Gas tanks don't explode...unless they are in a Pinto.

 

This kind off explains why they couldn't replicate the TWA800 "accident". The vents that prevent it from happening that are part of the tank system worked. Even though this link is talking about cars.
https://vehicleanswers.com/can-car-gas-tank-explode/

TWA was a in-flight 'accident' but there were several on the tarmac 'accidents' of the same nature.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippine_Airlines_Flight_143

Philippine Airlines Flight 143 (PR143) was a domestic flight from the Manila Ninoy Aquino Airport, Manila, Philippines to Mandurriao Airport, Iloilo City. On May 11, 1990, at Manila Ninoy Aquino International Airport the Boeing 737-300 (C/N 24466, MSN 1771) assigned to the route suffered an explosion in the central fuel tank and was consumed by fire in as little as four minutes.[2][3]

The air temperature had been high at the time of the accident, about 35 °C (95 °F), while the Boeing 737-300 was parked at Manila. The air conditioning packs, located beneath the center wing fuel tank of the 737, had been running on the ground before pushback (approximately 30 to 45 minutes). The center wing fuel tank, which had not been filled in two months, likely contained some fuel vapors. Shortly after pushback a powerful explosion in the center fuel tank pushed the cabin floor violently upward. The wing tanks ruptured, causing the airplane to burst into flames.

The majority of the 113 passengers and 6 crew escaped via the emergency chutes, which had been deployed following the blast.[2]

Several passengers reported as many as three explosions in the plane, and Oscar Alejandro, then director of the Philippine Air Transport Office, confirmed the engines had not been started at the time of the blasts.[2]

It is thought the vapors ignited due to damaged wiring, because no bomb, incendiary device, or detonator had been found at the scene.[1] The airline had fitted logo lights after delivery which required passing additional wires through the vapor seals in the fuel tanks. The NTSB recommended to the FAA that an Airworthiness Directive be issued requiring inspections of the fuel boost pumps, float switch, and wiring looms because signs of chafing had been found. The FAA declined to issue the Airworthiness Directive.

https://pastdaily.com/2017/05/11/may-11-1990-philippine-airlines/

 

This discussion can be cured by understanding that some people need an exact definition of each discrete event as a vessel full of a flammable liquid, heats, rupture, turns to vapor or aerosol. Mixes with oxygen, gets ignited, heat if ignition propagates through the vapor cloud to generate heat and that results in a rapid pressure increase and decrease as the gasses accelerate away from the vapor cloud in a pressure wave to discipate the pressure and possibly cause damage to surrounding people or objects. In the end, we're all talking about the same thing but, the people who think a can of gas randomly "explodes" if you open a lid and instantly drop a match into it are kind of cray cray. Even in your engine, it is not technically an explosion unless you have pre-ignition issues "knocking" - fuel should burn in an engine. Even in a motorcycle or F1 engine spinning at 14000 rpm.

 

Gas tanks don't explode...unless they are in a Pinto.

Or in a fake news media story.

https://www.tampabay.com/archive/1993/02/14/tale-of-the-tape/

Now, NBC's failure to fully investigate GM's complaints about the report has resulted in the most humiliating episode of crow-eating in the nearly four-decade history of NBC News. In the final moments Tuesday night of Dateline NBC _ the same show that had broadcast the exploding-trucks report in November _ anchors Jane Pauley and Stone Phillips issued a long and somber apology to their viewers and to GM. The two anchors said NBC "does not dispute" that it used toy rocket engines as "igniters" in its staged crashes of GM trucks, that its report significantly understated vehicle speed at the moment of impact, or that its report wrongly stated that a fuel tank ruptured in one of the crashes.

 

You're not disagreeing with me, it's a disagreement with basic science and physics.

And your disageering with your initial video, in post #1.

 

Would it not be cool if you could charge a bullet with liquid oxygen and fire that into a fuel tank.

 

Ever have an engine "flood" on you? I.E. fail to ignite because there is too much fuel for the available air. You need to understand what explosion is. A near instantaneous detonation that propagates at at supersonic speed therefore pushing a pressure wave in front of it. In other words, a huge boom that will knock you on yer tail end. Not a simple swoosh...

 

And your disageering with your initial video, in post #1.

Don't act dumb, please. Clearly the physics are totally compatible.

 

Don't act dumb, please. Clearly the physics are totally compatible.

Please stop being condescending when you don't have a good answer. Your "it got too hot sitting on the runway" is just BS. If that was true there would be planes blowing up constantly. And there isn't. It's a very limited problem, maybe just maybe not caused or accurately described by what NTSB says.

And the same thing for what the first video said you don't think that the gas tank in a car sitting in the sun could do the same thing? Even the Pinto tanks didn't just "explode", they ruptured and caught on fire when hit in the rear end.

