JBS, you said:
But you do know the absurd scenarios put forth by the police about bombs in planes that get loaded two or three flights prior and blow up to produce a 20 inch shatter hole on the port side for Pan Am Flight 103 and no evidence of a bomb for the Canadians to call Air India Flight 182 a bomb explosion.
You see, I trust the evidence, not the massaged explanations which you so readily believe
In the matter of Air India 182, putting aside the two Singhs who never boarded their flights, although their checked baggage made it onboard, and putting aside the explosion of one of the Singh's luggage at Tokyo, there are these statements in the official investigation reports, which you seem to dismiss out-of-hand because they are inconsistent with your notions about what caused this particular flight to crash.
Air India 128 investigation report excerpts
"The forward cargo door which had some fuselage and cargo floor attached was located on the sea bed. The door was broken horizontally about one-quarter of the distance above the lower frame. The damage to the door and the fuselage skin near the door appeared to have been caused by an outward force and the fracture surfaces of the door appeared to be badly frayed. This damage was different from that seen on other wreckage pieces. A failure of this door in flight would explain the impact damage to the right wing areas. The door failing as an initial event would cause an explosive decompression leading to a downward force on the cabin floor as a result of the difference in pressure between the upper and lower portions of the aircraft.
"However, examination showed that the cabin floor panels separated from the support structure in an upward direction. Also, passenger seats viewed and recovered exhibited that they had been subjected to an upward force from below. They showed that the seats to the rear in sections 46 and 48 had their back legs buckled, and the seats toward the front had both front and back legs buckled. This indicates the vertical force was greater at the front than the rear of the aircraft. It is possible that this vertical force on the floor was caused by the force of the water during impact, but the rear of the aircraft broke up before impact and therefore any vertical loading on the floor in this area is unlikely to have occurred at impact.
"When this target [target 399] was recovered from the sea, along with it came a few hundred tiny fragments and medium-sized pieces. One of the medium-sized pieces recovered with this target was a floor stantion about 35 inches long. It was confirmed that this stantion belonged to the right side of the forward cargo hold. The inner face of the stantion had a fracture with a curl at the lower end, the curl being in the outboard direction and up into the centre of the stantion.
"Scientists from the Bhabha Atomic Research Centre, the National Aeronautical Laboratory and the Explosives Research and Development Laboratory in India conducted a metallurgical examination of certain items of wreckage. Their report on target 399 concluded that:
- the curling of the metal on the floor channel was indicative of a shock wave effect;
- the large number of tiny fragments from the disintegration of nonbrittle aluminum was a characteristic indication of explosive forces; and
- the indications of punctures, outward petalling around holes, curling of metal lips, reverse slant fracture, formation of spikes at fracture edges and certain microstructural changes all were indicative of an explosion
"From the examination of the recovered wreckage, the following deductions can be made:
- Target 47, which is a portion of the aft cargo compartment roller floor, shows no indications characteristic of an explosion emanating from the aft cargo compartment.
- Target 362/396, which is a lower skin panel from the forward cargo compartment is badly crumpled and torn and has about 20 punctures resulting from penetration from inside. It appears that some folding occurred on water impact which brought stringers or stiffeners from the aircraft structure into forceful contact with the internal surface of the panel producing most of the penetrations. However, there are certain punctures which indicate no evidence of impact marks on the inside surface and show evidence of being produced by high velocity fragments. Part of the inner surface of the skin panel appeared to have been blackened by soot from a fire.
- Target 399, consisting of a piece of the skin and stringers on the right side in the area of the forward cargo compartment contained holes and several hundred metal fragments. The damage to the floor stantion and the presence of the fragments are consistent with an explosion.
"The examination of the recovered wreckage contains no evidence of an explosion except for targets 362/396 and 399 which contain some evidence that an explosion emanated from the forward cargo compartment.
"An explosion in the forward cargo compartment would explain the loss of the DFDR, CVR and transponder signal as the electronics bay is immediately ahead of the cargo compartment.
.......
And "judgement" happens to be the spelling used by writers living in most English-speaking countries.
And I am further heartened that as an investigator, you have the remarkable facility of communicating with the dead of PA 103, TW 800, and AI 182:
about the causes of those accidents but you do not know the evidence one way or the other. You have not read all the government AARs for those accidents, you have not read my AARs for them, you have not read the Public Docket or the appendices, you have not had private correspondence with victims who survived