferred between port and starboard tanks, it goes through pipes >> the pass through the center fuel tank. Under some conditions static >> electricity is generated by the moving fuel that can cause a spark. >> The rest is history.
>> BobJ.
> Bob. How come the fuel tank would be almost empty at the beginning of a >transatlantic flight?
>John Lennon Loves You+You
That is not a bad question, another good question is, why would you need to transfer fuel so soon after take off?
I really don't know the answer to either, but I would guess that if the plane needed the center tank to be full to make it to it's next destination that issue would have come up right away.
If it did not need the fuel, then it would be a waste to carry it around. I think it will be more difficult to answer why they would be transferring it so soon after take off.
> On Sat, 14 Dec 1996 08:59:11 -0700, Broward Horne > <bho...@cyberhighway.net> wrote:
> >> I am sorry all those people died, but given the options I am really > >> glad it was an accident, I think most of us are big enough to > >> understand that accidents happen.
> > And I think most of us are intelligent enough > > to realize that the government is merely telling > > people such as yourself what they want to hear.
> Yes, people like me who don't hate America so much as to believe the > government intentionally smoked a passenger jet in some James Bond > plot, people who don't automatically assume a terrorist is behind > every disaster, people who have more faith in our military than to > think even for a minute that they would accidently shoot down a plane > and not come forward. People with a little common sense.
> I think most reasonable people considered all of these possibilities > as they appeared, but most dismissed the nonsense. It is unfortunate > that we may never know the exact cause, it leaves room for people to > take the unknown and turn it in to their private fantasy.
> > You be sure to let us know when that "exploding > > center tank" can account for 150 witnesses to > > a missile.
> The center tank exploding as a result of an accidental fuel explosion > can't "explain" another event. I don't know or care what they say, > whatever it was it was not related to the accident. Why? Because, > there is absolutely no, none, zippo, zilch, not even a minuscule of > evidence that the plane was struck from the outside. They found no > missile fragments, no unusual metals, no chemicals that matched, no > stress or metal damage consistent with a missile. Not to mention that > no one has claimed responsibility for a "cause". Everything is though > consistent with a high pressure explosion you would get from a gas > explosion.
> Here is one for you, the secret government being aware of the volatile > cocktail in the center fuel tank planted a radio controlled device to > spark and caused the explosion. To create the illusion of a evil > terrorist attack from all those stinger missiles floating around, they > had the Navy fire a tracer round in the vicinity. This was all because > the man with one red shoe in seat 12C had uncovered the governments > secret plot for a one world government and the invasion of America.
> This person was going to Europe to enlist support for an armed defense > of America from it's evil government, kind of like Franklin did in the > revolution. The secret government caught on to the plan and knew that > the real government could not handle it so they had to blow up the > plane. The secret government is that super efficient, competent one > that has been pulling off all these elaborate conspiracies for all > these years and never been caught.
> BobJ.
Conspiracy nuts will always be nuts. In fact, the conspiracy nuts are always quick to point out, "The proof is that there is no proof."
And so my fellow Americans, yet another conspiracy to the toilet!!
Gerry Rough
Exposing the fraud of the New World Order conspiracy theory ********************************************* * In Pursuit of Reason * * http://www.skyenet.net/~gerryr/index.html * *********************************************
> > Yes, people like me who don't hate America so much as to believe the > > government intentionally smoked a passenger jet in some James Bond
Heck, they burned 80 people alive in Waco.
Why should I believe anything now?
> > plot, people who don't automatically assume a terrorist is behind > > every disaster, people who have more faith in our military than to > > think even for a minute that they would accidently shoot down a plane > > and not come forward. People with a little common sense.
Okay. Let's test Bob's "common sense".
Why did the FBI bulldoze the bodies of dead Branch Davidians BACK into the compound BEFORE it burned up?
> Conspiracy nuts will always be nuts. In fact, the conspiracy nuts are > always quick to point out, "The proof is that there is no proof."
There's proof of Waco. The FLIR video.
Why wasn't it shown in its entirety?
Why is the National Debt up $1.3 trillion in past four years if we have the "lowest deficit" in over fifteen years?
