|
|
|
Grand Nubian
Skeptic Friend
USA
73 Posts |
 Posted - 11/17/2001 : 10:23:23 [Permalink]
|
@filthy,
I heard someone suggest that as well. But I think that if you, who admit not to be an expert knows this then so do the people that made the thing.
I'm not arguing for terrrorism as a cause, but I'm arguing against a freak accident.
|
 |
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 11/17/2001 : 11:26:41 [Permalink]
|
Same here. I just don't like the official explanation for 800. It doesn't 'feel' right.
Thus, I with hold judgment until a better explanation is put forth, if ever.
On the latest crash, there hasn't yet been time for a proper investigation to have been conducted. Offcials are jumping the gun putting forth statments.
We'll just have to wait and see.
f
The more I learn about people, the better I like rattlesnakes. |
|
|
|
Grand Nubian
Skeptic Friend
USA
73 Posts |
Posted - 11/17/2001 : 13:03:40 [Permalink]
|
Indeed, I think people are too open to accept the accident.
Before they put out the fires, they were saying "it doesn't appear to be terrorism" but at the same time they were promoting the accident idea.
|
|
|
|
Donnie B.
Skeptic Friend
417 Posts |
Posted - 11/17/2001 : 13:04:26 [Permalink]
|
Concerning the 800 explosion:
The FAA never determined the exact cause, but the evidence points to an explosion inside the center fuel tank, which is located in the midsection of the fuselage (between the wings, near the bottom of the plane). On that particular flight, that fuel tank was nearly empty, which means the tank contained mostly air with a small amount of fuel.
Normally, this is not a dangerous condition, for two reasons:
1. The fuel is not highly explosive when in liquid form, and
2. The tank was designed to minimize the possibility of a source of ignition.
But in the case of that particular flight, the plane sat for some 40 minutes on a very hot taxiway (it was a hot summer day) running its air conditioners at full blast. Those air conditioners are located right under the center fuel tank, and they run hot... very hot. (They are rarely needed in flight, since the air at high altitude is cold enough; indeed, engine heat is usually added to the passenger cabin air, even in summertime. But on the ground in summer, the air conditioners are absolutely necessary.)
So a condition was created that could produce a very volatile condition in the center fuel tank: a mixture of hot, vaporized fuel and air. (Commercial aircraft generally do not use pure nitrogen to prevent fuel tank explosions, as some military craft do.)
Therefore, all that was needed to explode that tank was a spark (this has been simulated and shown to be true). So far, the FAA has not been able to determine the exact source of that spark. None of the wiring that passes through the tank carries high current, so a single fault would not be enough to cause ignition. But those wires are bundled with other, higher-power wiring outside the tank. The most probable cause is a double fault: a short in the low-current wiring inside the tank, and another short betwen that wire and a high-current wire outside the tank. Unlikely, but possible, especially if one of those conditions was pre-existing and undetected.
However, the fact that flight 800 experienced an explosion inside the center fuel tank is not in question. All the physical evidence is consistent with that hypothesis, and inconsistent with the idea of a bomb or missile attack.
Continued...
-- Donnie B.
Brian: "No, no! You have to think for yourselves!" Crowd: "Yes! We have to think for ourselves!" |
|
|
|
Donnie B.
Skeptic Friend
417 Posts |
Posted - 11/17/2001 : 13:09:03 [Permalink]
|
...continued:
Concerning Flight 587:
No one has suggested, or is suggesting, that a fuel line explosion blew an engine off the A300, or that something made it "flip on its back", as far as I know.
Two mechanical failure modes have been suggested: loss of the vertical stabilizer (favored because of the distribution of the debris); or loss of an engine, either by a turbine failure followed by secondary effects, or by the fracture of the engine pylon. Both of the loss-of-engine modes have occurred previously on various aircraft. The same GE engine has suffered catastrophic failures on several occasions, and A300 engine pylons were already under FAA scrutiny prior to 587.
The vertical stabilizer failure has not occurred before, to my knowlegde; certainly not on an A300. But it is not beyond the realm of possibility that such a failure could occur.
It is ridiculous to suggest that the designers could have anticipated every possible circumstance, no matter how hard they try to do so. Of course airplanes are designed not to break apart, explode, and crash; yet they do so from time to time. All sorts of design flaws have made it into commercial aircraft. The deHavilland Comet, the first commercial jetliner, had several catastrophic accidents, which were eventually determined to have been due to metal fatigue (or rather, a design that did not properly take metal fatigue into account). The DC-10 had a poorly-designed cargo door latch, and at least two aircraft were lost before the flaw was corrected. Could the A300 have a hidden design flaw that could cause the vertical stabilizer to fail under certain conditions? Of course it could. The fact that it doesn't happen every day is meaningless; lots of Comets and DC-10s flew safely, even though they had potentially fatal flaws.
