So why is it that TWA800 is the first ever 'aviation disaster' with an exploding fuel tank?

No it is not. There were many. Some (not all) are even mentioned in the article on wikipedia you so prominently cite, there were quite of few of them in the military, many in B-52 or KC-135. Also the article has a fairly good description of possible sources of such explosions. If there is anyobody who questions this is you, not me. Yes, you must be a complete idiot if you can't even read/understand the stuff you cite.

228 people lost their lives in this tragedy. We now have ignorant ********s trying to score points off each other iin this forum for their own amusement..

Coming down from that high horse anytime soon "mgh"?The only ********s in this forum (and the world at large) are those that spurt persistent irrational nonsense in public and expect it to go unchallenged.

No it is not. There were many. Some (not all) are even mentioned in the article on wikipedia you so prominently cite, there were quite of few of them in the military, many in B-52 or KC-135. Also the article has a fairly good description of possible sources of such explosions. If there is anyobody who questions this is you, not me. Yes, you must be a complete idiot if you can't even read/understand the stuff you cite.

Well I fly on aircraft all the time that has no INERT fuel tanks.........So have you flown on an aircraft recently that has inert centre fuel tank? I must say the 'explosions' in South East Asia you quote off my quoted web site are rather dubious. One being the Thai PM just about to board....questions of sabotage. South East Asia is a very volatile region. Your name calling reveals you have very little to argue, except about me being an idiot. You can call me what you like, but if you cannot question things then that is your dilemma, not mine ol' chappy.I still have serious doubts about the TWA800 accident and the way the investigation was carried out raises suspicious greatly. For usually investigations are carried out without controversy and findings are usually straightforward. For example, weather (yes in this case weather may be involved BUT the radio was not responding so this indicates other unrelated factors which are UNEXPLAINED. If the radio had been answered by the crew up until the time of the AF447 going down, then I would concede there is little evidence apart from two terror suspects being on board which they shouldn't have been!), pilot error, maintenance/structural or engine issues.In saying all this, was HF (is it still) radio in operation in the Atlantic? If so, it must work during bad weather. This is aerospace. Not a yacht with a single person and a 'satphone' among other comms devices.Why are eyewitnesses coming forward? http://twa800.com/pa...condolences.htmThen a DHL aircraft was shot down in Iraq several years ago. By a shoulder fired missile. The same happened with TWA800. The difference is (and Bill Clinton's administration has a record of cover ups) that Clinton wanted it covered up. He didn't deal with the WTC effectively (until Lewinsky's intimate dealings were impeaching him!) and only struck Iraq in 1998 when political force was brought to bear against him.Daniel

The weather was known to the pilots well before they got there. They would have known that this weather was far too serious. Only a hijack could have done this. Taken the controls of the aircraft then being idiots they flew straight through the storm. Whether passengers stormed the cockpit like UAL93 is unknown. There were two terror suspects on board that flight.Daniel

Weather has the ability to change unforecast and very quickly, and it's due to these traits that many pilots have lost their lives - Even after proper precautions are taken."This is aerospace. Not a yacht with a single person and a 'satphone' among other comms devices."You'd probably be surprised how similar they can be to one another.

Daniel,You are a complete moron, and I'm glad to say there are only a select few out there with your level of intellect.

Daniel,You are a complete moron, and I'm glad to say there are only a select few out there with your level of intellect.

Why was the ACARS still broadcasting and the radio was not used by the pilots?And you know they thought Winston Churchill was a moron too. Its funny that you can't make any sensical points against my argument, because you have none, except to say a name about me. Myself has nothing to do with eyewitnesses and now passed on Former US Navy investigator who obviously had a background of investigation expertise. It is you that are the moron because you cannot even bother (lazy too) to make an argument. Lazy moron.Daniel

Why was the ACARS still broadcasting and the radio was not used by the pilots?And you know they thought Winston Churchill was a moron too. Its funny that you can't make any sensical points against my argument, because you have none, except to say a name about me. Myself has nothing to do with eyewitnesses and now passed on Former US Navy investigator who obviously had a background of investigation expertise. It is you that are the moron because you cannot even bother (lazy too) to make an argument. Lazy moron.Daniel

Daniel, you have no idea what your talking about. What is really scary is you truly believe the rubbish your spouting, fed of amauture knowledge and things you have read of the internet. Your comments are a insult to the family members of those who died in the incidents you have brought up. I wish there was a ignore button to filter out your posts but for now I will ignore any threads with your name on it.Why was ACARS still broadcasting and the radio was not used? Think about it and fight the urge to let your brain use The Xfiles,24, or wiki as a basis for a answer.If you have any operational knowledge or can at least empathize with what was going through the minds of the crew that night when the lower ECAM lit up like a christmas tree and all hell broke loose then you are half way there.

