Jump to content

Talk:1967 USS Forrestal fire

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Reports and maps

[edit]

I'm looking for links to the investigation reports. There were at least two official investigations/groups, The Judge Advocate General Investigation led by Rear Admiral Forsyth Massey and a Panel to Review Safety in Aircraft Carrier Operations led by Admiral James S. Russell (The Russell Report). I'd like to find those sources so we can develop a flight deck map of aircraft positions prior to / during the incident. A picture is worth 1000 words and I think it would help explain where these planes were and the area of damage involved. All we have now on this is that it was in the aft part of the ship. I'm sure I can find a drawing or image to put a/c positions on, but there should be a drawing of some kind in the official investigation. Any ideas / help? --Dual Freq (talk) 00:09, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Detail

[edit]

Is it really an appropriate level of detail to list the serial numbers of destroyed aircraft? Is it also necessary to state that post-repair trials included the first carrier landing after the accident and to list who piloted the plane? DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:13, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Changed intro a bit

[edit]

I removed the claim that the cause was a malfunctioning rocket. The rocket actually functioned perfectly. It was the very unusual electrical anomaly which caused the incident. Without that, the rocket couldn't have fired.08:17, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Contradictions

[edit]

It's unbelievable that these have not been noticed before now.

The article contradicts itself at least once. The beginning of the article and under 'aftermath' it states that the fire resulted in, "at least 62 injuries". The picture on the right hand side of the article (the very first one) under Casualties, lists "161 injured".

The "161 injured" figure reflects the USS Forrestal article which has a reference of the DC Museum [1]. The USS Forrestal article states the fire, "burned for hours, killing 134, injuring 161 and costing the Navy $72 million."

The contradiction to another article comes in with the John McCain article, which is currently locked and not available for tagging. This is the article that looks like it is incorrect, but I am not a judge or Wiki administrator and do not know which source will be deemed more reliable.

In the John McCain article it states, "The ensuing fire killed 132 sailors, injured 62 others, destroyed at least 20 aircraft, and took 24 hours to control."

It uses McCain's book, Faith of My Fathers as a reference , and the e-copy [2] itself that is linked as the reference contradicts the article by specifying that, "Fires burned below deck for 24 hours. It was a total disaster. 134 men died, dozens were wounded and more than 20 planes were destroyed." Also, the numbers are all different. Chexmix53 (talk) 00:03, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The number of wounded differs between DANFS as well, which states " Some 132 officers and men died in the catastrophe, two disappeared (missing, presumed dead), and another 62 suffered injuries." However, DANFS is wrong about the two missing since all 134 bodies were recovered[3] and I can not find the names of anyone still "missing" from the incident. I have found some lists that have 135 names, but there was a seaman that died before the incident on the same day so 134 is the number of dead. As for injuries, I've seen 62 from DANFS and 161 from the DC museum article. At this point I don't know which is correct, but on a ship with thousands of crew members affected / involved, its safe to assume there were a large number of casualties, physically, mentally etc. How those casualties were counted and what the various numbers were is unknown to me at this time. As for dozens, I think its fair to say dozens since hundreds is too many, we know there were at least 62, maybe "scores" be better than dozens. 1967 USS Forrestal fire is the main article for the fire, we only need to summarize here. It looks to me that McCain's book only summarizes the incident so I don't think its numbers are going to differ from other sources that deal specifically with the incident. Why don't you complain to the people editing the McCain article? --Dual Freq (talk) 02:35, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've corrected the McCain article to remove the contradictions. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:06, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I did complain to the McCain people. Where should I go about trying to find the accurate number on injured? I think that is an important fact to have included in the article- documenting the fire. The article is kind of pointless if it can't express how detrimental the fire was. The article is important to McCain as well seeing as he started having second thoughts about his role in the war because of the napalm. Chexmix53 (talk) 01:06, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see Napalm in this article or any of the sources used here. The main damage was caused by fuel leaks and the 1000 lb bombs, which are not napalm. DANFS says 62 injuries, DC museum and The Impact of the USS Forrestal's 1967 Fire on United States Navy Shipboard Damage Control. Henry P. Stewart; Army Command and General Staff College, Fort Leavenworth, KS. say 161. Stewart references the 161 injured to page 33 of the Department of the Navy, Manual of the Judge Advocate General Basic Final Investigative Report Concerning the Fire on Board the USS Forrestal (CVA-59) on July 29, 1967. (Washington, D.C.: US Navy Office of the Judge Advocate General, 1968). I'd say the 161 trumps the 62. Stewart does not mention napalm either. If you want something else, I would say to try a library. --Dual Freq (talk) 01:33, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Darn, I know I saw that Napalm thing, I thought it was in one of those references. I will have to get back to you on that... Chexmix53 (talk) 03:23, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

