5 ms·

TWA 800 violently exploded in mid air. That would not be caused by an inert missile impact. The high speed impact of an inert body into an aircraft the size of

TWA 800 violently exploded in mid air. That would not be caused by an inert missile impact. The high speed impact of an inert body into an aircraft the size of a 747 is not a reasonable explanation for a violent in-flight breakup on top of the fact that there is literally zero evidence for it. The most likely explanation is exactly what is written in the official report.

tanseydavid 4y ago
>> The high speed impact of an inert body into an aircraft the size of a 747 is not a reasonable explanation for a violent in-flight breakup Please explain this assertion. It makes no sense (at least to me).
- thunderbird120 4y ago
  It's exceptionally difficult to make a large airliner explode like a gas station in a 1980s action movie by hitting it with an inert missile-sized body. You could certainly cause damage which would cause it to eventually crash but TWA 800 violently exploded in mid air, which is different.
  - tanseydavid 4y ago
    Thank you -- this is exactly the sort of unpacking of the idea that I was asking for.
MichaelCollins 4y ago
Being struck violently by an unarmed missile could have caused a massive structural failure of the aircraft, which then exploded. > literally zero evidence for it. There is literally circumstantial evidence for it, as well as eye-witness testimony. This is not "proof" by any stretch, but it's certainly evidence.
- woodruffw 4y ago
  My understanding is that the chronology of all eyewitness accounts for the missile have been after the airframe was known to have broken up, meaning that they were most likely seeing large sections of the burning fuselage. Are there other eyewitness accounts that don’t match that, or are you saying that the official chronology is itself suspect?
  - MichaelCollins 4y ago
    Eyewitness accounts are unreliable and may be completely mistaken. But nevertheless, they are evidence. 'Evidence' doesn't imply 'proof'.
    - woodruffw 4y ago
      The existence of evidence is not veridical in nature: that’s why we classify evidence as circumstantial, observed, etc. In other words: if nothing has changed about the eyewitness accounts in the last 26 years, then there is no new reason to doubt the (overwhelmingly likely) explanation for them.
      - MichaelCollins 4y ago
        I responded to the claim "there is literally zero evidence for it" by pointing out that there is circumstantial evidence, and eyewitness accounts.
        growse 4y ago
        The problem is that this circumstantial evidence contradicts actual hard evidence on the wreckage.
        MichaelCollins 4y ago
        Circumstantial evidence that seems to be contradicted by other evidence is still evidence. To claim that there is 'literally zero evidence' is literally wrong.
bombcar 4y ago
I’m not entirely sure how a loose wire in a fuel tank can cause an explosion but a loose missile in the same tank cannot.
- ceejayoz 4y ago
  95% of the wreckage was recovered and painstakingly reconstructed in a hangar, then kept for 25 years (and notably, used as a training aid for NTSB investigators during that time). Barring some sort of "huh, this looks like something went in rather than out", that's a fairly hard theory to push.
tyingq 4y ago
>That would not be caused by an inert missile impact Why not? Inert missile punches through a fuel tank, aerosolizing the fuel, and either the missile engine or a damaged aircraft engine ignites it.
- thunderbird120 4y ago
  That would cause a fire, not a detonation. The same way gas tanks don't actually explode if you shoot them, they spring leaks and those leaks may catch fire but actual booms require very specific circumstances. Specifically, they require the correct mixture of air and fuel vapors but that doesn't require a missile impact to ignite. Something much more mundane like a spark is just as effective and about 5 orders of magnitude more likely to occur. TWA 800 broke apart as a result of a major overpressure event. The particular mode of in-flight failure observed in TWA 800 is very difficult to cause by poking a single missile sized hole anywhere in the aircraft. Not theoretically impossible, but difficult to the point that it's not a reasonable explanation. You have to take the combined probability of 2 very unlikely events rather than just 1.
  - tyingq 4y ago
    That's helpful, though comparing a (perhaps) 1900kg missile that's 53cm/21in in diameter with a ~1000°C exhaust temp to a bullet isn't quite right.
  - landemva 4y ago
    > a spark is just as effective and about 5 orders of magnitude more likely to occur. Seems you know of data about commercial airline fuel tank spark explosions. I didn't find much about this problem online. When else did this seemingly under-reported catastrophic commercial airline event happen?
    - ceejayoz 4y ago
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippine_Airlines_Flight_143 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippine_Airlines_Flight_143 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thai_Airways_International_Flight_114 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thai_Airways_International_Fli... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pan_Am_Flight_214 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pan_Am_Flight_214 All fuel tank explosions. Modern aircraft have equipment specifically to mitigate fuel vapor in the tanks because of these sorts of incidents. TWA 800 also caused improved maintenance requirements of wiring that might arc/spark, as inspections of other aircraft found widespread metal shavings, non-standard wiring, and eroded insulation in nearly every aircraft they took a look at.
WalterBright 4y ago
Yeah, it could. A 747 is designed to withstand all sorts of failures, but impact by a missile is not one of them. Loss of structural integrity could easily cause violent breakup by aerodynamic forces. A 747 is not going to stay together if the pointy end isn't into the wind. Then there's all that fuel suddenly released and atomized, and fuel absolutely loves to burn. Remember that fireball when the airliners hit the twin towers?
- WalterBright 4y ago
  My dad flew F-80s in the Korean War. The F-80 had a nasty characteristic. If you flew it too fast, it would pitch up, and the sudden aerodynamic forces would rip the wings off. Unfortunately, the engine was more than powerful enough to do this in level flight, so the pilot had to be keenly aware of this at all times. (The solution was swept wings, exemplified by its successor, the F-86.)

