LP>Just for the record.
PA103 did have bomb blast damage to engine Pos #2 including severe FOD.
JBS>Just for the record: PA103 did not have bomb blast damage to engine Pos #2 including severe FOD. Shingling is not necessarily bomb blast damage and is not FOD.
AAIB report omitted the engine breakdown reports on the four engines. The summarized descriptions were consistent with a report which was prosecuting the bomb explanation other than on objective evaluation of all probable causes.
One of the matches to three 747 inflight breakups is engine number three always lands apart from the other three which land in a clump. Engine three gets fodded and hit by nose as the nose crumples to right after the huge hole appears in starboard side forward of the wing.
Another match for three inflight breakups is foreign object damage to engine number three. Air India Flight 182 may have it but it was never retrieved.
LP>I really don't want to get into PA103 in this thread but it seems that this thread has been hijacked already.
JBS>You get into PA 103 and then say you don’t want to get into PA 103. That is sort of saying that if one does not believe in the conspiracy plots of PA 103 and says it’s not a conspiracy but mechanical, that person is ‘paranoid’.
It’s an upside down world for the ‘bomb’ believers. It’s hard to sustain disbelief at all the actual evidence.
Hijacked from China Airlines Flight 611? Both Pan Am Flight 103 and China Airlines Flight 611 have many similarities and any discussion of any early model Boeing 747 that suffers an inflight breakup is relevant to China Airlines Flight 611. Are you trying to stifle discussion about Pan Am Flight 103 by saying it does not belong here in this thread?
From AAIB 2/90 below:
'Also at the western end of the northern trail were the lower rear fuselage at Rosebank Crescent, and the group of Nos. 1, 2 and 4 engines which fell in Lockerbie.'
'1.12.4 Examination of engines
All four engines had struck the ground in Lockerbie with considerable velocity and therefore sustained major damage, in particular to most of the fan blades. The No 3 engine had fallen 1,100 metres north of the other three engines, striking the ground on its rear face, penetrating a road surface and coming to rest without any further change of orientation i.e. with the front face remaining uppermost. The intake area contained a number of lose items originating from within the cabin or baggage hold. It was not possible initially to determine whether any of the general damage to any of the engine fans or the ingestion noted in No 3 engine intake occurred whilst the relevant engines were delivering power or at a later stage.
(ii) No 3 engine, identified on site as containing ingested debris from within the aircraft, nonetheless had no evidence of the type of shingling seen on the blades of No 2 engine.'