McCain responsibility controversy

[edit]
Deck plan with aircraft involved circled. The Zuni is said to have come from F-4 #110. McCain's A-4 (416) is shown with the engine facing outboard. No F-4 was positioned behind his aircraft despite conspiracy theories to the contrary.

As a result, probably, of McCain candidacy, there are now "Swift Boat"-style allegations that John McCain was not only present during the fire, but may have been responsible for it. Specifically, the allegation is:

The starter motor switch on the A4E Skyhawk allowed fuel to pool in the engine. When the aircraft was “wet-started,” an impressive flame would shoot from the tail. It was one of the ways young hot-shots got their jollies. Investigators and survivors took the position that McCain deliberately wet-started to harass the F4 pilot directly behind him. The cook off launched an M34 Zuni rocket that tore through the Skyhawk’s fuel tank...

Clearly, if there was any one person responsible, that person should be identified in this article. But I haven't seen any evidence in support or opposed to this unproven allegation referenced in this article. I take no position, but certainly there should be evidence either way to indicate if this allegation is true or slander.Rockgolf (talk) 17:07, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Read the article. The rocket flew across the flight deck and hit a wing-mounted external fuel tank on a Skyhawk, either Aircraft No. 405 (White) or No. 416 (McCain). The rocket didn't come from White or McCain's aircraft, but a third aircraft on the other side of the flight deck. Cookoff caused by McCain? More like Cuckooland for the person who is reputedly quoted. Over. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 20:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see a source for the above accusation so I'm going to assume it is baseless and not worth inclusion. I would like to echo the above point and add that DANFS states that "a Zuni 5” rocket accidentally fired, probably from Aircraft No. 110, a McDonnell Douglas F-4B Phantom II (BuNo 153061), LCDR James E. Bangert and LT(JG) Lawrence E. McKay from VF-11" it later states that "Investigators did, however, absolve LCDR Bangert and LT(JG) McKay of any errors and noted their exemplary service prior to the catastrophe." I'm not sure its worth naming them in the article since they were cleared by the investigation and DANFS uses "probably" to describe 110 as the firing aircraft. --Dual Freq (talk) 21:19, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I noted above that I'd like to find a post-accident investigation drawing of the flightdeck and the placement of aircraft, that would make thing easier to explain. A public domain US Navy video uploaded by someone on youtube shows the A-4's seconds after the impact and there is nothing behind them but ocean. Even if a "wet start" really exists, all that would have been hit is air. The F-4 was on the starboard side, and DANFS says the A-4's were "further aft on the port side waiting to launch." Its pretty clear that the F-4 could not have been behind McCain's A-4. --Dual Freq (talk) 21:19, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Any allegation of John McCain having any culpability for the fire are unequivocally false. The primary source for any discussion of the fire should be the Navy's own 6,000-page report. In this report (compete with diagrams and all the minutia of the day) outside of being listed with various crew in different attachments, McCain's name only surfaces in two affidavits he supplied to the board. One from the day of the fire, one from Subic Bay two days later. He was not a "suspect" or person of interest. He was simply one of the witnesses. To that point, it should be noted that nowhere in those 6,000 pages does it state that the Zuni rocket struck AA416 (McCain's A-4E). EVERY note, reference, citation states that the Zuni hit AA-405, LCDR Fred White's A-4E. McCain himself, in the depositions states in the first that he "thought" it was his plane that was hit, but was not certain. In the second, he was certain it hit the other aircraft. Just as an aside, all DANFS citations should be regarded with skepticism. It is not a primary source and has a bad reputation among historians. The report does not point to a single individual. As the previous author noted, Bangert and McKay were absolved. The culprit, according to the board, was a "stray voltage," a spark, on a test plug. The squadron was also using unauthorized procedures for launch preparations that contributed to the event.Fstopfitzgerald (talk) 01:58, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The German Version of the article includes a deck plan. Averell (talk) 21:23, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pointing that out. I cropped it a bit for use on en. --Dual Freq (talk) 00:21, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you have a link to an online version of the report, please link to it or add details where it can be found. As noted above, I've been looking for the report online, but have not seen it. --Dual Freq (talk) 02:33, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My mention of the false rumors about McCain causing the fire just got removed as "poorly sourced." Ok, fair enough, but I think there should be some mention of this, since some will come to this page to try and debunk something they heard on a nutty right-wing or fanatical democratic or other irresponsible web site. The sources I included were a few web sites that made the claim, some of which had valuable discussions from folks who knew better.