tanseydavid 4y ago

>> The high speed impact of an inert body into an aircraft the size of a 747 is not a reasonable explanation for a violent in-flight breakup Please explain this assertion. It makes no sense (at least to me).

thunderbird120 4y ago
It's exceptionally difficult to make a large airliner explode like a gas station in a 1980s action movie by hitting it with an inert missile-sized body. You could certainly cause damage which would cause it to eventually crash but TWA 800 violently exploded in mid air, which is different.
- tanseydavid 4y ago
  Thank you -- this is exactly the sort of unpacking of the idea that I was asking for.

MichaelCollins 4y ago

Being struck violently by an unarmed missile could have caused a massive structural failure of the aircraft, which then exploded. > literally zero evidence for it. There is literally circumstantial evidence for it, as well as eye-witness testimony. This is not "proof" by any stretch, but it's certainly evidence.

woodruffw 4y ago
My understanding is that the chronology of all eyewitness accounts for the missile have been after the airframe was known to have broken up, meaning that they were most likely seeing large sections of the burning fuselage. Are there other eyewitness accounts that don’t match that, or are you saying that the official chronology is itself suspect?
- MichaelCollins 4y ago
  Eyewitness accounts are unreliable and may be completely mistaken. But nevertheless, they are evidence. 'Evidence' doesn't imply 'proof'.
  - woodruffw 4y ago
    The existence of evidence is not veridical in nature: that’s why we classify evidence as circumstantial, observed, etc. In other words: if nothing has changed about the eyewitness accounts in the last 26 years, then there is no new reason to doubt the (overwhelmingly likely) explanation for them.
    - MichaelCollins 4y ago
      I responded to the claim "there is literally zero evidence for it" by pointing out that there is circumstantial evidence, and eyewitness accounts.
      - growse 4y ago
        The problem is that this circumstantial evidence contradicts actual hard evidence on the wreckage.
        MichaelCollins 4y ago
        Circumstantial evidence that seems to be contradicted by other evidence is still evidence. To claim that there is 'literally zero evidence' is literally wrong.

bombcar 4y ago

I’m not entirely sure how a loose wire in a fuel tank can cause an explosion but a loose missile in the same tank cannot.

ceejayoz 4y ago
95% of the wreckage was recovered and painstakingly reconstructed in a hangar, then kept for 25 years (and notably, used as a training aid for NTSB investigators during that time). Barring some sort of "huh, this looks like something went in rather than out", that's a fairly hard theory to push.

tyingq 4y ago

>That would not be caused by an inert missile impact Why not? Inert missile punches through a fuel tank, aerosolizing the fuel, and either the missile engine or a damaged aircraft engine ignites it.

thunderbird120 4y ago
That would cause a fire, not a detonation. The same way gas tanks don't actually explode if you shoot them, they spring leaks and those leaks may catch fire but actual booms require very specific circumstances. Specifically, they require the correct mixture of air and fuel vapors but that doesn't require a missile impact to ignite. Something much more mundane like a spark is just as effective and about 5 orders of magnitude more likely to occur. TWA 800 broke apart as a result of a major overpressure event. The particular mode of in-flight failure observed in TWA 800 is very difficult to cause by poking a single missile sized hole anywhere in the aircraft. Not theoretically impossible, but difficult to the point that it's not a reasonable explanation. You have to take the combined probability of 2 very unlikely events rather than just 1.
- tyingq 4y ago
  That's helpful, though comparing a (perhaps) 1900kg missile that's 53cm/21in in diameter with a ~1000°C exhaust temp to a bullet isn't quite right.
- landemva 4y ago
  > a spark is just as effective and about 5 orders of magnitude more likely to occur. Seems you know of data about commercial airline fuel tank spark explosions. I didn't find much about this problem online. When else did this seemingly under-reported catastrophic commercial airline event happen?
  - ceejayoz 4y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippine_Airlines_Flight_143 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippine_Airlines_Flight_143 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thai_Airways_International_Flight_114 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thai_Airways_International_Fli... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pan_Am_Flight_214 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pan_Am_Flight_214 All fuel tank explosions. Modern aircraft have equipment specifically to mitigate fuel vapor in the tanks because of these sorts of incidents. TWA 800 also caused improved maintenance requirements of wiring that might arc/spark, as inspections of other aircraft found widespread metal shavings, non-standard wiring, and eroded insulation in nearly every aircraft they took a look at.

WalterBright 4y ago

Yeah, it could. A 747 is designed to withstand all sorts of failures, but impact by a missile is not one of them. Loss of structural integrity could easily cause violent breakup by aerodynamic forces. A 747 is not going to stay together if the pointy end isn't into the wind. Then there's all that fuel suddenly released and atomized, and fuel absolutely loves to burn. Remember that fireball when the airliners hit the twin towers?

WalterBright 4y ago
My dad flew F-80s in the Korean War. The F-80 had a nasty characteristic. If you flew it too fast, it would pitch up, and the sudden aerodynamic forces would rip the wings off. Unfortunately, the engine was more than powerful enough to do this in level flight, so the pilot had to be keenly aware of this at all times. (The solution was swept wings, exemplified by its successor, the F-86.)