How Air Conditioning Caused TWA Flight 800 to Explode
Vložit
- čas přidán 17. 09. 2018
- Investigators suspect the cause of the July 17, 1996 crash of TWA Flight 800 was an exploding fuel tank. But to find out why the fuel became hot enough to ignite, they'll need to re-create the exact flight conditions.
From the Series: Air Disasters: Explosive Proof bit.ly/2oiLgig - Zábava
>let's do a test flight to see if these conditions made the plane explode
>test flight explodes
There was no fuel in the sensored tank
*surprised Pikachu face*
*and then they don’t have any proof because the plane exploded*
I was waiting for that like when he went to put the phone on the holder just BOOM💥
>lets test the circumstances that led to the test flights' crash that went to test another flight crash.
I like how he talking to us as we’re part of investigation
Yeah really helps to make you feel like you're part of the investigation.
123 likes
jal 123 has left the chat
Yikes.. that was one of the most terrifying plane crash that ever existed.
Its a good format. They should use it more often 😁
It was a missile that brought it down! BIG government coverup!
Jesus, that test they did was super dangerous.
TheGr8stManEvr was thinking the same thing lol
TheGr8stManEvr There was no fuel in the sensored tank.
please explain more of your thoughts. thanks.
Was it though? How many 747's had, to that point, operated in hot weather with the air conditioning packs working full blast, and how many had exploded?
I can never understand what everyone means by..."the AC units running or working full blast".... Is that suppose to make it sound 'scarier' ?? The Air pack operates at one level. 'On.' there is no 'full blast'. lol... and Hot weather is moot, as well. unless the weather was at full blast! lol....
"I think this is how they crashed, lemme do the exact thing real quick to check"
Bruh what about simulation hangers
Comrade Stalin no fuel in the selective tanks.
Don't think they could simulate the altitude. Ambient temp drops the higher the altitude.
It was a missile strike that destroyed the plane because this test did NOT destroy the plane they tested it on.
Comrade Stalin right. I was like... so you’re gonna recreate the same thing that blew them up with you in it??? That’s dedication.
A short circuit in the wiring made its way into the fuel tank
“According to Boeing”
Oh here we go again
Boeing actually provided data contrary to the NTSB demands for 'a tank issue'.. we sued the NTSB in court and proved NTSB fraud.
@@robshef718 Ok then, what made plane go BOOM? (any mention of a missile will be laughed at)
Heyyy I’m a new CZcamsr who’s trying to accomplish her dream of becoming a popular creator. Please help me to reach that goal by supporting my channel!!
@@djlawlz4041 NO and stop begging
@@djlawlz4041 Your content is boring and self-centred. This isn't TikTok or Instagram, make interesting videos if you want subscribers, not vlogs of your boring life.
Me: **Looks at my air conditioner**
**Softly** "Don't"
5 seconds later:
FBI OPEN UP!!
Air conditioner: alright sorry
You know it’s good when you are watching this using inflight Wi-Fi on an airplane
Then it explodes lol
How was your flight?
Meh, im too cheao for the wifi and prefer my security. Ill just use cell signal. Also have fun dialing 911 at 6 miles about the tower and going 300mph
Actually there was no wifi as the accident happened in 1996
@@annetteslife Gavin Li1117 meant that like Right now he/she was watching this on an airplane in 2019 with wifi of the plane
Imagine having the same accident in the test. And then another NTSB group try to find why the test crashed, and they do the same test again. And it crashes again. We then have a massive extinction of NTSB Agents.
Lol
They could not duplicate in the UK The NTSB with a static B747-100
With their mass extinction.. new jobs would be created
@@Highflight1000because UK did not have C!A
Gotta love the KLM 737s at JFK Airport
Yeah lol. Might as well just add some Qantas 737s and some other 737s
You do know what an INTERNATIONAL airport is????
'I' never said that a '737 could fly from the Netherlands to America'. Where, did you get 'that' from? lol.
Rob Shef well then what were you implying
No, what are You implying? lol.... FYI: your assumption was based on (as you said) and after you insulted my intelligence....when 'You' said, "737's can't fly from the Netherlands to America'... Actually they can, but then You would not know this, which is what makes my job fun. So, seeing a KLM 737 at JFK is not some 'mystery'. :)
"Jet fuel isn't flammable in its liquid form" my life is a lie
However on another plane crash, it helps disprove the crackpots.
The way Kerosene *does* burn is in explosive flash fires..
Which explains the explosions New Yorkers heard on 9/11.
That and the fact that the planes (which are aluminium) were melting (due to the floors above collapsing on the burning planes, creating an impromptu furnace), and melted aluminium explodes *violently* when it comes into contact with water.. which would have come form the pipes the planes absolutely broke.
Jet fuel has to be atomized before it becomes flammable. You can throw a lit match into a bucket of jet fuel and it will put the match out. I'm a pilot. I've seen it firsthand in a demonstration performed by our local airport's Crash, Fire, and Rescue.
@@georgemallory797 diesel is the same way..
It is not the liquid that burns. It is the vapour.
"This is off the charts"
*Digital readings with no chart lines* : Pikachu face
Gonna assume sarcasm but please tell me if it wasn't?
