AA Plane Flies with Missile Defense System.

Isn't it true that the NASA moon landing was filmed in a studio in Area 51?.....
 
<_< ------ People! People! People!------Did TWA receive "hush money"? We'll never know! But if your interested in what really happened to Flt.800, do a little research on your own. Keep an open mind. And don't be "told'" this is what happened, when you know, as an AMT, it's not so!----- Good place to start would be to look up the web site of the "Associated Retired Aviation Professionals", or "FIRO", Flt.800 Independent research Organization.
 
I am in no position to comment on Flt 800 or any other air disaster for that matter. I was not there to see what happened and will not give my opinion on it.
Having said that, on 9/11 AA flight 77 hit the pentagon and I have heard many people say it was a missile and the pictures were doctored.

Can someone tell me where the 757, N644AA went to? I haven't seen it around the system in over 7 years.
And what about the 64 people on board that flight? Where are they? Maybe the conspiracy theorists can contact their next of kin.
 
<_< ------ In the same the same vain, I can't comment on AA flt.77, but I have been in the center fuel tank of a TWA 747-200! And at some point in time, during my career with TWA, possibly the same tank of that ill fated flight. I know that the only electrical wiring in that fuel tank are those to the fuel quantity probes. I also know that the maxim amperage through those wires are measured in "milliamprage"!!! Not near enough to create a spark!!! So what was the source of that spark? I also know, and have talked to, two of TWA's Inspectors who were on the seen of the recovery, and on the seen of the reconstruction afterwords.
 
<_< ----- It's a sad day in this country when we have to resort to using such systems on our Commercial Aircraft! Sign of the times I guess! But I do believe "EL Al", the Israeli Airlines, has had such a system on their Aircraft for some time now. I don't know if it's a like system or not!
 
MCI transplant said:
<_< ------ In the same the same vain, I can't comment on AA flt.77, but I have been in the center fuel tank of a TWA 747-200! And at some point in time, during my career with TWA, possibly the same tank of that ill fated flight. I know that the only electrical wiring in that fuel tank are those to the fuel quantity probes. I also know that the maxim amperage through those wires are measured in "milliamprage"!!! Not near enough to create a spark!!! So what was the source of that spark? I also know, and have talked to, two of TWA's Inspectors who were on the seen of the recovery, and on the seen of the reconstruction afterwords.
Click to expand...


Nobody believes the current in the fuel quantity system is what caused the explosion, but that there was some chafing of wiring outside of the fuel tank which was close to some other high current wiring which was then sent down the fuel quantity wiring to the probes. SAFR 88 is the regulation that affects changes to wiring to keep that from happening again. The MD80 hydraulic wiring fiasco this past summer was not to protect the hydraulic wiring from damage, but to protect the fuel tank and fuel tank wiring from damage caused by that wiring. (See AA training course T1663) The 787 and all new A/C for that matter with center fuel tanks will have an inerting system on board to help eliminate problems such as what happened to TWA 800
 
MCI transplant said:
<_< ------ In the same the same vain, I can't comment on AA flt.77, but I have been in the center fuel tank of a TWA 747-200! And at some point in time, during my career with TWA, possibly the same tank of that ill fated flight. I know that the only electrical wiring in that fuel tank are those to the fuel quantity probes. I also know that the maxim amperage through those wires are measured in "milliamprage"!!! Not near enough to create a spark!!! So what was the source of that spark? I also know, and have talked to, two of TWA's Inspectors who were on the seen of the recovery, and on the seen of the reconstruction afterwords.
Click to expand...

Another requirement is that all A/C with center fuel tanks and packs below it will be limited to 30 min of pack operation when temps are above 60 degrees F while the A/C is on the ground. This will keep from heating the center fuel tank. Ground conditioned air must be used. This takes effect in March oh this year.
 