The entire FAA incident reporting system is designed to detect and correct these very flaws. If engineers were gods, no such system would be required. But they're human beings, and even with many smart people collaborating, flaws can be overlooked.
Does this prove the flight 587 crash was an accident? No. We're still in the early stages of the investigation. But so far, there's no evidence for sabotage or terrorism -- none, zilch, zero. That could change before I finish typing this, of course, but it's just ludicrous to claim that it couldn't have been an accident.
By the way, the airplane that took off ahead of 587 was a Japan Air Lines 747. There's your source of wake turbulence, GN.
-- Donnie B.
Brian: "No, no! You have to think for yourselves!" Crowd: "Yes! We have to think for ourselves!" |
|
|
|
Grand Nubian
Skeptic Friend
USA
73 Posts |
Posted - 11/17/2001 : 14:32:20 [Permalink]
|
Did I come to the "straw man" section of the forum or what?
|
|
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
Posted - 11/17/2001 : 15:40:59 [Permalink]
|
quote:
@tokyo,
It appears that you have some research of your own to do. THanks for breaking up the flow of this thread. good job.
Where did this asshole-ishness come from? I simply asked if you were speaking from authority, or claiming things as facts simply because you haven't heard otherwise.
I made clear that my hearing of engines falling off is simply vague recollections.
And "breaking the flow of the thread"?
------------
Sum Ergo Cogito |
|
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
Posted - 11/17/2001 : 15:46:23 [Permalink]
|
Grand Nubian, your contentious and belligerent attitude is out of left field here. What's your problem?
------------
Sum Ergo Cogito |
|
|
|
Donnie B.
Skeptic Friend
417 Posts |
Posted - 11/17/2001 : 17:13:03 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Did I come to the "straw man" section of the forum or what?
Huh? Was this directed toward my posts? Where do you think I was attacking a straw man, specifically?
-- Donnie B.
Brian: "No, no! You have to think for yourselves!" Crowd: "Yes! We have to think for ourselves!" |
|
|
|
Grand Nubian
Skeptic Friend
USA
73 Posts |
Posted - 11/17/2001 : 17:15:51 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Are you claiming this as an expert yourself, as in you have first-hand knowledge, or are you just saying this because you've never personally heard of this happening?
I'd research it a bit if I were you before stating these as facts if the latter is the case.
-----------------
Where did this asshole-ishness come from?
This is just a bit more contentious. I'd prefer not continueing this direction and retrun to the thread's topic and not "each other".
|
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 11/17/2001 : 17:39:02 [Permalink]
|
If that was indeed the condition of the fuel tank (I nmay have heard this, but forgotten), then it was indeed a volitile situation. I don't know much about aircraft construction, but I do know a bit about explosives, and that certainly was one. An empty tank is a LOT more dangerous than a full one. Still, I'd like to know the source of the ignition (under the described conditions, it wouldn't take much).
I also remember reports of 'rocket trails' headed toward the plane. Don't know if these were seen through the bottom of beer bottles or were wishful dreaming, or what. They were discounted, in any event.
I don't think we'll ever know exactly what happened to 800.
As for this most recent one, I think it is much to early in the invesigation to do much more than speculate.
But can't the conspiricy freaks have fun with it!?
f
The more I learn about people, the better I like rattlesnakes. |
|
|
|
Donnie B.
Skeptic Friend
417 Posts |
Posted - 11/17/2001 : 19:11:19 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I also remember reports of 'rocket trails' headed toward the plane. Don't know if these were seen through the bottom of beer bottles or were wishful dreaming, or what. They were discounted, in any event.
A missile strike was conclusively ruled out by forensic examination of the wreckage (they ended up recovering something like 80% of the plane, including the engines). Likewise, no evidence was found of a bomb blast in the passenger cabin or luggage compartments. However, pieces of the center fuel tank showed distortion and damage consistent with a fuel vapor explosion inside the tank.
After the blast, the front section of the plane fell straight into the water, but the rest flew on for some distance, trailing flames. This may be what led some witnesses to think they saw missile tracks.
One of the proposals made post-investigation was to add a nitrogen purge system, so the fuel tanks would never contain air (the N2 would be added under positive pressure as the fuel was consumed). I believe this was determined to be too costly and heavy to implememnt.
It would be nice to know what the ignition source was. There was no "smoking gun", but examination of the wiring harnesses of other 747's from that vintage showed significant amounts of insulation deterioration, especially in certain places where the cables went through bulkheads or around corners.
-- Donnie B.
