JBS, I am not surprised that you denigrate the competency of the lawyers for the Sikh defendants in the various Crown prosecutions associated with the loss of Air India 182. Simply, they do not subscribe to your postulate that there was no bomb on AI 182, but rather the plane crashed because of a failure of the forward cargo door.
But surely even half competent lawyers could anticipate how prosecutors would eviscerate your 'investigations' and conclusions on cross examination. In the matter of TW 800, your scenario is that the forward cargo door flew off, setting in motion a rapid, progressive failure of the fuselage leading to the eventual explosion of the center fuel tank. You even describe how radar paints a picture of the forward cargo door flying off. .....And it seems you peddled this scenario to the NTSB. Of all the various scenarios for what happened to TW 800, and there are many, yours is the only one based on an initiating failure of the forward cargo door.
The aforementioned Mr. Loeb at an NTSB board meeting on TW 800 in August, 2000, said this:
We found no evidence that a structural failure and decompression initiated the break-up. A thorough examination of the wreckage by our engineers and metallurgists did not reveal any evidence of fatigue, corrosion, or any other structural fault that could have led to the break-up.
As a side note, I would like to mention that there was absolutely no evidence of an in-flight separation of the forward cargo door - one of the many theories suggested to us by the members of the public. The physical evidence demonstrated that the forward cargo door was closed and latched at water impact.
Loeb appears to be specifically referring to you, and having never examined the wreckage of TW 800, how do you maintain credibility on a witness stand in the face of such a statement?
Your website features an elaborate matrix of variables of five 747 crashes in which you indicate a cargo door failure is a possible (China Air 611), probable (PA 103, TW 800, AI 182), or definitive cause (UA 811). I am rather struck by certain variables being included, while others (which would seem on-point) are omitted. For example, you include an airspeed variable, but none for altitude or differential pressure. Is it perhaps because that TW 800 was at 13,600 feet with a differential pressure of 3.5 psi, and UA 811 was between 22 and 23,000 feet with a differential pressure of 6.5 psi, and how does one then explain why, with the same failure mode, UA was able to successfully land and TW 800 catastrophically breaks apart?
One of your other variables involves power cut to the flight data recorder. Why is it that you omitted a variable involving the CVR? Is it perhaps because the CVR on United 811 functioned all the way to landing? (It is a remarkable transcript of airmanship.) And how to explain away the sudden abrupt loss of CVR and FDR power in TW 800 from a progressive (albeit rapid) failure of the hull when the CVR and FDR power and data cabling run along the top of the cabin?
And there is your variable of the number of unrecovered bodies in all five crashes being at least nine. What the relevance of this is escapes me, other than the fact that there were nine unrecovered bodies for UA 811. However, once again, you have the facts wrong. Last I read, they had identified all but two of the bodies from TW 800, and hoped to identify even these two.