ZundappBella said:
Nobody believes the current in the fuel quantity system is what caused the explosion, but that there was some chafing of wiring outside of the fuel tank which was close to some other high current wiring which was then sent down the fuel quantity wiring to the probes. SAFR 88 is the regulation that affects changes to wiring to keep that from happening again. The MD80 hydraulic wiring fiasco this past summer was not to protect the hydraulic wiring from damage, but to protect the fuel tank and fuel tank wiring from damage caused by that wiring. (See AA training course T1663) The 787 and all new A/C for that matter with center fuel tanks will have an inerting system on board to help eliminate problems such as what happened to TWA 800
Click to expand...
<_< ---- I know that's what the Fed's would like you to believe, but I don't buy it! For one Boeing doesn't gang (rout) fuel probe wiring through wire bundles with, or near, high tension wires for that specific reason! Second there would have to be not only a breakdown in insulation on both fuel prob wiring, and high tension wiring, at the same place! At the same time! With the miles of wiring in that Aircraft, the odds on that are almost nell! Plus no sign of that was found on any of the recovered wiring, or fuel probs! ------- Also, if the Fed. really believed that, don't you think that they'd ground the 747 fleet to at least inspect the wiring? Air Force 1 included? No such order, or AD was issued! Again why? Inspection of wiring was ordered but only months latter!-------- As for the "overheated" pack theory, I don't buy it ether! ----- Flt.800, was almost a half hour into it's flight. At what? Approx. 18,000 ft.? Traveling at what ground speed? 250mph? What temp. do you really feel that pack would be? I've got friends that worked in Saudia Arabia where 747's have their Air Conditioning packs ruining for hours, in the summer, on ramps in places like Jetta, where outside temperatures commonly reach 120 degrees, without incident! No the overheated pack theory don't cut it either!
 
MCI transplant said:
<_< ---- I know that's what the Fed's would like you to believe, but I don't buy it!
Click to expand...

Sooooo . . . let me summarize this view, if I may. The Clinton/Gore administration somehow caused this plane to explode (or knows who did blow up the plane and isn't telling) and everyone involved in the intentional destruction and the investigation covered it up? Successfully? With no one spilling the beans to any media? That's difficult to buy.

If the US military did it, someone might have talked by now. And if a terrorist did it, wouldn't they have claimed credit by now?

It must be difficult for the groceries to keep up with tin foil demand in Kansas City.
 
FWAAA said:
Sooooo . . . let me summarize this view, if I may. The Clinton/Gore administration somehow caused this plane to explode (or knows who did blow up the plane and isn't telling) and everyone involved in the intentional destruction and the investigation covered it up? Successfully? With no one spilling the beans to any media? That's difficult to buy.

If the US military did it, someone might have talked by now. And if a terrorist did it, wouldn't they have claimed credit by now?

It must be difficult for the groceries to keep up with tin foil demand in Kansas City.
Click to expand...
<_< ----- Frankly FWAAA, I don't care what you believe! But they say "the devil is in the details!" If your interested? ( but it seems you have made up your mind) Go to the web sights I mentioned, read what they have to say before being so cocky in your replies! Also please go to and read: www.cashill.com/twa800/union_refused.htm
 
MCI transplant said:
<_< ---- I know that's what the Fed's would like you to believe, but I don't buy it! For one Boeing doesn't gang (rout) fuel probe wiring through wire bundles with, or near, high tension wires for that specific reason!


Not true. (From the NTSB report)

Boeing’s PIs also indicated that the CWT FQIS wires were routed from the front of
the airplane to the CWT, VSO, totalizer, and the AIDS in and next to bundles carrying
numerous other power and signal wires. Although most airplane systems operated on
115-volt power, the Safety Board’s review of wiring in other airplanes indicated that the
FQIS and engine fuel flow wire bundles are routed near, and occasionally bundled with,
wires that provide 350-volt a.c. power to the cabin fluorescent lights.


>Second there would have to be not only a breakdown in insulation on both fuel prob wiring, and high tension >wiring, at the same place! At the same time! With the miles of wiring in that Aircraft, the odds on that are >almost nell!

Well I've seen, on MD80's, complete sections of wire bundles that look to have been vaporized. I've seen this, and repaired it, at least 3 times in my 22 years at AA. Something shorts, and the Kapton wire burns away about 18 inches of the wire bundle. 747 didn't use kapton, but still. If there is a short on one wire and it gets hot enough, it going to burn through other wires in the bundle. And lets face it, this wasn't a new airplane. It was 25 years old with 90,000 hours. I'm sure the wire didn't look like new. Also, listen to the CVR tapes. just 20 or 30 seconds before the explosion, the captain was commenting about the weird readings he was seeing on one of the fuel flow indicators. Guess what, the fuel flow wiring runs in the same bundle as the fqis wiring.

> Plus no sign of that was found on any of the recovered wiring, or fuel probs! ------- Also, if the Fed. really >believed that, don't you think that they'd ground the 747 fleet to at least inspect the wiring? Air Force 1 >included? No such order, or AD was issued! Again why? Inspection of wiring was ordered but only months >latter!-

There was signs of cracked insulation, arcing, improper splices, etc on much of the wiring found. Not on the fqis wiring, but they only found half of it. As to why they didn't order immediate inspection, they didn't have a theory as to the cause for quite some time. It took 10 months just to recover the wreckage


>------- As for the "overheated" pack theory, I don't buy it ether! ----- Flt.800, was almost a half hour into it's >flight. At what? Approx. 18,000 ft.? Traveling at what ground speed? 250mph? What temp. do you really feel >that pack would be? I've got friends that worked in Saudia Arabia where 747's have their Air Conditioning >packs ruining for hours, in the summer, on ramps in places like Jetta, where outside temperatures commonly >reach 120 degrees, without incident! No the overheated pack theory don't cut it either!