I'd like to see some form of this information added back. Suggestions how we can do this? --Russell (talk) 22:01, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Add it back when you can find some quality sources. An internet forum and a collection of Youtube videos are not quality sources. See Wikipedia:Verifiability#Sources....Asher196 (talk) 03:36, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The paragraph discusses an unfounded and patently false allegation -- something that is an "internet meme", a slanderous libel, or perhaps an "urban legend." Hard to find a "quality source" for this kind of silliness. Perhaps I will have to wait until either the mainstream media, a group like factchecker.org, or reliable myth-debunkers like snopes.com covers this before it can be included here. --Russell (talk) 11:11, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not only that, he would need to keep in mind that the Zuni was fired, but did not explode/detonate, according to evidence this article is based on. So the cooking off in a zillion degrees jet wash is ludicrous. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 04:06, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying its true, but one thing to note was that he was pulled off the carrier's fighter group after the accident and his four star admiral father was in more then a position to protect him from any sort of accusations. --JerryJ (talk) 14:35, 20 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.214.106.217 (talk • contribs) 18:41, October 20, 2008 User account "JerryJ" is not registered.[reply]

And so the woo wooism gets further embellished. Good thing you are saying it is not true Jerry, otherwise rational people would take you to task and make you look silly. (I'm not saying it's true that you are silly). Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 19:55, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One thing to note here, is that in the flight deck films, it clearly shows the rocket streaking across the deck and striking another aircraft. That part is actually easily confirmed by watching the films in question. Having been a sailor and on one of the Fire Party/Damage Control Teams in the early 80's we saw the Learn or Burn film MANY times as partof our training routine. Many jokes were made about McCain, about his only being a pilot because of his father and grandfather's politically covering for him due to his low scores and placement in his graduating Annapolis Class. Seniors in the Navy tried to squash such joking since he had at that time just became a US Senator and it was not considered 'Dignified'. Stories that he had actually caused it abounded as scuttlebutt (gossip) amongst sailors but the commission pretty well put a cap on that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.22.16.117 (talk) 22:04, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also of note, is that the picture of plane positions on the carrier are where the planes are SUPPOSED to be at, but it does NOT show exactly where the planes really were when the accident occured, the direction they were pointing could have been different, so McCain COULD have "Wet-Started" his aircraft at the plane behind him. If that occurred just before the missile, then it MAY be possible that the eye witnesses mixed things up....or maybe McCain Did start it...Look at the tapes, those are really the best bet at tracking that down. 

B. Honest 4 November 2008 24.22.16.117 (talk) 22:25, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Um, no. The drawing is the actual position of the aircraft at the time of the accident. --Dual Freq (talk) 22:34, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I just hoped that this would die down, really. There is no controversy. We even added a picture showing that it was physically impossible for him to have wet-started anything. And yes, also the deck film (which you find easily on YouTube) will show the plane with the engine facing outwards. There's also no source for this thing except some blogs who copied it from chain letters. With the election over, this discussion will hopefully fade away... Averell (talk) 09:37, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. It hasn't died out. With the passing of John McCain, some people on social media are again mentioning the USS Forrestal in connection with him. I came here hoping for some clarity regarding the assertions, and then came to the talk page after finding no coverage in the article. Etamni | ✉ | ✓  20:34, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There isn't any coverage in the article because no reliable source (properly) has discussed it since, as noted above, it is patently false. It is unfortunate that it keeps coming up. Daniel Case (talk) 05:16, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cooking-off

[edit]

The article uses the phrase "cooking-off" and "cooked off" a couple of times, without explaining this obscure (to me) term. Would someone either explain the term or remove it. --Tagishsimon (talk) 02:08, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Linked it to Cooking off which does the trick. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 02:17, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A-4E??

