Proof Number One:
Example 1: No internal explosive force within the center wing tank
Basic Presumption (what to look for): 1) That any catastrophic rise of pressure within a contained vessel presses outward equally in all directions, flexing and stretching components outward until some weakest point fails; 2) That a metal container subjected to such forces, once deformed, retains its shape; 3) That therefore, if the CWS exploded as an initiating event, it should exhibit outward deformations in all directions, more so at some rupture point. Anyone who has ever seen a firecracker destroy a mailbox understands at once what is being described; 4) If an absence of any such evidence, it must be concluded CWS did not explode while in one piece as a contained vessel.
According to NTSB, the font of the
CWS was the principle outlet for forward venting of forces into the cargo
area. This force was sufficient, they maintain, to not only cause CWS pieces
from this section to be among the first items off the aircraft, but also,
to rupture the airframe in the cargo area ahead of the tank. But where
is the evidence? NTSB conducted exhaustive tests by exploding real and
small-scale models of CWS, but show us no results -- probably because the
damage is inconsistent with Flight 800, as will be shown later in this
work by actual video still photos obtained from NTSB files. Photographs
of the CWS within the NTSB report reveal no visible damage supportive of
CWS failure as initiating event. Rather, damage is consistent with some
kind of impact, twisting, shattering, and shearing force as demonstrated
by relatively flat, irregular pieces.
NTSB Image R105 -- CWS Front Spar Looking Aft
Above we see the front of the box-like CWS structure. Rather than ballooning or rupturing, it seems crumpled or sheared (small arrows added to show directional forces) from a largely sidewards and slightly upwards force (large arrow). The few surface holes/deformations are largely inward, not outward. It is more of an accordion effect than a blast effect.
Photograph, R31, below, shows the top of the CWS. Pieces remain largely flat, in tact, and undeformed, inconsistent with NTSB claims of an explosion within the tank beneath it. The only deformations in the top of the tank are again seen to be consistent with external forces, a kind of buckling ( at the point of the added yellow jagged line at bottom) and bending along a set axis (added yellow line and bend indicator at top). The black metal bars are frameworks provided by NTSB from which to assemble debris.
NTSB Image R31 - CWS Upper Surface
Image R11, below, is of an inner support structure of the CWS which lies forward of the middle of the tank (Mid Spar) and behind the front of the tank (Front Spar). Note that, again, the only significant deformations are of the structure above, which is bowed inwards and towards the CWS, not away from it as should be the case if the CWS exploded. The only holes look to be caused by flying projectiles from external sources, all of them from the same direction -- the photo description provided by NTSB not providing enough information to reveal in which direction the picture was taken. There are no signs of forward explosive venting through this piece and into the front spar as claimed by NTSB. It is simply shattered and shredded.
NTSB Image R11 - CWS Spanwise Beam #3
Before looking at the next photograph,
it should be mentioned that NTSB found peculiar damage to the keel beam,
which runs beneath the CWS much like the keel of a ship to serve similar
structural purpose. What follows is an example of NTSB fitting facts to
a desired scenario amid deliberate ignorance of other factors. It should
be understood that the keel and the CWS are among the most ruggedly built
sections of the aircraft. Forces sufficient to cause damage are indeed
significant forces, and deserve study. The study will start with the NTSB
sequencing summaries from Exhibit 18A, with commentaries.
The above passages describe a very
unique explosion, one which elects to act laterally (only) as if a focused
charge in an open space, rather than a spontaneous explosion within a confined
space. In the next passage, we see the CWS explosion breach past the front
spar into the forward cargo bay ('the adjacent fuselage').
But what is not very clear in the
above description can be made more clear by the following summary from
a more detailed area of the report. It shows that NTSB believes that instead
of lateral venting into the cargo bay generating pressures equally upon
all surfaces found there (which should have helped to contain any minimal
blast, or which should have caused airframe failure at the weakest point,
if greater in force), it instead elected to turn its destructive force
90 degrees and focus on multiple structures found (only) in the downward
direction. This is a lot like the magic bullet in the JFK assassination.
In other words, the blast pressures
vented downward against the keel beam some how caused a leveraged force
which fractured the keel beam aft of the mid spar, which in turn allowed
it to rip free of the aircraft. This ruptured the airframe in a way that
allowed it to self destruct further, eventually destroying the aircraft
entirely -- further described, below.
NTSB has the CWS failing in a way
that causes the keel beam to fail by questionable logic. Below, image R39
shows one of the main or central support structures within CWS called the
Mid Spar. Note that it appears to evidence a kind of upwards crumpling
damage near the center part of the tank, seemingly impacted upwards and
dimpled inwards. It would indeed seem that perhaps some external force
on the keel beam might have leveraged or pried upward against this portion
of the CWS. NTSB would have us believe forward venting of the CWS caused
damage external of the CWS which, in turn, caused more damage to the inside
of the CWS than did the initial explosion itself.
NTSB Image R39 - CWS Mid Spar Looking Right to Left
The evidence suggests the opposite more likely. Some external force caused the keel to fail, which in turn damaged the Mid Spar and, along with other external forces evidenced in the photographs above, damaged the CWS and fuselage early in the event, allowing pieces to exit the aircraft. It is believed by missile-fire proponents that this damage also allowed the bulk of the fuel and vapors to depart prior to any fire or actual explosion, which is why the CWS shows no failure signs typical of initiating event: There was no confined-space criteria in play at the point of any subsequent ignition of any remaining flammables.
Summary: The damage to the CWS does not support NTSB findings for failure of this structure as the initiating event. Rather, the damage to the structure would appear to have come from external sources. The CWS did not explode, it caught fire once ripped open and vented. Some other force destructed the aircraft.
PROOF ONE: NEXT EXAMPLE