FS> The N93119 Crashed off Long Island.
FS> The N53111 with construction number 19677 and prod line number 73
FS> was deliverd to TWA on Sept 26 1970.
FS> And flew with TWA till october 1975 when it was delivered to the
FS> Iranian Air Force together with several TWA B747s
FS> On May 9th 1976 it was on approch to Madrid and was struck by
FS> lightning and crashed near Huete, Spain.
Well, that's *one* explanation. TIME Magazine on August 5, 1996, wrote
on page 30:
® The Boeing 747 that was TWA Flight 800 had been flying for a quarter
of a century without incident. The entire 747 fleet has been a bulwark
of rugged dependability, with one anomalous exception. On May 9, 1976,
a Continental Airlines Boeing-747-100, the same model as TWA Flight 800,
leased by the prerevolutionary Iranian air force, exploded in flight and
crashed near Madrid, killing 17 crew members. U.S. authorities who
investigated the crash never came up with a certain cause of the
disaster. But a commonly held hypothesis blamed a possible fuel leak, in
one of the wing sections above the engines, that might have mixed with
air and created a pocket of explosive gas. ¯
This is curiously, pretty close to what I think happened with TWA Flight
800 - although it's hard to figure out exactly. . . .It may be that is
only a half-truth. But there's a definite resemblance to an idea I had
-e specially the cause of that flash that was SEEN (and thus took place
on the OUTSIDE of the airplane)
I only found this reference by doing a text search for fuel leak.
This crash was one of 3 incidents cited as precendents by Sam Donaldson
on the ABC Prime Time show about the TWa crash a week ago Wednesday.
What I think happened with TWA Flight 800 is that it was sabotaged by a
bomb or bombs that were used ON THE GROUND. Someone who could get to the
plane without getting the blame created a few cracks in the fuselage,
using PETN. (Now I am not sure if all this is right somebody could
correct me) The intention was that the wing would come off in flight
somewhere over the ocean. The crash was would be blamed on metal
fatigue. The person who did it, however was not the world's best expert
on explosives or 747s. He created both a fuel leak and a hot air leak.
We know this can happen because just last week there was sabotage of a
Pan Am plane, which was kept at TWA terminal. I wonder by the way, if
anyone has the story as to just why the TWA plane was delayed on July
17, 1996 - there is something about a passenger-bag match failing and a
bag being taken off the plane and then put back on, but I wonder if
anyone has any more details. TWA was also very slow in coming up with a
passenger list then.
Anyway. . .
The fuel leaked to the outside of the plane, from the right wing or
maybe a fuel pump. There are drains. So far maybe not so bad. The fuel
clung to the underside of the plane. When the plane received clearance
to climb from 13,000 feet it moved along the surface till it hit a
pocket of hot air. There was an immediate red flash. The heat melted
some of the glue holding the plane together. A hole was punched in the
fuselage right where the right wing meets it and the plane quickly
started to come apart. After the plane started to break apart, a big
fire started - not 20 seconds later, not even eight seconds later, but
sooner.
Of course this was covered up because the fix had been put in by Delta
in advance, with one element of the now-improvised cover-up being to
spread the missile theory, and the FBI did a good job of it, along with
some people masquerading as being anti-Clinton on the Internet.
Here is what Sam Donaldson said, for what it is worth:
® In 1989, an Avianca 727 crashed in Colombia when fuel vapors were
ignited by a bomb that was otherwise too small to destroy the aircraft.
The next year, a Phillipine Airlines 737 exploded at Manila Airport
when vapors ignited its center fuel tank.
And back in 1976, in Madrid, Spain, an Iranian 747 virtually identical
to TWA 800 exploded when fuel vapors were ignited by lightning.
There is no evidence that lightning hit Flight 800. But if there was
also no bomb or missile strike, what could have provided the spark that
set off the explosion?
[Then we see Vernon Gross, described as an ABC consultant talking
about age and we hear somebody asked a leading question about wiring
- how wires could fray.]
® ABC Prime Time live show, Wednesday, June 4, 1997.
By the way the FBI investigation of the 1989 Avianca crash comes in for
heavy criticism in the report on the FBI lab, although it is
difficult to tell what the truth was there. Aviation Week had a
story on it on page 44 of the April 28, 1997 issue.
The 737 explosion was originally thought to be a bomb, and there may not
be a good technical explanation for how, unaided, the fuel tank could
have exploded. Boeing said there could not have been an explosion in the
747, so the NTSB told them to go back and model this 737 explosion and
try to explain it. If the people there know that THAT was not really an
accident, they almost can't lose - if Boeing can come up with a
plausible scenario for the 737, they can try applying it to TWA Flight
800, if not they can say Boeing's computer models aren't good enough to
disprove a central fuel tanbk explosion. At least not eithout revisiting
that 1990 explosion.
--- PCBoard (R) v15.3/M 10
---------------