[edit]

In 1967?? Solicitr (talk) 19:16, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So what's your point? Are you saying that you think they were retired prior to 1967 or are you saying you think they hadn't been built in 1967? The aircraft were Douglas A4D-5 Skyhawks and the A4D-5 was redesignated A-4E circa 1962. See A-4 Skyhawk. --Dual Freq (talk) 03:05, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback of modifications by 72.146.43.59

[edit]

I've rolled back a series of good-faith edits made by that IP. They consisted mainly of inserting articles in every possible place (like the Forrestal...) and the replacement of some phrases with synonyms. While there may have also been some improvements in that, the net result seemed to make the article more difficult to read.

While I'm not a native speaker (so if I'm completely off, correct me), but I'm under the impression that the articles in those places are at least optional. IMHO omitting them gives much smoother reading experience, and other Wikipedia articles are written in the same way. Also, replacing common terms with rather uncommon ones (like "Fire" -> "The Conflagration") does, in my view, render the article more inaccessible. Averell (talk) 13:52, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lessons Learned

[edit]

I think that the explanation of the lessons learned should be under it's own heading. Since what was learned was a lot farther reaching than just aftermath. The film of the accident is a standard training film that everyone watches. I'm a former Hull Maintenance Technician 2nd class. Herogamer (talk) 13:44, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 13:41, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 13:41, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 13:42, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

24.28.82.87 (talk) 00:58, 30 July 2011 (UTC)Don Lincoln, LCDR, USCG (Ret)[reply]

Suggested clarification of caption below USS FDR deck spray photo

[edit]

Greetings - I thought this was a factual error, but it appears to be simply the context instead. Recommended text revision provided below for clarification.

Please see the right side photo of the USS Franklin D. Roosevelt testing its deck spray system along the right side. The caption reads:

"A deck edge spray system was first installed on the USS Franklin D. Roosevelt (CV-42) as a direct result of the Forrestal fire in 1969."

This sounds like an error in stating the year of the Forrestal fire, which occurred in 1967. Recommend revised wording for clarification as follows (in bold text):

"A deck edge spray system was first installed on the USS Franklin D. Roosevelt (CV-42) in 1969 as a direct result of the Forrestal fire."

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.28.82.87 (talk) 00:56, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

uss forrestal - Is anyone left that was on the ship 1967 ?

[edit]

I was 5 years old and I remember sitting in front of the tv watching for my dads name to come up with my older brothers Curtis was 7 and Mark was 9 , they knew what dads name looked liked I didn`t . Dad did not die that day but has been long gone . The memory of that day haunted him forever ! Is there

anyone that can talk to me ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.188.131.110 (talk) 01:53, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, it's unlikely to find other people from there here on Wikipedia. You never know, but the better option is to search veterans organizations. Popish Plot (talk) 13:47, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This Forrestal crew list might help: http://www.navysite.de/crewlist/commandlist.php?commandid=105 Level Head (talk) 03:11, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on 1967 USS Forrestal fire. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:34, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Accident caused by radar/electromagnetic interference?

[edit]

A NASA report from 1995 (link here) seems pretty unequivocal that the cause of the 1967 Forrestal accident was an "uncommanded release of munitions" caused by EMI. Key quote: "The accident was caused by the landing aircraft being illuminated by carrier-based radar, and the resulting EMI sent an unwanted signal to the weapons system. Investigations showed that degraded shield termination on the aircraft allowed the radar frequency to interfere with routine operations."

Has this information been overlooked, or has further investigation refuted it? Please advise. Goldenband (talk) 15:54, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed the same thing myself. The story about this being due to an approaching aircraft and EMI is definitely out there. For example, I also found a 2012 Forbes article, "Yes, Our Gadgets Really Threaten Planes". In fact, this is commonly used in the field of spacecraft design and development as an example of why avoiding EMI is so important.