 

Please stop being condescending when you don't have a good answer. Your "it got too hot sitting on the runway" is just BS. If that was true there would be planes blowing up constantly. And there isn't. It's a very limited problem, maybe just maybe not caused or accurately described by what NTSB says.

And the same thing for what the first video said you don't think that the gas tank in a car sitting in the sun could do the same thing? Even the Pinto tanks didn't just "explode", they ruptured and caught on fire when hit in the rear end.

Ok, it's not an act. You're a believer in the BS TWA800 missile conspiracy. Facts and evidence don't matter. Take that nonsense off this thread please.

 

As the video showed, gas tanks don't explode. They can be ruptured and the expelled fuel can be ignited spectacularly, giving the appearance of an explosion. As for 800 - rare circumstances CAN play a part. A frayed wire, a tank that is, for all intents and purposes, empty, except for residual pools of fuel, can vaporize in the tank. IF the volume of air in the tank in comparison to the volume of fuel vapor reach the right mixture, a spark CAN ignite the tank with an explosive eruption. So what NTSB says is believable. However, JetA fuel is very hard to ignite. While I can't say it happened one way or the other, I would not at all be surprised to learn it was actually an accidental downing of an international flight.

People reported seeing a light streaking upwards toward the aircraft just before it exploded. HOWEVER, what the eye sees and what the brain interprets can be two entirely different things. One evening I was gazing at a star. Suddenly, to my surprise, that star suddenly shot across the sky and disappeared. THAT is what I SAW! Or what I thought I saw. What I likely saw was as I was gazing at a particular star a meteorite struck the atmosphere very close to the star I was watching. As I quickly followed that shooting star (meteor) my brain interpreted it as if that star suddenly shot across the sky. I was somewhere between 7 and 11 years of age when I saw what I thought I saw. I still remember that evening and the astonishment at having being watching a star just as it "Shot" across the sky.

Since then there have been numerous things I've seen in the night sky that I can't fully explain. One evening I saw five points of light move from south east to north west at what I interpreted as being at the edge of our atmosphere. The phenomena took about 20 seconds to cross the sky from the time I first spotted it till it had traveled so far that haze obscured it from view.

Knowing what I know about jet fuel, I'm inclined to lean in the direction of an accidental shooting down, not an explosion inside the tank. I'll admit - it certainly COULD be precisely what the NTSB said it was, but I remain skeptical.

And the earth is round!

 

Sure, possible government cover-up involving the FBI and CIA.

This far fetched theory is more likely.

https://darkmattersalot.com/2013/01/25/did-dark-matterenergy-take-down-twa-flight-800/

Did Dark Matter/Energy Take Down TWA Flight 800?

The NTSB concluded that “the witness observations of a streak of light were not related to a missile and that the streak of light reported by most of these witnesses was burning fuel from the accident airplane in crippled flight during some portion of the post-explosion, preimpact breakup sequence”.[111] The NTSB further concluded that “the witnesses’ observations of one or more fireballs were of the airplane’s burning wreckage falling toward the ocean”.[111]

 

Sure, possible government cover-up involving the FBI and CIA.

This far fetched theory is more likely.

https://darkmattersalot.com/2013/01/25/did-dark-matterenergy-take-down-twa-flight-800/

Did Dark Matter/Energy Take Down TWA Flight 800?

An interesting read. The part about the perception of missiles in flight - not the dark matter stuff though. But hey! Maybe my back got hit by one of those dark matter balls and is the cause of my being laid up today.

 

Ok, it's not an act. You're a believer in the BS TWA800 missile conspiracy. Facts and evidence don't matter. Take that nonsense off this thread please.

Just as before in the old politics thread, your the end all be all of truth.

 

Or in a fake news media story.

https://www.tampabay.com/archive/1993/02/14/tale-of-the-tape/

I remember that well. NBC's Dateline ate it. They had it rigged when they couldn't make it exciting. So do gas tanks explode? I guess with a little help they can.

Ron

 

I remember that well. NBC's Dateline ate it. They had it rigged when they couldn't make it exciting. So do gas tanks explode? I guess with a little help they can.

Ron

Worked perfectly, it literally blew up in NBC's face.

 

Don't act dumb, please. Clearly the physics are totally compatible.

OK, try one more time to explain to this dummy.

If things happened to both the TWA800 and the Philippines plane like you claim, why are those the only ones that have ever been affected?

 

OK, try one more time to explain to this dummy.

If things happened to both the TWA800 and the Philippines plane like you claim, why are those the only ones that have ever been affected?

Because the the cicumstances required to create such an explosion are rare?

Bob

 

I also remember that NBC "burning GM truck" fiasco.

The GM attorneys investigating the event, located the burned truck in a junkyard and found the remnants of the hobby rocket igniter still attached in the vicinity of the fuel cap.

Totally amateurish idiots, those NBC "reporters".

 

Note what happens when the news really is “fake news”. The Dominion Voting Systems lawsuit against Fox News is another example, though not resolved yet.

Bo