TWA 800 Tragedy Revealed

The TWA 800 myth began collectively on the very day the flight exploded 17 July 1996. That was 19 days after my paranormal experience of a “major natural disaster” Although I shared describing the experience with another individual; I was to put the psychical message aside because of a single word, ‘natural’. It seems ‘major’ and ‘disaster’ fit the scenario, but ‘natural’ did not until the final NTSB report was finally released over 10 years later (See previous post, “Final NTSB Report”). That brought ‘natural’ closer to the truth, but not altogether because of what the NTSB described. Their description remains a physical impossibility for depicting a “rogue spark” was causal to the explosion that occurred in the center fuel tank (CFT), often referred to as the center wing tank (CWT). The spark according to the NTSB occurred accidentally because of a frayed or loose electrical wire routed to the fuel indicator. I will go into that in more detail soon.

The TWA 800 myth was taking root in speculation that included terrorism, missile attack and even alien UFO’s. The truth was not to be learned in over 10 years, and to this day remains out of reach to the public, largely  because of political expediency against financial loss. Insurance companies are not known to be fair and willing to settle equitably, and aviation disasters are the worst in civil suits. Cases are usually closed but always undergoing investigation.  What better way to hold off financial settlements.

The paranormal revealed the truth 19 days beforehand. Cultish, though it may seem, the number 19 was to have meaning in aviation’s future, when another aircraft disaster in an international flight occurred four years later. It, too, was predicted 19 days beforehand. However, the paranormal message was simply “air-crash” without specifics. Concorde Flight AF4590 exploded on the runway on take-off from Charles de Gaulle Airport near Paris, France on 25 July 2000. Two tragic incidents of air disasters appeared to relate to ‘19’, and both ended in a fireball, where all onboard of both aircraft were killed.  A common cause included negligence, but only the latter group appears to have heeded the warning for putting out an unencumbered report. Echoes of the past are invariably revealing.

The final NTSB report speculates that a loose or frayed electrical wire ignited jet fuel vapors that exploded the center fuel tank (CFT) and destroyed the aircraft.  That suggests the spark had to transfer all the way from the pilot’s instrument panel,  console, or wherever; to the CFT but is not characteristic of low voltage systems.  What is characteristic and not revealed in the report is that electrostatic discharge (ESD) is the only means of transferring a voltage of sufficient magnitude to discharge elsewhere. Otherwise, sparking in low voltage systems occurs at the source and does not transfer. Surely this is basic and widely known of electrical phenomena.

It was also stated  that 50 gallons of residual fuel was in the CFT prior to flight and was in a highly volatile state because of heat rising from the air-conditioning (a/c) units underneath. The aircraft had been idle on the tarmac in a hot July sun for six hours before finally being cleared for take-off. It is no wonder the a/c units were running at full capacity and residual fuel in the CFT became vaporous and more volatile.

In the climbing phase of the Boeing 747, the pilot at some point before reaching the cruising altitude of 31,000 feet began the ritual of transferring fuel from one wing tank to the other to balance loads. This is procedural and the fuel is transferred to wing tanks through the CFT.  In order to perform the task he had to make physical contact with the instrument panel to activate the appropriate switch. Conceivably, in doing so he discharged the static electricity that he had accumulated on himself.  This is because of excessive dry air and is explained further below. That electrostatic discharge would be to the nearest aircraft ground, barring “jumps” to lesser levels. The source would be from the appropriate switch, which has its wiring routed to the CFT for activating the fuel pump. The pump was known to be leaking, beforehand, but because it was in the CFT it posed no real threat, or so it was thought. ESD would not occur in the cable routing to the pump because the conduit serves as a protective Faraday shield. However, the conduit logistically terminates at the pump, which has nothing to do with any sensor or indicator as the NTSB erringly describes. ESD with a potential of only a few thousand volts is all that was needed to have ignited the heated fuel vapor in the CFT, but a good guess is the potential was much greater because of conditions surrounding the Boeing 747 while waiting for take-off those many hours.

It is the function of a/c units to take the moisture out of cabin air to lower temperatures and in the process electrostatic energy levels build up. Only an ESD spark satisfies the criteria of “natural” and is what the paranormal revealed on June 28, 19 days before that fateful explosion on July 17, 1996.

The paranormal message was clearly a “major natural disaster.” All three words have to fit to affirm what the paranormal had revealed. ESD, as a natural phenomenon is no different than lightning for discharging static electricity that builds-up at the base of cumulus clouds. A sparking of wires, as the NTSB report describes the event is unnatural, or accidental, and inaccurately describes what really happened.


Leave a comment

Filed under Events Involving Air Travel, Natural Disasters

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s