Stagger>--Having had a quick look at JBS' webpage, and having read the Lockerbie trial judgment in full, I'm not sure which requires the most credulity – the idea that JBS’ cargo door theory accounts for all the 747 incidents he refers to, or the idea that the prosecution case was sufficient to justify Megrahi’s conviction at Camp Zeist.
JBS>One can stop reading the judgment in full after the first paragraph when everyone agrees it was a bomb, then there was some debate about where it was and a lot of debate about who put it there. I know the Libyans and the Sikhs are innocent because no one put a bomb in Air India Flight 182 or Pan Am Flight 103. Or Trans World Airlines Flight 800, and probably not China Airlines Flight 611.
Wrong assumption of bomb. The crime of sabotage was not established. And of course, the lawyers were all criminal lawyers who know about bank robberies but do not know why planes come apart in the air. Just like Air India Flight 182 attorneys, all criminal lawyers.
Part IV of the Smith AAR on Pan Am Flight 103 will explain how a shotgun type directed, mild discharge in a baggage container was ‘blown up’ into a huge spherical loud sooty plastic bomb by police authorities and later AAIB. I use pictures and drawings from AAIB 2/90 of course. And one picture of the shattered forward cargo door of Pan Am Flight 103 never before made public.
Look, I know saying Pan Am Flight 103 was not a bomb is like saying the Japanese did not attack Pearl Harbor, it was an earthquake. And if anyone ever said that to me, I would reply, “What evidence do you have to support such a wild conclusion.” And then I would check it out. You can check the shorted wiring/forward cargo door rupture/explosive decompression/inflight breakup explanation for Pan Am Flight 103 also.
Suction>The AAIB report into 103 (Appendix F), documents forensic and physical evidence of an inside-out destruction of a baggage container. How does a cargo door blow out lead to such deformation of a baggage container ?
JBS>Ah Ha! A real question! An open mind. I recognize real questions from open minds right away.
It works like this, shorted wiring/forward cargo door rupture/explosive decompression/shotgun type discharge in baggage container/inflight breakup.
Now, where did I get the idea of a rather large shotgun giving the evidence in the inside-out destruction of a baggage container? From AAIB investigators who actually looked at the reconstructed container and said it looked as if a rather large shotgun had been discharged at the fuselage at close range giving a mild blast. The evidence supports his/her conclusion, the soot, the directed mild blast giving a 20 inch shatter hole in the skin and the absence of a bomb sound on the CVR but evidence of an explosive decompression on the CVR.
Look at the partially damaged container yourself. Look at the picture of a real bomb doing incredible damage in a real 747 at Farnborough. Read the report yourself. On corazon.com of course. AAIB 2/90, it’s very very interesting. It’s really a prosecution of a ‘bomb’ case instead of an open objective investigation.
Back to China Airlines Flight 611: The matches to Pan Am Flight 103 are cruise altitude at event time, time of rupture within first hour of flight and just after climb, top of cargo door is similar in hinge and vertical tears, sudden sound on CVR followed by abrupt power cut, early model Boeing 747, and missing pressure relief doors evident and missing midspan latches along with other door hardware.
The easiest one to see the shorted wiring/forward cargo door rupture/explosive decompression/inflight breakup explanation is for Air India Flight 182. The CASB of Canada refused to even call it a bomb explosion. The AAIB representative said it was definitely not a bomb but of a cause yet to be determined. They were right.
The next easiest is Trans World Airlines Flight 800 with its clear pictures of the ruptures at the midspan latches and all the other matching evidence to United Airlines Flight 811.
The next one is Pan Am Flight 103 because they omitted most information about the starboard side of the aircraft and engine breakdown reports.
China Airlines Flight 611 can go the shorted wiring/aft cargo door rupture/rapid decompression/inflight breakup explanation way if the entire aft door is recovered and it looks just like the others in total. Outward petal shaped metal showing a blast from an outward force will be the key for the China Airlines Flight 611 aft cargo door. If fractured normally it could have been a byproduct of fuselage breakup in flight.