The packs didn't overheat, the packs get hot which heats the center fuel tank right above them. Since there was only a couple hundred pounds of fuel in there, the fuel gets hot causing evaporation and fuel vapors. The packs were on for 2.5 hours on the ground before pushback in the middle of summer. Then another half an hour for taxi to the runway. The plane lifted off at 2019 and exploded at 2031, 12 minutes. It exploded at 13,000 feet. They did a test with another 747 with temp sensors placed in the center tank. temp right before takeoff was 145 degrees and 125 degrees at 13,000 feet. The temp in the pack bay was about 200 degrees and pack surface temps up to 350 degrees before takeoff. The fuel flash point was tested at 116 degrees. They even used Greek fuel, since that was the type in the center tank

Read the final NTSB report which details things down to the molecular level. It is quite interesting, although at 350 pages the parts about the galley drain being clogged and other such non relevant things gets a bit long winded. Even they say that this is the most probable cause, and there is no conclusive proof. It seems to me that if they wanted to fake it, they could whip up a piece of wire with some cracked insulation and arcing on it and say, here's the proof. All of the conspiricy websites come up with a few irrigularities and everyone starts screaming. When an airplane explodes into a million pieces there will be irrigularities. Most if not all are addressed in the report. On the website you refer another poster to, the guy talks about some mechanic who was in on the investigation. Lets compare his expertise to the hundreds of engineers, scientists, computer simulations and millions of dollars spent investigating it. Also the website owner believes people and dinosaurs walked the earth at the same time, so I kind of disregarded anything I read there.
Click to expand...
 
<_< ------ ZundappBella,-------- for one an Electrician I am not! But Rick Jean was! TWA/ IAMAW sent a team of "Observers/Consultants" to the seen of the crash and reconstruction.They were on the recovery boat's, and hanger where the plane was reconstructed. They were made up of TWA engineers, IAM Inspectors, and Tech. Crew Chiefs, which Rich was one of, from throughout the TWA system, with extensive 747 experience! They spent, in excess of, three months going over wreckage, and observing, not only the NTSB, but also members of the FBI, and CIA!------Rick Jean, stated he saw no evidence of arcing, or burning of any of the recovered wiring! Since I was not personally a member of that team, I can only pass along information I accumulated by personally talking to some of those who were. --------- The IAMAW team released it's own conclusion as to what happened to flt. 800 based on the findings of those on the seen. And that report was referred to in Cashill's article. I've read it because I personally know one of the people who helped write it. But that report has been "Purged" from all references. Written, Internet, etc.---------- Why?----- Could it be because it doesn't correspond to the "Official" explanation of what really happened to flt.800? If your lucky, you may come across a copy they've overlooked! It would be interesting reading!------ Another good article on this subject is the "AIM Report" Eye whiteness report, dated July B, 1998, and Jan.A, 1998, Black box report!------- No, there are too many unanswered questions to simply sluff it off as a stray spark!!! Too many "credible" eye witnesses that were "told what they saw, or totally ignored! Too much unexplained data on the Fight Recorder, marked through by the FBI! And so on, and so on!!!!! I'm not saying that a stray spark couldn't bring down a 747, what I'm saying is that there is no physical evidence to support that!----- But a ton, that says otherwise!
 
<_< ------ The main purpose of this thread was to discuss the merits of installing, and maintaining, this system on AA Aircraft. Not debating the merits of a flt.800 cover-up! If indeed this system is affective at deterring missiles. I believe it should be installed. Or we may end up with another, cover-up, if something on the order of flt.800 should reoccur, God Forbid! -------- But as with all things in this Company, the bottom line is cost, ver. risk! And AA's upper management has decided that the cost out-ways the risk, in this instance! -------- Your thoughts?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Hopeful
AA and Anti Missile System
3 4 5
Replies
73
Views
9K
MCI transplant
MCI transplant
R
Successful first flight of anti-terror system
Replies
0
Views
1K
right_Rudder
R
V
AA jets get anti-missile devices
Replies
1
Views
812
FWAAA
F
S
...As Surface-To-Air Missile Defense System Stalls...
Replies
0
Views
658
Sport_AV
S
S
Anti-Missile System Approved For Airliners
Replies
0
Views
650
Sport_AV
S

Latest posts

Back
Top