How do we have the "best economy in thirty years" when we now have record bankruptcies, foreclosures and credit card delinquiencies?
My money says that both you clowns don't deal in quantitative subjects, ergo you just shrug shoulders to all these strange anomalies and tell us "don't know". "Coincidence". Bullcrap.
I sure as hell wasn't a "conspiracy nut", until bypassed our "media" and got the FACTS about Waco and Ruby Ridge. I suggest you do the same.
> And so my fellow Americans, yet another conspiracy to the toilet!!
> Gerry Rough
> Exposing the fraud of the New World Order conspiracy theory > ********************************************* > * In Pursuit of Reason * > * http://www.skyenet.net/~gerryr/index.html * > *********************************************
: > I am sorry all those people died, but given the options I am really : > glad it was an accident, I think most of us are big enough to : > understand that accidents happen.
: And I think most of us are intelligent enough : to realize that the government is merely telling : people such as yourself what they want to hear.
: You be sure to let us know when that "exploding : center tank" can account for 150 witnesses to : a missile.
: > : > BobJ. No, there are 150 witnesses for a streak of light which has not been identified as anything.
> > > Yes, people like me who don't hate America so much as to believe the > > > government intentionally smoked a passenger jet in some James Bond
> Heck, they burned 80 people alive in Waco.
> Why should I believe anything now?
> > > plot, people who don't automatically assume a terrorist is behind > > > every disaster, people who have more faith in our military than to > > > think even for a minute that they would accidently shoot down a plane > > > and not come forward. People with a little common sense.
> Okay. Let's test Bob's "common sense".
> Why did the FBI bulldoze the bodies of dead > Branch Davidians BACK into the compound BEFORE > it burned up?
> > Conspiracy nuts will always be nuts. In fact, the conspiracy nuts are > > always quick to point out, "The proof is that there is no proof."
> There's proof of Waco. The FLIR video.
> Why wasn't it shown in its entirety?
> Why is the National Debt up $1.3 trillion in > past four years if we have the "lowest deficit" > in over fifteen years?
> How do we have the "best economy in thirty years" > when we now have record bankruptcies, foreclosures > and credit card delinquiencies?
> My money says that both you clowns don't deal > in quantitative subjects, ergo you just shrug > shoulders to all these strange anomalies and > tell us "don't know". "Coincidence". Bullcrap.
> I sure as hell wasn't a "conspiracy nut", until > bypassed our "media" and got the FACTS about > Waco and Ruby Ridge. I suggest you do the same.
> > And so my fellow Americans, yet another conspiracy to the toilet!!
> > Gerry Rough
> > Exposing the fraud of the New World Order conspiracy theory > > ********************************************* > > * In Pursuit of Reason * > > * http://www.skyenet.net/~gerryr/index.html * > > *********************************************
: On Sat, 14 Dec 1996 13:48:17 -0500, drgnfist <flam...@mindspring.com>
: wrote: : >BobJ. wrote:
: >> : >> Now that the media has bilked TWA-800 for all it's worth and even all : >> but the most die hard conspiracy nuts are bored, an objective view has : >> shown that the real cause was an accident. The center fuel tank : >> exploded. : >> : >> The center fuel tank sits on top of several air conditioning units : >> that generate a lot of heat. When the center tank is empty or near : >> empty the air/fuel mixture gets hot enough to be explosive. When fuel : >> is transferred between port and starboard tanks, it goes through pipes : >> the pass through the center fuel tank. Under some conditions static : >> electricity is generated by the moving fuel that can cause a spark. : >> The rest is history. : > : >> BobJ. : > : > Bob. How come the fuel tank would be almost empty at the beginning of a : >transatlantic flight? : > : >John Lennon Loves You+You
: That is not a bad question, another good question is, why would you : need to transfer fuel so soon after take off?
: I really don't know the answer to either, but I would guess that if : the plane needed the center tank to be full to make it to it's next : destination that issue would have come up right away.
: If it did not need the fuel, then it would be a waste to carry it : around. I think it will be more difficult to answer why they would be : transferring it so soon after take off.