Brian: "No, no! You have to think for yourselves!" Crowd: "Yes! We have to think for ourselves!" |
|
|
|
Trish
SFN Addict
USA
2102 Posts |
Posted - 11/17/2001 : 19:45:50 [Permalink]
|
quote:
It would be nice to know what the ignition source was. There was no "smoking gun", but examination of the wiring harnesses of other 747's from that vintage showed significant amounts of insulation deterioration, especially in certain places where the cables went through bulkheads or around corners
Donnie, didn't they also find the deterioration in the insulation inside the fuel tank? There are wires that are run through it.
Thank you for stating what I was attempting to so well.
GN,
You are misreading my examples as direct causes of the 587 crash. You seem to have found your pet theory - that it has to be terrorism. You fail consistently to understand that what I am saying is that as the metal in the structure of the aircraft ages it will FAIL! at some point. There are fatal design errors in most peices of equipment, no matter who designs the damn thing. Not everything winds up in the consideration of the design. Or, if it does, cost effectiveness becomes an issue so the consideration goes by the wayside and they (read engineers) put out a directive to check for certain things.
My knowledge of aircraft and some of the maintenance procedures comes of having worked on military aircraft. I never went into working on civilian airliners - so I am mostly unfamiliar with their regulations regarding civilian aircraft maintenance.
Metal fatigue is largely responsible for any type of catastrophic failure where things fall off the plane.
THIS IS AN EXAMPLE!
Metal fatigue caused the catastrophic failure where a section of fuselage ripped off a Hawaiian Airlines flight - it landed safely, BTW.
END EXAMPLE.
Metal fatigue is a problem that we will see more from as the entire fleet of US owned aircraft age. Prepare to see more of this in the future unless some aircraft are replaced by the airlines.
It is by the goodness of God that in our country we have those three unspeakably precious things: freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, and the prudence never to practice either of them. -Mark Twain |
|
|
|
PhDreamer
SFN Regular
USA
925 Posts |
Posted - 11/17/2001 : 20:12:51 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I also remember reports of 'rocket trails' headed toward the plane. Don't know if these were seen through the bottom of beer bottles or were wishful dreaming, or what. They were discounted, in any event.
I remember this as well. I also remeber an 'analysis' done by some reporter (Pierre Salinger??) of recordings of the radar scope from one of the airports. There was apparently some unidentified blip that appeared to intercept the blip that is presumed to be Flight 800. My dad, who was a radar operator in Vietnam, quickly debunked that notion to my satisfaction. Mainly, he doubts the radar signature of a missle would even show up on a civilian radar.
Funny guy, my dad. He can explain to the last detail how Oswald could have shot JFK by himself, yet he was one of the first to jump on the Gulf War Syndrome bandwagon. I really don't know one way or the other, but he was defending a Gulf War vet accused of murdering his girlfriend, I think, and that syndrome became an integral part of the defense. Needless to say (but about to be said), my dad is my hero, is generally a staunch skeptic, and is responsible for my skepticism now. 
There was an earthquake! A terrible flood! Locusts! It wasn't my fault, I swear to god! - Jake Blues |
|
|
|
Grand Nubian
Skeptic Friend
USA
73 Posts |
Posted - 11/17/2001 : 20:58:53 [Permalink]
|
@trish,
You are having a problem with insisting this claim that I've never made. It's the primary thing you've done since you began replying to me.
I will not agree to this fictioanl claim you keep saying I made/make/am making.
If you reveiw this thread you'll see that my first response to you is trying to inform you I wasn't discussing what you thought I was discussing. That didn't help.
Your next post continued to force feed this fantasy arguement on me as you show that it's absurd.
But your behavior is absurd.
You turn around and tell me that I'm mis reading YOUR posts? Then you willfully misread my post!
I have not made one attempt to prove it was terrorism nor have I said that I believe it was terrorism.
Yet, here you are claiming that my position is a terrorist "pet theory.
Since I've said very cleary that I'm not argueing for terrorism, but against an accident, you are the mis reader.
You on the other hand have made several attempt to convince me and others that it was due to the plane falling apart.
My pet theory, on you and your pet theory about me:
If I had taken a more agnostic position about the accident, saying things like filthy, then it wouldn't have gotten your attention.
But since I placed a low probability on it being an accident(which is YOUR belief) you felt offended. This offense cuased you to overlook the clearly stated "not arguing for terrorism".
It also cuased you to displace your behavior onto me in regards to "mis reading".
I've been called contentious, yet I tried to avoid this exchange with you in my first response to you.
On the other hand, no one has said a word to you about spoon feeding me this "pet theory' so that you can oppose it.
Of course this is part of the theory as well, there's no way that YOU could have mis read a post or two or three. Maybe totally overlooking one completely.
Instead, I look forward to evidence that it was me that sought you out in order to egage you with my "pet theory" of terrorism.
BTW...can you repeat what this theory of mine is? I can repeat you very well.
I look forward to more evidence that it was indeed an accident, since that is the only thing that could have happened.
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