@@robloxmaker50 it's called a joke
@@DB-gl3jx lol thank you I had assumed it was but that day I dealt with two people for most of the day who refused to joke so i was a bit uncertain on assuming at thay point in time
@@robloxmaker50 no worries lol, some people in the youtube comment section can be quite a hassle sometimes 😂
Years ago the military required their planes to have the space as the fuel level dropped to be filled w/ non- flammable nitrogen.. Commercial airliners were also mandated to have this system after flight 800.. Whether or not it was a missile it did improve airliner safety.
Actually all boeing aircraft built after 1969 have this nitrogen feature for filling the tanks. It's actually a filter that filters out the larger oxygen molecules of air filling the tank. That info comes from a buddy of mine who has worked on those planes for almost 50 years in Dallas Texas. So, no explosion was possible.
@@KBS117 Then why did they change to the military version of explosive gases management? Because the filters system wasn't as good as hoped, that's why. This from the head of AirCanada's maintenance dept. @ an EAA 486 guest speaker event, about 7 years ago... I was president of the chapter at the time.
@@robertquick6690 I agree, but the point is this, no spark is possible in that tank, and if it is, the wasn't any fuel in it. The previous pilot states he had pumped the tank completely dry, into the wing tanks.. then we have the heat issue on the ac systems. They cannot heat the fuel that hot as they have a 140 degree max operating temp before they shut down, and the pilot has to reset the ac system to function after it cools down. Then we have ignition. For jet fuel to blow up takes the perfect ratio of air fuel mixture in the tank. Too much oxygen and it just burns, not enough, you get no ignition. We know this plane had nitrogen filters on the tanka, so maybe some oxygen did get past the filter, but it could never be enough for ignition.
You add all that up, and I say it was 1 chance in a million. I used to build bombs out of 2 liter plastic jugs and used acetylene and oxygen for the explosion. I made hundreds of these as a teen ager and even built a canon.. I can tell you, it takes a perfect mixture to get an explosion.. and acetylene is way more volatile than jet fuel. And I tried using gasoline and oxygen and I never got that combo to explode. I burnt some jugs trying, but I never blew one up.. just saying, blowing that tank is next to impossible.
This makes me think of the SR-71
Actually, that model plane was modified in 1969 to have those nitrogen filters on the tanks. So, this plane had nitrogen in those empty tanks.
3:12 “holy crow”
I haven't heard that phrase since the early 80s.
@@tomservo5007 Bruhhhhhhh I heard like 1 year ago
I think my grandpa must have been on the investigation team.
@@khonwang6263 its funny cause you said like
Heyyy I’m a new CZcamsr who’s trying to accomplish her dream of becoming a popular creator. Please help me to reach that goal by supporting my channel!!
Props to the people who were brave enough to go on the test flight though.
Why? The so called "flight test was fake science, and not based in anything factual.
@@robshef718 Aircraft Manufacturers save billions of dollars by calming some missile was responsible
@@robshef718
Hi again, in a previous thread I asked for evidence of your claim the fuel vapors couldn't explode. I cited a bunch of evidence. Still waiting for yours. :)
@@robshef718 OH MY GOSH YOUR EVEN HERE FROM THE ANIMATION, ITS LIKE YOUR A VIRUS.
People have been brave enough to get on 747s for decades.
Nobody:
Not a single soul:
NTSB: *we need to prove fuel is flammable*
JET FUEL is not a Flammable, but a Combustible Liquid. signed: former US NAVY Aviation Boatswain. :)
I was just thinking this whole thing is a lie. I done 100 different storys from ppl who wasn't there. Yet ppl who actually saw it say the same thing🤔 who in the fuck do you think I'm going to believe now 😭 it was shit down
@@robshef718 you obviously don't know anything about chemistry.
lol.... So, please. *Do tell us* everything _you_ know about Aviation kerosene and _your_ professional experience with it!
@@GiordanDiodato its not flammable, but its combustible.
If if gets mixed with air, BOOM.
I think they should implement more of the "investigator taking to the camera a.k.a the viewers". It makes the viewers feel like their engage with the investigators, almost like we're also the investigator. I really like it.
What great acting!! Hey idiots absorb this propaganda!!!! So what? You still need oxygen and a spark.
cringe
It's like Red Alert games all over again
@@ChaklitTea shut up 🤣
Makes you wonder, did he say "Well, this is interesting. We are right" or did he say when he realized the danger say "Land the plane! Land it! For the love of God land this plane!! Mommy! Mommy! Land the plane!!Aaiiueeree!!!!"
not a SINGLE commercial airliner before or since this event has ever spontaneously exploded mid-air. planes had been sitting on far hotter tarmacs with their AC units running in places like egypt and dubai and didnt explode. i highly doubt this happened due to a fuel tank explosion.
Look up: ' Ray Lahr/ motion/PDF ' Then look up ' Ray Lahrs FOIA lawsuit against the NTSB ' Pass it along.
They took down the full episode. RIP
Why
Oceanbrave u have to buy it
After watching all these videos I'm not sure if I want to get onto a plane
The problem has been solved. The aviation industry learns from it's mistakes.
You’re much safer flying now than in 1996 when this happened
You are more likely to die at the hands of another motorist than on a plane
YouGotRickRolled facts I’m not sure if I do wanna fly to ny I’m from my but I’m out of the city and I wanna fly back but I’m not sure if I wanna get back on a plane
There is a saying I learned in aviation. “Policies are written in blood”
So shit has to happen unfortunately
"How Air Conditioning Caused TWA Flight 800 to Explode" - That is the biggest pile of bull______ I have ever heard!!!!!
