JBS, I heartedly agree with what Mechanical Man said about your already having concluded that China Airlines 611 was caused by a failure of a cargo door. I don't think any amount of future argument or evidence will persuade you otherwise. You certainly haven't been persuaded by the great preponderance of the evidence indicating that the losses of PA 103, TW 800, and Air India 182 were caused by something other than an in-flight failure of a cargo door.
The British, American, and Canadian governments have spent millions of dollars (or pounds) and many thousands of hours in investigating these three accidents. And yet it seems they have gotten it all wrong, and you have it all right. It seems to be a matter of credulity versus credibility.
The distance between a quixotic quest and fixation, or, ultimately, mania, can be quite short. When the weight of the evidence points to something other than a cargo door mishap, the evidence must be explained away. Thus, in the case of PA 103, in a most remarkable set of coincidences, there is a catastrophic structural failure of the plane which also prematurely sets off a bomb onboard.
In the case of Air India 182, two sequentially numbered tickets are issued in Vancouver to gentlemen named Singh. One ticket is for a westbound flight to India through Tokyo. The other is for an eatbound flight to India through London. The luggage of both passengers is checked onto the respective planes but neither passenger boards. The westbound Mr. Singh's baggage explodes on a carousel at Tokyo airport as it is being transferred to Air India. Less than an hour later, Air India 182 crashes into the sea off Ireland. I daresay that if the first bomb had succeeded in crashing the other Air India plane, we would be offered an even more remarkable coincidence: the near simultaneous failure of cargo doors on two Air India 747's while in flight.