: BobJ. In fact Flight 800 was not carrying a full load of fuel because it didn't need to. It was carrying a sufficient amount to reach Paris from New York with reasonable reserve in case of a landing delay. The fuel was being transfered between tank to help keep the aircraft's trim stable. This information was taken from previous posts on rec.aviation.military, in case anyone wants to go to the effort to hunt up the specific details.
>> That is not a bad question, another good question is, why would you >> need to transfer fuel so soon after take off?
>> I really don't know the answer to either, but I would guess that if > The typical "Bob" answer. > "I don't know".
> Well, what the fuck, Bob. Are we dealing in MAGIC > here? Why is the only thing you ever post either > the offical government line, or "I don't know"?
On Sat, 14 Dec 1996 07:36:05 GMT, b...@ezon.com (BobJ.) wrote:
>Now that the media has bilked TWA-800 for all it's worth and even all >but the most die hard conspiracy nuts are bored, an objective view has >shown that the real cause was an accident. The center fuel tank >exploded.
Well I NEVER knew what brought down TWA 800 and did not speculate. But the KKK administration sure used the opportunity to try and shove more repressive gun control and terrorist legislation on the American people. Wonder if the KKKlinton administration will rescind the requirements to show your "papers" to get on a domestic flight. I hardly think so. Seems to me that KKK and his gang are the conspiracy wackos on this on.
>> That is not a bad question, another good question is, why would you >> need to transfer fuel so soon after take off?
>> I really don't know the answer to either, but I would guess that if
> The typical "Bob" answer.
> "I don't know".
> Well, what the fuck, Bob. Are we dealing in MAGIC > here? Why is the only thing you ever post either > the offical government line, or "I don't know"?
I have posted plenty of speculation of my own, mostly debunking the stupid missile hypothesis. The bomb was the best guess for a non-mechanical cause, but alas the evidence is just not there. There is no magic or malice, just an accident.
My guess is that you were duped by the tabloid press and other anti-government types and are now too embarrassed to admit it.
On Sun, 15 Dec 1996 06:02:13 GMT, rided...@flash.net (Dude) wrote: >On Sat, 14 Dec 1996 07:36:05 GMT, b...@ezon.com (BobJ.) wrote:
>>Now that the media has bilked TWA-800 for all it's worth and even all >>but the most die hard conspiracy nuts are bored, an objective view has >>shown that the real cause was an accident. The center fuel tank >>exploded.
>Well I NEVER knew what brought down TWA 800 and did not speculate. But >the KKK administration sure used the opportunity to try and shove more >repressive gun control and terrorist legislation on the American >people. Wonder if the KKKlinton administration will rescind the >requirements to show your "papers" to get on a domestic flight. I >hardly think so. Seems to me that KKK and his gang are the conspiracy >wackos on this on.
No, I'm afraid you need only look in the mirror. It's amazing the number of people who are perfectly willing to overlook facts in favor of rumors either read in the tabloids or the net. Maybe there's a 12 step program that might prove useful to you.
Marv
"Suspicion has such an uncanny power, that no matter how senseless and unjust it is, it can never be completely eradicated."
b...@ezon.com (BobJ.) wrote: >In term of absolutes no one can every really be >sure about anything, but investigators feel pretty certain that it was >an accidental explosion of the center fuel tank.
("Contradiction?? *What* contradiction?")
Help me out here, Bob. We can't know anything, so we're supposed to believe the implicit un-certainty of the investigators who "feel", in direct contravention of the fact that they can't know anything (in itself, being a "fact", also a contradiction), that they're "pretty certain" that this plane blew up as no other 747 has ever been shown to blow up before.
Is that it?
Ever taste an "axiom", Bob? Many parts *are* edible.
b...@ezon.com (BobJ.) wrote: >On Sat, 14 Dec 1996 15:58:09 GMT, dave...@city-net.com wrote: >>Do you know how many uneventful 747 flights there have been since the >>plane's inception? Why hasn't there ever been 1 single case of this >>happening, other than in the case of flight 800?
>I have no idea but probably millions, and actually there is at least >one other incident where the center fuel tank is still amoung the >probable causes.