Thank You..... Pass this along: twa800.com/news/nlj-9-18-06.htm
twa800.com/lahr/motion.pdf
twa800.com/lahr/affidavits/x-ray-lahr.pdf
NTSB Investigator 1: "Holy smokes, I think I discovered an extremely dangerous flaw in this aircraft's design!"
NTSB Investigator 2: "Really? that's fascinating! Are you thinking what I'm thinking?"
NTSB Investiagor 1: Flashes evil smile - "You mean, let's get another airline, duplicate the exact conditions with all us NTSB Investigators onboard?"
NTSB Investigator 2: "YES! YES! YES!"
Both NTSB Investigators leap out of their seats, grab hands and skip merrily down the hallways, the other NTSB staff violently tilt their heads back laughing hysterically.
Boi you put too much effort on that comment
Sounds like a pretty normal day at the NTSB to me.
investiagor
Boi that's so many comment
Was there a point?
Look up the report. Something hit the L3 door and caused 19 small holes. Sure sounds seems like it was something on the outside. Whats explosive and causes small holes after it detonates? I can't think of one thing. I'm going to go watch Behind Enemy Lines now.
I believe it was debris from the high altitude holographic missile fired from bombs attached to the bottom of flight 11 in tandem with the planted explosives in tower 7. Not to mention to possibility of a 2nd gunman contributing to what was seen in frame 314
640k views yet no comments? MAKES SENSE
Why am I binge watching these videos?
It's more binge worthy as hell's kitchen
@@mulsanne1 It's more binge worthy than MLP:FIM
You’re nostalgic for National Geographic’a Mayday/Air Crash Investigation series
Ur nort alone
Next up "could this chicken coming cause the AC too explode
Next they should do one on jet fuel and steel beams
Or Zyklon B staining concrete
there is no steal beams in any airplane. plane beams are made or aluminum and titanium or both
@@hassangoli8080 It's a 9/11 conspiracy joke
nathan V 👍. WTC 7 = Flight 800 = BS = government coverups.
r/wooosh
0:25 "Let's start with the first one..... (dramatic pause) -- Flammability." DUN DUN DUNNNNN!
The guy in the video is an actor as well as an idiot. Jet Fuel or Aviation kerosene is NOT a Flammable, but a 'Combustible' liquid.....which in the 747 fuel tank never can become 'heated' to its flash point. The rest is JUNK SCIENCE....and the video is factually Incorrect. Dun dun dunnnnnnn.
@@robshef718 "Commercial jet fuel is a pale yellow liquid with a petroleum odor. It has an auto-ignition temperature of 410°F (210°C). Its explosive limits are from 0.6 to 4.7 percent by volume in air. Coupled with its flash point, this means that at 100°F there is enough vapor in the air to reach the lower explosive limit so that even if an ignition source is not present and the fuel reaches a temperature of 410°F (and this is considerably below all common ignition sources), an explosion will occur."
Source: www.fireengineering.com/2002/10/01/244558/jet-fuel/
Wow some people just tried to keep cool then *KABOOM* Really Sad....
These vids are so addicting
Temperature drops 2 degrees for every 1k altitude. At 14k, A/C could be relaxed.
sillyone52062 they said most of the ac working time was several hours before take-off
That's assuming standard ICAO atmosphere is in place, which is basically never.
@@intorsusvolo7834 Yes every plane does that everywhere in the world since the dawn of time. If the aircraft is about to fly another leg it runs on its own ac, power etc for most of the turnaround.
NY at 8pm isn't that hot. AC wasn't under stress. They simply lie.
They really need to quit, that plane was shot out of the sky..period
Visit where the accident aircraft is. There’s no way it was a missile. They even have the remains of the fuel tank that exploded.
@@Powerranger-le4up there was literally a Navy ship practicing weapon tests with SAMs in the vicinity and after the plane went down it bounced. There were hundreds of witnesses. This plane WAS shot down by a missile.
@@noahtek1101 um the Normandy ship wasn’t even in range your argument is invalid
TWA flight 800 went down during a clear summer night off NYC's east coast. There were many people out and about that night; many of whom saw a streak of light go up into the sky and then an explosion. The US Navy was conducting exercises that night off the east coast.
If you haven’t seen it, check out the current article at American Thinker.
Please please.... The NAVY was 185 miles south but not firing missiles. That rumor interferes with other info that most 'need' to ignore. it kills the sensationalism though. It has made Videos and has sold books due to premature distribution, but who is going to write a book and make a video and then have to 'back track'???
You do realize that the plane was at 15,000 feet? That means the plane was more than 2.5 miles high. The plane was also several miles off the coast of Long Island. Light is faster than sound. At the time you heard the explosion, the plane had already blown up about 20 seconds beforehand. Looking up, the contrails would have been illuminated by the setting sun, seen the explosion which had happened about 20 seconds beforehand, the plane already split in half with the nose falling and the rest of the plane out of control going upward.
@@robshef718 The explosion of the mid fuel tank. After that went off, it weakened the front of the airframe, causing the nose to sheer off. The engines were throttled up, so as the plane lost significant weight it initially pitched upwards and climbed.
