Re: fl800

Spike Jones (spike66@ibm.net)
Mon, 22 Feb 1999 19:25:43 -0800

Ian Goddard wrote:

> >but when the thing first happened, i thought i recall the investigators
> >proposing an explosion that originated *inside* the fuel tank.
>
> IAN: Before that became the leading theory
> they canned the theory.

so i really did hear this? they suggested an explosion originating inside the tank? what i wonder is how they proposed sufficient oxygen got in there, assuming a spark. sparks are easy. would a really fast leak draw in enough oxygen to displace the leaked fuel?

> >im not too concerned about the 29 second plunge tho.
>
> IAN: For me, you can't break physical
> law, and saying an object with negative
> aerodynamic advantage could fall from zero...

ya, ive followed your argument, but the way i would explain the report is a kind of one way tendency by the investigators to underreport the plunge time. their motives would not need to be evil. i would suppose many or most of the passengers survived the original blast, and no one wants to even imagine those poor folks living long under those horrifying conditions of being in a burning plane plunging toward the sea. i figured they just picked the most optimistic (shortest) estimate of descent time.

the idea of an explosion originating *inside* a fuel tank, that really bothers me tho. why couldnt it happen again? {8-[ spike