If that story isn't true, I think we should add a section about an urban on the subject. Fcrary (talk) 23:22, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a section discussing this. Fcrary (talk) 22:54, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 1967 USS Forrestal fire. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:04, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

10 minute window

[edit]

What is the source for the claim that "Damage Control Team No. 8 had been assured of a 10-minute window in which to extinguish the fire and prevent the bombs from detonating"?203.80.61.102 (talk) 19:51, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The "window" refers to the knowledge that the modern bombs were designed to withstand high temperatures due to fires for a minimum of 10 minutes. — btphelps (talk to me) (what I've done) 03:20, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ineffective fire fighting

[edit]

The fire fighting efforts were very poor and largely ineffective. Partly due to the trained DC teams being killed early on, but mostly because DC training across all naval personnel was very limited. There should be some reference to this. Incidentally video of the Forrestal fire is used in fire fighting training in other navies - as an example of what not to do (for instance, one team spreading foam, while another immediately washing it away with sea water).203.80.61.102 (talk) 19:54, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Today, this evaluation still exists . . .

[edit]

This is the article's last sentence. It was probably true when it was written, but is it now? How often is it checked to be true? Better to give a date, I suggest, and this also applies to the discussion of H6 still being used. Nick Barnett (talk) 14:54, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1991"."

[edit]

Please remove a ". Thanks. 205.189.94.11 (talk) 20:46, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

VA-xxx

[edit]

While reading this article on my mobile phone, I had no clue what the phrase "VA-xxx" meant. The first appearance is "..Naval Aviator attached to VA-106...". Upon reflection, I admit that the phrase "attached to" implies a military unit/group of some kind, but on first reading, I was skimming the article and the meaning of "VA-106" did not grab my attention. But the second time I encountered the phrase was "...external fuel tank on a Skyhawk from VA-46 awaiting launch." At first, I thought it was a grammar error (I thought maybe a Skyhawk plane is a VA-46 plane type designation?), since I did not remember the first appearance of the "VA-xxx" phrase. So, I logged into my laptop and re-read this article. On the laptop, I could mouse over the "VA-46" phrase and it reveals via a popup box that it is a squadron, which is super helpful (but not for mobile readers?). So, I edited the second appearance of the phrase "VA-xxx" since it was so confusing (to me anyway), from:

  • "...external fuel tank on a Skyhawk from VA-46 awaiting launch." to:
  • "...external fuel tank on a Skyhawk from Attack Squadron 46 (VA-46) awaiting launch."

Perhaps it might benefit the lay reader if the first appearance of the phrase "VA-xxx" was also changed from:

  • "..Naval Aviator attached to VA-106..." to:
  • "..Naval Aviator attached to Strike Fighter Squadron 106 (VA-106)..."

but I thought I would leave that up to others to decide.
Thanks. IceCreamForEveryone (talk) 20:10, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Page references

[edit]

Throughout the article the rp template is used to reference page numbers. In some cases the underlying documents do not seem to support those references in particular in Sections 3.4 and 3.5 the references to [6]:57 in one instance the reference is duplicated and no page 57 exists, the document is only 28 pages and the page numbers within do not include page 57. There are two item 57s in the document but neither seem to correspond to what is being discussed in the article where referenced that I can determine. I'm removing the duplication of the reference but leaving the page references. However someone should review them and correct where appropriate or make them more understandable unless somehow it is just me that doesn't understand them. Phil (talk) 00:26, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All killed by explosions?

[edit]

The introduction says “The flammable jet fuel spilled across the flight deck, ignited, and triggered a chain-reaction of explosions that killed 134 sailors and injured 161.”.

This sentence implies that all killed/injured sailors were killed by explosions specifically, and not killed by related causes (e.g. smoke inhalation or drowning). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7E:1441:4100:244A:B224:7A55:9A98 (talk) 23:50, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Claimed increase in power of Composition B

[edit]
Composition B also had the dangerous tendency to become more powerful (up to 50% by weight) [...] if it was old or improperly stored.

There is no source and I cant find anything about that online. Its highly unlikely from a physical/chemical point of view. Hence I doubt it. Neither the density (~detonation velocity) nor the energy content could go up like that. Hence I will remove this. Eheran (talk) 10:48, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:1967_USS_Forrestal_fire&oldid=1209145972"