@@easternyellowjacket276 why do you assume that people had to be alerted by sound before seeing this happen? Back before cell (phones), BC, people actually observed their environment and had a modicum of situational awareness. Those days are in the past, but it’s an interesting historical note. Now of course sheeple only look down and follow the feet of the sheeple in front of them.
After American Airlines 191 crashed all DC-10s were grounded. Why weren't all 747s grounded after TWA 800, if the accident was due to a fuel tank issue. It's so transparent, my dead and blind relatives can see it.
....because no other missiles hit any other 747 planes.
@@trueknowledgeispower Because no missile hit any 747 whatsoever.
The 747 involved was to be scrapped the following year. This is how the 747-100s finished (I think the last one was broken up in 2000). The other 747s were more recent and not known to present this electrical problem. Also, airline industry fell upon the solution in 1997 : since then carriers fill the nearly empty tanks with nitrogen, replacing oxygen, so no blaze or explosion can occur. Nitrogen is also used to inflate tires for the same reason.
"Something created a spark to ignite the fuel..." Yeah, like a surface to air missile
the plane was not downed by a SAM warhead (as the initiating event.) The missile theory would be moot given that the warhead (had that been the case) would trump the fuel, so the 'fuel exploding' is negligible.
bluehorseshoe444 lol
bluehorseshoe444 A damaged wire in the tank caused the spark.
and where did you come up with that crazy theory? Oh, that's right...the NTSB..... which stands for 'Not The Smartest Bunch!'....
Rob Shef They found proof by reconstructing the plane and doing tedious, lengthy, ming-boggingly critical examinations. And what have you dont to prove your "theory?" Think?
I haven't read any of them, but I'm guessing there are a lot of bat shit-crazy theories if I were to scroll down.
scroll up.....lol....
Rob Shef wot
@@robshef718 is THE fucking conspiracytard on this video.
@@robshef718 that because your the crazy theorist that thinks the plane just blown up from a missle that was from the navy with best source being humans a totally reliable source.
I never said that the plane was blown up by the navy? *Like ripping a band aid off* :)
If this is all true, it begs the question; why wasn't the 747 fleet grounded?? Hmmmm.......
They didnt ground them, because they could not find an ignition source in any of the other identical planes. They could only make recommendations to prevent the fuel from vaporizing.
Yeah the whole thing smells of bs
Next up: Jet Fuel Can Melt Steel Beams
pretty much how the wtc fell
They didn’t have to melt 🤡
The center fuel wing tank got overheated and filled with flammable fuel vapors that bent the wiring and then all that was needed was a spark to set off that deadly tragic explosion which is indeed what happened on that night.
The plane was not show down by a missal
How do I watch the full Episode?This seems like shorten summary of the actual vdo.Can anyone help?
If this is true, then it really was a million-to-one shot that the heat actually accumulated to blow up the plane or ignite a spark or a short circuit. . . . I remain dubious.
It did not occur. IT Cant occur. PERIOD! There can NEVER be a catastrophic explosion from KEROSENE 'Vapors'...... 'Jet Fuel' is NOT a flammable.... but a 'combustible liquid', and has a very high flash point and low volatility. No spark can 'detonate VAPORS' like that. If that was the case, then every time you tried to start the jet engine, it would blow apart! Anyway, we took the NTSB to court over this and our experts impeached the NTSB report for Fraud! A judge Agreed. But the Fake news who gets $$$$$$$$ off, wont tell you about the lawsuit. They will all get to share stories about this in hell with the NTSB.
@@robshef718 No, it wouldn't blow up every time you start the engine, because there's no spark to ignite it unlike here in TWA's case.
@@thisperson2517 If you own a modern gasoline powered car you have an electric fuel pump with wires in your tank. I have seen the wires burn in two and no explosion. This is gasoline not kerosene. Do you worry about that?
Gotta respect those people who went up to do the test
I respect more the NAVY sailors who did not detonate their missile before killing innocent people.
I also commend the NAVY testing air-to-air ordinance right off shore of a major godamn airport.
Negligence or on purpose.
Either way, all sailors involved should be sent to GITMO.
That would bring the high-ranking rats out of the shadows.
You gotta do what you gotta do
But how can we be sure unless the test flight has the same number of passengers and we actually get an explosion
How to make a cover up? Just create a daytime movie out of the incident then Hollywoodize the details 🤦🏻♂️ Scary how they get the Smithsonian to sign off and back it, now anyone who does the actual math is crazy.. 🤷🏻♂️
I saw the actual Mayday episode and when they did the test I thought,"oh my goodness don't blow up!"
Theory is wrong.
Only a moron, non pilot would believe this.
Why would a documentary need acting? And why poor acting?
I still prefer original or stock footage.
Exactly! I mean at least make it look realistic if you are going to act it out.
Right cause if a plane crashes in the middle of the ocean I’ll be waiting for it there to record it
It's more a tv show than a documentary. Besides, documentaries are not really the standard for truth in the media.
God guys, it's a cheap tv channel... Chill out
@@sonotswifty - But why did they "'have to' recreate those scenes" in the first place? Is everyone so hooked on info-tainment that they must watch produced re-creations to experience the drama of past events? I just finished reading the NTSB transcripts of the CVR recovered from Alaska Airlines flight 261 after it crashed into the Pacific - killing all 88 aboard - because of a seized mechanical jack screw designed to actuate the horizontal stabilizer. There is more tension and distress in the printed words of that transcript than any 're-creation' imaginable, regardless of how theatrical it may be.
