False Claim, another (was: airline fuel tanks...)

Ian Goddard (Ian@Goddard.net)
Thu, 25 Feb 1999 22:24:50 -0500

At 09:10 AM 2/23/99 -0500, Michael S. Lorrey wrote:

>Spike Jones wrote:
>> Perhaps. This whole thread started with the contention (I think) that
>> the CIA report was trying to cover something by claiming a 29
>> second plunge of the crippled plane into the sea. I realized that
>> the number 29 in itself is an indication they hoped to minimize the
>> time, just as Frys electronics puts a new electronic gazazzafratz on
>> sale for 29.99 because that sounds less than 30 bucks. 29 seconds,
>> well, thats less than half a minute. I imagine it really took about a
>> full terrifying minute for the doomed, and likely conscious, passengers
>> to end their suffering. I would still like to pretend it was only 29
>> seconds
>> even if I know better. Either way, I suspect a fuel leak started a fire
>> outside the tank which then (somehow) caused the tank to explode.
>As I demonstrated, the 29 second time was for the nose section, which
itself also had
>passengers, as well as the cockpit, where some of the black boxes are,
which would have
>recorded the time to impact.

IAN: You've already been corrected on that one at least twice and yet you continue to make that false claim. It wasn't the nose section that the video says hits 29 seconds after the 17,000 climb, but the main fuselage section that did the climb.

Since you "explained" the way-too-fast fall with an argument based on a falsehood, I guess you've run out of arguments for the CIA video. Please try to both listen and watch the video this time: http://www.newsday.com/jet/year/video.htm

>> Mike, this troubles me. With hydrocarbon fuels, it requires a lot more
>> air than fuel to make an ignition. Too rich and it wont even burn,
>> never
>> mind explode. Having a fuel tank leak would cause some air to be vented
>> in, I just dont see how you could get the magic 15 to 1 air to fuel
>> ratio
>> inside a fuel tank.
>The 15 to 1 air to fuel ratio is not magic. It is a ratio which requires a
high minimum air
>pressure level to ignite. At atmospheric pressure, a higher ratio will
easily ignite. Now,
>here's another idea: vacuum pressure. The plane was ascending thru the mid
teen levels. The
>tanks had been sealed at sea level and are partially pressurized. There is
obviously going
>to be enough pressure to encourage outflow from any even minor leaks in
the tank. Put that
>outflow near some sparking kapton wire, and BOOM. Moreover, since the tank
was mostly empty,
>its volume was not entirely a vapor version of the fuel. It was air filled
with fuel fumes.
>It is an ideally explosive setup. Ideal mixing, minimum swirl, etc.

IAN: Mike, jet fuel is not explosive at temps below (I believe around) 165 degrees. Commander Donaldson has shown that you can put out a cigarette in Jet A-1 fuel.