Received the following information.
Dear ....
ASC sent me a photo that shows the bottom part of the cargo door still attached to the fuselage, so I can confirm that is correct. Thus it seems they have recovered both the upper and lower part of the door. Am not sure if there is a middle strip missing, will check into that.
JBS>I wanted to see what it looks like as if I had posted the HotDog post.
The interpretation I read if I had posted it was that:
‘I had received the following information and it was to Dear...whoever such as contributors, or posters, or some anonymous person, or a name omitted for privacy reasons and that ASC had sent me a photo that shows the bottom part of the cargo door still attached to the fuselage, so I can confirm that is correct. Thus it seems they have recovered both the upper and lower part of the door. Am not sure if there is a middle strip missing, will check into that.’
I had added to the terse copied post no amplification as to source as Aviation Week, or that it was not to me instead of from me, no quotation marks to indicate the text was not the original but from an email from Aviation Week, and the impression was that a picture existed of the aft cargo door and I would check into the possible missing middle strip.
Any claim that the text was not from the poster is ingenuous.
dis•in•gen•u•ous 'dis-en-"jen-ye-wes\\ adj : lacking in candor; also : giving a false appearance of simple frankness
Misstatements and misdirection, typical of conspiracy guys.
So, what’s point? Distractions work.
Has anybody got some technical questions? Has anybody read the Smith AARs in pdf and said, hey, this might be right and if so, then what and why and how? Does anybody care enough to want to do something about it? If posters have contacts with Aviation Week, why is not Aviation Week running a story on a shattered aft cargo door of China Airlines Flight 611?
Is everybody just waiting around for someone else to do something?
The shorted wiring/aft cargo door rupture/rapid decompression/inflight breakup explanation for China Airlines Flight 611 is either right or wrong and if right, something needs to be done.
The shorted wiring/forward cargo door rupture/explosive decompression/inflight breakup for Air India Flight 182, Pan Am Flight 103, and Trans World Airlines Flight 800 is either right or wrong and if right, something needs to be done.
Who else to do it?
Well, I’m doing what I can, rebutting any factual misconceptions with facts and cut and thrusting with the personality boys on this forum.
Things brought up here and won’t go away:
1. 38115 pounds of pressure on Trans World Airlines Flight 800 at 13700 feet MSL event time.
2. 20 inch shatter zone on port side of Pan Am Flight 103 at event time and at same time a huge hole on starboard side in and around the foward cargo door.
3. Frayed from outward force cargo door of Air India Flight 182 at explosion location, forward cargo compartment on starboard side.
4. Fodded engine number three on Pan Am Flight 103.
Can anyone show me my facts are wrong which lead to the wiring/cargo door conclusion for various Boeing 747 accidents?
Can anyone say why they believe bombs and center tank explosions were involved without telling me someone else’s opinion as proof?
No bombs for Air India Flight 182 and Pan Am Flight 103, no initial event as center tank fire for Trans World Airlines Flight 800 and maybe no repair doubler failure as an initial event for China Airlines Flight 611 which might have had an aft cargo door rupture as the initial event. Those are the positions.
Cheers,
Barry