To many witnesses observed it being shot down
and its ON RADAR!!!
If you research the paranormal hypnotherapist Dr. Bruce Goldberg his
book "Self Hypnosis" refers to a story of a woman who used hypnosis to see a
premonition of a trip in which she planned booking a flight to be on TWA
Flight 800. In the premonition she saw that the flight was doomed
killing everyone including her. So she changed her travel plans and
lived. I've always wonder if the creators of Final Destination aware
and inspired by this story.
Why is it that no other 747 exploded during these conditions? Maybe they didn’t factor in the missile.
Capt America 👍
Because they're wiring were not as bad and thus no ignition.
Simple.
The wiring caused a spark in the fuel tank
Sounds insane to do a test like that .
Hahaha, fuel reaches 200 degrees all the time in my semi truck and it never blows up. 127 is nothing... no oxygen in those tanks prevent explosions, and no wiring either... one of my high school buddies has been an A&P tech for the 747 for years, and he says anytime they enter a fuel tank on the 747, they have to wear oxygen packs, as those tanks are full of nitrogen.. no oxygen in them at all.
I have 2 first cousins flying people 747's , and all of them laugh at the f.b.i's findings.. of course, most 747 and 757's are outdated and retired now..
@@KBS117 fuel quantity indication probes are there no?
@@cruisertechgt they have resistance meters to measure fuel levels. All wiring going into the fuel area are guarded by diodes. The diodes prevent electrical current from feeding into the fuel area, while allowing ground resistance metering from the probe to connect to the gauges. Then the 757 has 2 a/c units on that plane. Both will shut down when they get too hot.. the pilots will have to reset them once they cool down. The biggest problems is fuel jelling from getting too cold at high altitude.. heat is constantly applied to the fuel to keep it warm.. the fuel in my semi truck tanks reaches 180 degrees in the summer, as the fuel also cools the injectors and pump. 127 degrees on an oil based fuel does not scare me at all.. never seen a semi truck blow up..
@@KBS117 great explanation thank you!
Boing knew oxygen in the fuel tanks on these planes was a hazard. In 1969 they redesigned the center fuel tank on these planes, adding nitrogen generators to fill these tank with nitrogen as the fuel was sucked out. This eliminates any explosion hazard. This plane was built in 71, and it had the updated center fuel tank. The fbi is covering the navy shooting down this plane. The navy had fired 2 misses at drones that day, flight 800 had violated the navy's safe zone, and both missiles targeted the 747. I'm told the first missile targeted engine 3. The second one went into the center fuel tank and blew the nose off the plane. The facts are out there... my info comes from my best friend, who has been an a&p technician on the 747 and 757 for 35 years. He laughs at the fbi's report.
I wish they did longer videos
This is all very interesting, but the cruise missile spotted by the 200 witnesses who called the FBI and the two photographs of it probably helped as a contributing factor 😂
Ok, so Now we have a Cruise missile in the theory?? next, what...an ICBM???
Except nobody saw a missile and there aren’t any photographs of it. 🤦♂️
So the plane was delayed for 2 hours and with the air conditionars right below the center fuel tank and the ac when up to 300 degress and that vapored the fuel making it very easy to catch fire and with the aging electrical system of the 747-131 bundles wires mixed with high voltage wires and low voltage wires some are so warm they can short circuit. High voltage went to where it shouldnt go. Seconds later it went to the fuel probe and then it blew up.
Also the fbi agreed with the ntsb later.
@@Ultimaton100 Accept thousands saw several of the missiles, and (ready for the bomb) The FAA Radar has a missile on radar (per court documents and statements from the FAA managers in court documents) and...The 'machinists' in their report, make it clear that an EXTERNAL event, impacting the left wing root, is what started the break-up of the plane. You are so welcome!
Just like final destination when the plane exploded in the air🤧but this is sad
Malaysia’s World final destination is inspired by this sad crash
That’s cause Vólee Air Flight 180 from Final Destination was confirmed to be based off of TWA Flight 800.
The real TWA flight 800 also had highschool kids on board taking a class trip to Paris
I think this crash inspired Final Destination. But I'm not 100% sure.
@@pollypockets508 It did, but the least we can see is the movie was pretty far from what actually happened during TWA 800.
I sent an email to the FBI back then, though as a non-American I didn't know what else to do or whom to contact with information. I was a passenger on the previous flight, seat 14A (or 12A - my memory still puzzles me on that). My seat was the only one that had a leak from the overhead A/C system while we were waiting 2 hours for takeoff. A greenish liquid that messed up my shirt and the flight attendant said they could replace my shirt, though I never asked. The leak stopped when we took off.
When I heard about the accident I also heard that the airplane split in around the area of my seat.
Wow that’s sounds real
Pilot: ay fam it’s kinda hot in here lemme turn on the Air conditi-
Smithsonian, that paragon of objectivity.
you are being a wise guy....right?
Hmmm, let's do the same thing to see if we will DIE! Madness.
I would say;
"....thanks for a good investigation, now we can secure the airline.... you are fired!"