I repeat again and again. If you want to know what happened to those aircraft above, except China Airlines Flight 611, go to corazon.com and wade through the documents, pictures, text, and drawings. Most of it is condensed into the Smith AARs for Air India Flight 182, Pan Am Flight 103, and Trans World Airlines Flight 800. You’ll have to do it yourself because I can’t do it here.
I urge you to do so because you will have important questions to ask that I have not thought of.
Now, if you’ve seen the baggage container, do you agree that a powerful plastic Semtex bomb planted by evil foreigners in Malta, flown to Frankfurt, flown to London and then on the next flight blows up that baggage container and makes a 20 inch shatter hold which is sufficient enough to cause the nose of 747 to come off within 3 to 5 seconds, that baggage container would look a little more beat up than it is? Like it should be in itty bitty pieces? Also note, as the AAIB does in the report, that a fragment of the ‘timer’ was found behind a manufacturer’s data plate on the outside, not inside, the container. Now how can a plastic fragment of a timer of a bomb that goes off at 31000 feet stay near the container all the way to the ground and end up behind a plate on the outside of the container? That’s a question I have no answer to but it mitigates any ‘timer’ for a ‘bomb’ in a partially damaged thin metal baggage container.
Then, look at the reconstruction drawings of Pan Am Flight 103 based on wreckage distribution and you will note at event time, the sudden sound, that the port side has a small 20 inch hole and the starboard side in and around the forward cargo door has a huge hole in a rectangular shape that matches the other rectangular shapes of cargo door ruptured open events such as United Airlines Flight 811.
Well, it goes on an on, the best thing to do is download the documents and read them. I’ve done my best here about your question about baggage container.
Stagger>
I don't think there's much doubt that PA 103 was brought down by an explosive device.
JBS> In your mind and all others except me. And I use evidence as described above.
Stagger>.The evidence presented at the trial in support of this view was convincing.
JBS> There was no evidence, it was stipulated by defence it was a bomb.
Stagger> However, the prosecution theory about how this device came to be on the aircraft is full of holes.
JBS>Funny pun.
If anyone doubts this - just read the judgement for yourself.
HD>Stagger, whilst you are at it, have a look at NTSB Docket No. SA-516. Metallurgy/Structure Group Chairman factual report sequencing study (57 pages). You'll find it at
www.ntsb.gov/events/TWA 800/exhibits/Ex_18A.pdf
JBS>And note the paucity of information such as status of midspan latches, master locking handle etc. To declare a door locked and latched without having most of the locking and latching hardware is dangerous jump to a conclusion and NTSB Wildey made it.
Stagger>I didn't question the cause of the TWA 800 crash! Nor did I question that PA 103 was brought down by bomb!
JBS> Right, whew, almost became accused of being a heretic but quickly recanted.
Stagger>I was simply trying to draw a provocative parallel between the theory presented by JBS and the theory presented by the prosecution in the Lockerbie trial to explain how the bomb came to be on PA 103.
In order to believe both theories you have to ignore huge amounts of inconsistencies and contradictory evidence.
JBS> What inconsistency in the wiring/cargo door explanation? Put the down, let me hear them. What contradictions? Let me have them.
HD>Stagger, you misunderstand me. I'm not having a shot at you, I'm offering you and everyone else ammunition to debunk that eccentric gentleman suffering from Paranoia.
JBS>Ah the person who says no conspiracy for Air India Flight 182 and Pan Am Flight 103 is labeled a paranoid and the person who believes in the conspiracy plotting is called normal and is calling others crazy.
That is actually an interesting insight this whole thing has brought me. Anybody who disputes official versions is quickly said to be:
1. No.
2. You are wrong.
3. You are crazy.
4. I’m ignoring you.
5. Go away.
6. Personal attacks.
7. Ask questions.
Few get to stage 7 such as Suction did with the baggage container question. Real evidence and real evaluations in real reports.
So few stage 7 questions and so many stage 1 through 6 statements.
Well, it all goes with the territory when one discovers a great truth which runs contrary to conventional wisdom.
(And please, “judgment” has no ‘e’ in the middle. If we are talking about the Pan Am Flight 103 High Court Judgment, let’s spell it right, use the spellcheckers, they have saved me a lot of grief.)
Cheers,
Barry