Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That is rather odd. Usually a NTSB investigation identifies a problem - and reccommends a solution to prevent further accidents - yet if the fuel tank exploded - how come the problem wasn't checked out in other aircraft - to ensure that they don't also explode during flight?
The problem was checked out in other aircraft. The FAA, on the suggestion of the NTSB, issued an Airworthiness Directive to inspect the wiring in the center fuel tank on all 747s flying worldwide.
Link to the suggested and final AD in bureaucratese here:
My own personal belief is that it is entirely possible was accidentally shot down by our own military( the navy) and it was covered up to prevent a lynch mob.
The problem was checked out in other aircraft. The FAA, on the suggestion of the NTSB, issued an Airworthiness Directive to inspect the wiring in the center fuel tank on all 747s flying worldwide.
Link to the suggested and final AD in bureaucratese here:
Nah... Wasn't shot down. Anyone's who has ever dealt intimately with Kapton wiring knows what a nuisance it is, it's potential to "arc track" and how difficult it can be to manage.
My own personal belief is that it is entirely possible was accidentally shot down by our own military( the navy) and it was covered up to prevent a lynch mob.
The day after the incident, one of the NYC news channels interviewed a retired military officer who had seen the whole thing. This was someone who was very credible, he was probably in his early 60's, had been a higher ranking officer (Colonel or equivalent) and was very specific about what he saw when they interviewed him. He claimed that he had no doubt that what he had seen was a SAM that had hit the plane, causing an explosion and then he watched it break apart.
That was shown once, during a live interview, and never again. There are two possible reasons we didn't see it again, either the man was discredited or the government pulled the tape as they had something to hide. I don't think the retired officer was looking for his 15 minutes of fame, he was very specific in not only what he saw but in giving background information about why he was sure that what he said he saw was what he actually saw, and he seemed to have absolutely no reason to be lying about it.
The day after the incident, one of the NYC news channels interviewed a retired military officer who had seen the whole thing. This was someone who was very credible, he was probably in his early 60's, had been a higher ranking officer (Colonel or equivalent) and was very specific about what he saw when they interviewed him. He claimed that he had no doubt that what he had seen was a SAM that had hit the plane, causing an explosion and then he watched it break apart.
That was shown once, during a live interview, and never again. There are two possible reasons we didn't see it again, either the man was discredited or the government pulled the tape as they had something to hide. I don't think the retired officer was looking for his 15 minutes of fame, he was very specific in not only what he saw but in giving background information about why he was sure that what he said he saw was what he actually saw, and he seemed to have absolutely no reason to be lying about it.
Well I am sure he believed that he is what he saw. But it doesn't mean that it is actually what happened.
Well I am sure he believed that he is what he saw. But it doesn't mean that it is actually what happened.
The difference between him and "Joe from down the block" is that this was a lifetime military officer who had the technical understanding and had seen in real life what a SAM looks like when it's launched and hits a target in midair. I'd be more likely to believe someone like him with no horse in the race than those who would have something to lose if his account was true.
I think it was in the fuel delivery system. I don't think there was foul play.
It was also an older vintage 747, and it happened in 1996. If I recall, there were only about 200 pax on a JFK-Paris flight. That means the plane was about half-full. Yes, it was very sad. I also think a contingent of university students going overseas was on that flight.
I think it was in the fuel delivery system. I don't think there was foul play.
It was also an older vintage 747, and it happened in 1996. If I recall, there were only about 200 pax on a JFK-Paris flight. That means the plane was about half-full. Yes, it was very sad. I also think a contingent of university students going overseas was on that flight.
The difference between him and "Joe from down the block" is that this was a lifetime military officer who had the technical understanding and had seen in real life what a SAM looks like when it's launched and hits a target in midair. I'd be more likely to believe someone like him with no horse in the race than those who would have something to lose if his account was true.
How in the world do you know what technical knowledge he has? And how is that even relevant to what he witnessed?
Witness data are many times the worst data, ask any LEO and numerous people freed from prison after they were "identified" in a photo line up, only to have DNA prove their innocence.
People always looking for conspiracies, I wonder why?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.