13 degrees “ablowv” the flash point?
WOW!
The air conditioning system got THAT hot?!
Well now they know and can stop that from happening again!
That is one dedicated investigator.
Don’t believe everything you are being fed.
www.raylahr.com/Cert-Pet-4-21-10.pdf
1:20 Look behind the TWA jet there is a KLM 737. How would a Dutch 737 get to NYC?
Watching so many of these videos makes me wonder how i survived all those flights
Flying is extraordinarily safe
2:32 death wish
You think?
How is there 3 comments only
They really used a 747 to demonstrate it, holy hell
That's not true. Fuel is NOT flammable. Temperature in N Y at 8pm wasn't that high to put high pressure on the AC system. July, 8pm temp is 28c at NY. A missile hit that plane. Don't make some fools of us.
czcams.com/video/7nL10C7FSbE/video.html
then:
czcams.com/video/EYFF_1HSgDU/video.html
But I have a doubt
As you go higher in altitude,the temperature should start to drop outside the aircraft and should initially cool the tanks
How did it reach 127F???
This was internal under the center fuel tank... Getting Hot...
Did you watch the Video? They Show and explain what & how by the A/C unit in the center of the Plain where the fuselage and wings meet is where the center fuel tank and A/C unit heated up to over 200 degrees or more past the flash point of the fuel. Not a missile as one's think.. Heat!
What Missile????
Some Guy, come on it was over 45K feet high.. Look at the Video and learn...
@@quasicode6954 "fuel doesn't explode like this"
But it does.
This was the only 4th wall break I’ve ever seen in a Smithsonian video, but very well done.
Uh... Boeing has put its air conditioning packs underneath the centre tank for years. Every model it’s made with the exception of the 787 which uses a different system is like that.
The air for the air conditioning pack is at 350F whether it’s being used to heat or cool the plane. That’s because it’s bleed air from the engines. The pack actually cools the air... first through a heat exchanger.. and then through an air cycle machine in parallel with another heat exchanger. The resulting air is so cold it has to be heated up with raw bleed air even in cooling mode.
What’s interesting is that they didn’t think of the hydraulic fluid cooling system. It uses fuel to cool the fluid... and uses the very hot hydraulic fluid to keep the fuel from freezing at high altitudes. It’s inside the tank... not next to it insulated by insulation and several layers of metal in a compartment that is vented to atmosphere.
Yes, the AC/ Air pack system has been successfully used as it was designed, for years...Until the fear tactics from the corrupt NTSB created a head ache. Thanks for be the only other person in here in many years who actually understand the Air Pack system. I could not have said it better.
But in all cases, the AC/ Air packs had no part in the crash, and cannot have had any part in the accident.
The air conditioning packs story seems plausible because Philippine Airlines Flight 143 exploded in 1990 for the same probable reasons.
Not sure about kerosene but the combustion chamber of a diesel engine exceeds 400 degrees for the fuel to ignite.
The recreation with the corny acting really detracts from this.
seconds from disaster is better watch it
More coverup BS. Since the 747-100 had a positive fuel tank venting system, and the aircraft had been airborne for over 12 minutes at the time of the explosion, it is unlikely that ANY "explosive vapor" existed in TWA 800s Center Section Tank when the aircraft exploded. As a TWA 747 Captain, I flew the 747 for months after 800 went down. The “fix” was to carry a minimum of 10,000# in that tank as “unusable” fuel as I remember. We flew it from STL to HNL in the summer. There was NO restriction on using the a/c packs on the ground or in flight.
Thank You. And what most peeps in here cant figure out... (and I was a US Navy Aircraft Handler and Fire Fighter and worked with aviation kerosene) is that Jet fuel IS NOT a flammable liquid but a COMBUSTIBLE liquid who's Flash point is very high and that the fuel is extremely stable and very low in volatility. Its properties just cannot allow for such a powerful and high energy explosion that would blow in half, the strongest plane ever built! it was a missile!
Since the claim is the ac units that heated up the fuel, then why it didnt explode on the ground where temperature is higher alongside oxygen rather than 15000ft with colder temp and less oxygen
@@ChaklitTea Of course anyone who has half a brain knows that the plane did not 'just blow up' . And the 'AC' unit DOES NOT provide any appreciable heat into the tank, as it is designed not too! It was a missile.
Oh yeah, new plane videos!
That would be a little unnerving to be one of the people onboard while reproducing those conditions.
1:20
No one:
737: does a long range from amsterdam to jfk
They lie to you about everything, said A retired airforce person.
By the way, this is Episode 4 of Season 17 called "Explosive Proof"
"According to Boeing ...." Well there's your problem right there.
At 14,000 ft., the outside temp was just too high and cold to vaporize the fuel oil. The outside temp MUST be taken as a factor and NOT ignored.
They also ignored the air content inside the fuel tank. Fuel needs a certain amount of oxygen to explode.
@@mach6893 you forgot that it takes hot air from the engines and cools it down
@@jonahmoran3751 True, and that's how the fuel vapors reached ignition temperature.
It wasn’t a fuel tank problem. 😂 It was a missile strike.
Actually it makes the ignition point lower.
Watching these videos is making me realise and is also genuinely convincing me that practically every single thing inside an aircraft can make it crash (not good news!). From an autopilot system with a mind of its own, to a freaking airconditioner?!