Daniel, you have no idea what your talking about. What is really scary is you truly believe the rubbish your spouting, fed of amauture knowledge and things you have read of the internet. Your comments are a insult to the family members of those who died in the incidents you have brought up. I wish there was a ignore button to filter out your posts but for now I will ignore any threads with your name on it.Why was ACARS still broadcasting and the radio was not used? Think about it and fight the urge to let your brain use The Xfiles,24, or wiki as a basis for a answer.If you have any operational knowledge or can at least empathize with what was going through the minds of the crew that night when the lower ECAM lit up like a christmas tree and all hell broke loose then you are half way there.

OK. Educate me then. How do you know what happened?Daniel

OK. Educate me then. How do you know what happened?Daniel

This is why pilots are taught never to fly through storms!!! Those that do "very rarely" survive and sadly there are many examples littered throughout aviation history of those that tried and failed. Just yesterday in Ireland here yet another bad weather accident.People are waiting for the black boxes and other wreckage to be found because only these tell facts. In aviation accidents eye witnesses are notoriously unreliable as each one sees the accident from their own point of view.Until you understand the complexities of flying an aeroplane (it isn't a car!!) especially a modern a/c with a glass cockpit it would be best for you to sit back read and listen to those of us who have experience of real flying. In the case of Air France conspiracy is simply not part of the equation! Nature is much much more powerful!vololiberista

Coming down from that high horse anytime soon "mgh"?The only ********s in this forum (and the world at large) are those that spurt persistent irrational nonsense in public and expect it to go unchallenged.

That's why I challenged the persistent irrational nonsense in public that's being spurted in this forum.

Well, we are finally under way again. It looks like it will take them forty days to get to the zone. Let's cross our fingers, ... again.http://www.kirotv.com/news/26796489/detail.htmlCheers,MAB

This is why pilots are taught never to fly through storms!!! Those that do "very rarely" survive and sadly there are many examples littered throughout aviation history of those that tried and failed. Just yesterday in Ireland here yet another bad weather accident.People are waiting for the black boxes and other wreckage to be found because only these tell facts. In aviation accidents eye witnesses are notoriously unreliable as each one sees the accident from their own point of view.Until you understand the complexities of flying an aeroplane (it isn't a car!!) especially a modern a/c with a glass cockpit it would be best for you to sit back read and listen to those of us who have experience of real flying. In the case of Air France conspiracy is simply not part of the equation! Nature is much much more powerful!vololiberista

Who said I wasn't a pilot? I know the A330 and weather radar. Firsthand.Back in 1963 I think the microchip wasn't in use AND I don't think there was a thing such as weather radar.It seems odd that PIREPs and other things like WXR didn't guide the pilots to make an informed decision. That is why I look at all the facts and possibilities.The aircraft may have very well 'broken up' in a storm, but how did it happen. As there are no black boxes and ACARS reports loss of systems, this does not necessarily mean that weather caused it. Simulating loss of airspeed does not take every system offline thank you.Because these aircraft have built in strength I will contest that if a storm was flown into there must have been indications. Cloudy night with moon is an indication. Lightning is an indication. And I would say AF pilots would know how to use a weather radar. A country that has a train that can reach speeds of up to 600km/hr and has 80% of its energy through nuclear power cannot be that dumb.Daniel

Who said I wasn't a pilot? I know the A330 and weather radar. Firsthand.Back in 1963 I think the microchip wasn't in use AND I don't think there was a thing such as weather radar.It seems odd that PIREPs and other things like WXR didn't guide the pilots to make an informed decision. That is why I look at all the facts and possibilities.The aircraft may have very well 'broken up' in a storm, but how did it happen. As there are no black boxes and ACARS reports loss of systems, this does not necessarily mean that weather caused it. Simulating loss of airspeed does not take every system offline thank you.Because these aircraft have built in strength I will contest that if a storm was flown into there must have been indications. Cloudy night with moon is an indication. Lightning is an indication. And I would say AF pilots would know how to use a weather radar. A country that has a train that can reach speeds of up to 600km/hr and has 80% of its energy through nuclear power cannot be that dumb.Daniel

If then "as you say?" you know the A330 "So Well" tell us all its design strengths. I Bet it's +3.5g -1.5g in which case it's easy meat for a tropical storm!And clearly you don't read carefully other people's comments. If you say you are a pilot then you can tell us all your correct cockpit procedure for saving this a/c. Make one mistake and we will all know you're fake!!!vololiberista

Baring in mind the original topic and the tragic loss of life involved, its a shame that this thread has descended into the usual aggressive mud slinging and personnel attacks.Andy

If then "as you say?" you know the A330 "So Well" tell us all its design strengths. I Bet it's +3.5g -1.5g in which case it's easy meat for a tropical storm!And clearly you don't read carefully other people's comments. If you say you are a pilot then you can tell us all your correct cockpit procedure for saving this a/c. Make one mistake and we will all know you're fake!!!vololiberista

You are quoting things I didn't say dumbass. Go get a life.