@Robi Shefran do you even know which flight I was referring to? Because it definitely did not involve 2 airliners......
You need to stop jumping to conclusions and making assumptions on people's comments before gathering the full information on these things.
@@tasha3757 Still, two airliners fell victims of these flaws, but with 6 years between each other.
Or a stereo system inside the walls.
Those a/c units have a high temp cutoff of 120 degrees, and the flight engineer has to reset the ac unit once it cools down. No way it heated the empty tank hot enough for ignition. I have a friend who has been an A and P mechanic on those planes for 40 years. I have 2 cousins who have flown those jets millions of miles. They all laugh at the fbi story. Since 1969 all those planes were retrofitted with filters that scrub the oxygen molecules from the incoming air into those fuel tanks. There was no oxygen in that tank!!!! No explosion possible!!!! Plus the crew before them had pumped the center tank completely dry, no fuel in that tank for an explosion. Spark? From bad wiring? Are you frigging kidding me? Every circuit on that plane has a breaker, and the wires in that tank is diode protected.. 3 strikes and you are out.
@@julosx in that 6 years the FAA installed oxygen scrubbing filters on the fuel tanks of every jet in the world. Oxygen cannot get into those tanks. No explosion is possible, now.. the first one yes, it did happen
What actually ignited it though?
If someone replies anything about conspiracy theories here, I will delete this and repost it.
a spark from frayed wiring inside the fuel tank that feeds power to the fuel tank level sensor was the most likely cause of the source of ignition. The sensor's voltage itself was only 4 volts, not enough to create a spark, but the wiring on the airplane was pretty bad and all bundled together with the fuel level sensor's wiring. Likely somewhere down the line much higher voltage from somewhere else, leaked into the fuel level sensor wiring, which created a spark that ignited the fuel. Sorry if this sounds confusing. I'm not the best at language arts.
There is a phenomenon that often occurs in airplanes called "stray voltage". It occurs because there are a lot of parallel runs of wiring that are close together. When power is switched in one wire, such as a major power buss being turned on or off, a high voltage pulse can be electromagnetically induced in an adjacent wire. This is the same principle as in a car's ignition coil except the wires are straight instead of coiled up. As TWA-800 climbed out a major power system may have been switched on or off causing a high voltage pulse to be induced in some adjacent wiring going into the fuel tank. This created a spark inside the tank, which ignited the fuel vapors.
They never actually could find the wire that caused the spark interestingly enough. They recovered like 97% of the aircraft but couldn't find any evidence of arching or any short. That is why it is a probable cause. They could never say with 100% certainty that is what happened. You can read the actual report it says something like "the wiring on that aircraft was not atypical of other 747s of that age." This is not a conspiracy this is a fact if you read the report. It most likely was an electrical problem yes. But there is no physical evidence to support it.
Well let’s just say that nothing within the aircraft did this, because the data produced by the explosion indicate that it was of a high velocity nature. It might also be worth noting that NTSB grounded exactly zero 747s of any model or vintage pending the outcome of the investigation. Hell, AF One continued to fly. Sadly it failed to explode. I keep hoping, but I think TWA 800 was a one off ‘accident.’
How come this didn't happen to any other plane? Or was this a unique build for just this one plane that blew up?
It did it happened in the Philippines
@@jonahmoran3751 That was a bomb.
It hasn't happened to any airliner, TWA 800 included. Consider many planes who are flying in the Middle East or Africa where the temp is much higher than NY @8 pm, so they all should explode.
@@amirhassanmonajemi9573 or even in places like Phoenix or Las Vegas
What about all the witnesses that saw the missile? They had no reason to lie. What about all the positive tests for explosive nitrates? What about all the shotgun type holes in the plane?
All 'explained away"....You know how that goes.
It was proven and explained many times over that what the witnesses saw was an optical illusion, there weren’t any positive tests for explosive nitrates, and the holes in the wreckage were from bits of the interior that blew out like shrapnel in the initial explosion.
Over a dozen witnesses saw an optical illusion. Hahahaha!
@@easy3088 Yes, that’s literally how optical illusions work… anyone can see them… 🤷♂️
@@Ultimaton100 mass Histaria. Ok dude.
It takes more than a spark to ignite fuel. It takes oxygen. The tank interior is designed, of course, to exclude oxygen, and carries a positive vapor pressure. Or no engineer would run a wire through it.
Yep...and besides that, the center tank by design, never, or can never reach its Flash point.... and this by reason of many Architectural and Physics reasons. In the most cases, due to the tanks venting, the tank is well into the lean arena, and it is difficult to ignite Aviation Kerosene anyway. It is a Combustible liquid, Not a Flammable liquid. The NTSB was cited in Federal court for fraud, and Junk Science.
Rob Shef we got an expert here👏🏻
And why should I take the word of CZcams commenters over the word of the NTSB (which is a government agency).
@@criticalmaster9526 definitely don't do that. You should absolutely believe everything the government tells you without question, as they are right 100% therefore individual thought and expression are unneccesarry. Also beep boop beep robot
@@adriangoodman8901 So, you're claiming I'm just a "bot account" just because I don't agree with your conspiracy theory?! You know what?! I'm done talking to brainwashed people like you! Don't expect to hear any more replies from me!
I can't tell if he's talking to me or someone behind the camera. Both... creep me out.
Hmm so the air conditioning was vibrating and the NAVY testing it's new "vibration tracking missile" brought it down. Shocking.
Missile
Do we really need dramatic reenactment of investigators looking at binders and clipboards?
Yes...
Wow, the plane in question was the first model of the Boeing 747
what about all the 747's that are still around now , have they altered the air- con - packs location perhaps ? ie ) 747 - 8
Youre conparing a 747-100 which first flew in 1969 to a 747-8 which first flew in 2010 for the F variant and 2011 for the I variant, you are comparing apples and oranges
My dad's dad's ex girlfriend's classmates dog"s old owner's uncle's wife was on that Plane. Respects to her soul.
So the uncle of your supposed grandma's friend?
Still working on this cover-up. Witnesses saw a missle
D W Which witnesses? “Which” is the operative word here.
Kim Jong-un Hey fatty...sup?
@@starventure long time ago. I was only 40. Witness in boats off the coast of NY
3:10 he is sweating like madd
He sweat em up.
What is the name of this documentary??????
Incredible and double incredible!🇺🇸
I was on a B747 course when this occurred.
I had 3 instructors with a combined experience of 105 years. They said no way.
With my own research for the planned flight time the center wing tank would have been empty.
Mains 1 2 3 4 would have had fuel and their respective pumps operating.
CWT pumps would have been off.
No fuel no pumps no spark no explosion.
Was definitely a missile.
Probably from the USS Vincennes.
gerry erbsleben Well these instructors were obviously wrong.
@@lecorsaire2283 no they were not.
I have 2700 hours on B747.
Do your own research.
gerry erbsleben So what? That just means you can fly a plane. You’re not an engineer designing these damn things. You’re not a physicist either! If you think hundreds of sailors would keep quite about something like this for over 2 decades when even a private blow job was leaked nearly right away, you’re just delusional. The NTSB report says it all. It’s your problem if you choose not to believe it.
When undertakes a rating on an aircraft, a basic engineering and systems knowledge is required.
One does not have to be a physicist to understand that if there was no fuel in the tank with the pumps off there can e no explosion.
The 747 200 can carry 160 tons of fuel. 60 in the cwt. There was adequate fuel in the main tanks to conduct a transatlantic flight without the requirement for fuel in the cwt.
Eyewitness testimony.
If you care to research; the USS Vincennes was responsible for downing an Iranian airliner. The IFF failed to resolve an Iranian F14 Tomcat and selected the airliner instead. A failure of this system is probably responsible for TWA 800. No issues here then of keeping the crew and government (NTSB included) quiet.
Don't accept everything the media throws at you at face value. This your problem.
You are however entitled to your opinion.
@@theredbaron1043 IF YOU'RE SAYING YOU ARE A 747 PILOT, THEN YOUR CHIEF PILOT NEEDS A CHECK RIDE. YOU KNOW NOTHING ABOUT WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT! IT'S YOUR OPINION, AND QUITE FRANKLY OFFENSIVE TO PEOPLE WHO KNOW FIRST HAND WHAT HAPPENED, AND WHO HAVE LOST FAMILY MEMBERS AND FRIENDS. THAT WOULD INCLUDE ME! THE LOSS OF TWA 800 WAS NOTHING MORE THAN A CATASTROPHIC MECHANICAL FAILURE, DUE TO THE EXPLOSION OF THE CENTER TANK, WHICH RESULTED IN THE SUBSEQUENT BREAKUP OF THE AIRCRAFT!
PERIOD!
Well the truth is out there, it’s was not fuel tank!
Right. It was shot down
Yeah, it was Antifa and Aliens!
@@boskee it was PETER GRIFFIN FAMLYU GUY JJJJJJQQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
Many solid facts have to be ignored to make the exploding fuel tank scenario work, here's just one: The debris field: FAA radar data shows (at the moment the plane lost electrical power) debris shooting out of the plane at Mach 4 (about 6000 mph) moving from left to right, which is consistent with Nat. Guard helicopter pilot Fred Meyer's testimony of the missile hitting the plane from the left. The fuel tank explosion could not possibly explain this, as jet fuel cannot produce such a force.
Do you realize how much energy would be released from a sealed tank of jet fuel detonating?
@@Owen_loves_Butters According to Tom Stalcup, who has a PhD in physics, jet fuel is considered a low pressure explosion, and could not possibly produce the force to shoot debris out at that speed. He has a lot of work on the TWA 800 crash, bringing science and hard evidence to the discussion..
@@raywest3834 The thing about explosions is that they can shoot stuff at much, much, MUCH higher speeds that you'd think was possible given the pressure. I also doubt the validity of the speed figure you gave, since there was no mention of that in the final report. And by the way, all the science and hard evidence has already been done by the NTSB, and I don't think you'll have very much success disagreeing with a government agency on anything scientific. You can try, but it'll just make you a conspiracy nut.
Didn't the Missile hit TWA?
Yeah, it wasn't the AC
Thank You.....
nice tin foil hat.
it was not the 'air conditioner', if that is what is troubling you.
@@robshef718 it wasn’t the air conditioning it was the faulty wiring that was repaired with duct tape (really dumb) that allows high voltage current to jump to low voltage wiring which the low voltage wire went into the fuel tank and short circuited from the extra voltage.