China Airlines B747 Crash (Merged)
The Reverend
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Sydney,NSW,Australia
Posts: 2,020
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Explosion of Boeing 737 Similar to
Explosion of TWA Flight 800
By: Elizabeth Nelson
NTSB/AFP
Last month, a Boeing 737 was destroyed while on the ground in Bangkok. Recently, preliminary evidence has determined that the explosion had the same cause as the TWA Flight 800 that went down off the New York coast in 1996. Last year, it was ruled that the TWA plane broke in half after a center fuel tank explosion. 230 people were killed because of this explosion. It is suspected that a frayed wire or another source, such as ESD, led to a spark in hot fuel vapors.
According to CNN, a lead investigator for the U.S. National Transportation Safety Board has commented that a possible source of ignition may be caused by static electricity in the fuel tank. At this time, ESD has not been ruled out for either the TWA or the Boeing 737 explosions.
The US National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) explains that the cause of the explosion is linked to the plane's fuel tank. The Thai Airway International 737 exploded on March 3, 2001 and the NTSB has been helping Thai authorities determine the cause because of their expertise dealing with airplane explosions.
The explosion of the Boeing 737 is also similar to an explosion on a Philippine Airlines 737 that exploded in 1990. According to the NTSB, the voice recorder in the Boeing 737 recorded similar noises as those heard in the Philippine Airlines 737.
Steps are currently being taken to reduce the chances of fuel tank explosions. The NTSB recommends that one way to prevent these types of explosions is to switch air condition to off while the plane is on the ground. Because the air conditioning units emit heat, it is possible for this heat to vaporize the fuel in the tank and for the fuel to become explosive. Boeing has began to warn customers on their flights to leave their air conditioning off while on the ground.
Unfortunately, in both the TWA and Thai explosions, the air condition unit adjacent to the center tank was in the on position. According to the NTSB, the Thai Airways International 737 had been running the air conditioning for about 40 minutes on the ground. The outside temperature the day of the explosion was over 90 degrees.
Explosion of TWA Flight 800
By: Elizabeth Nelson
NTSB/AFP
Last month, a Boeing 737 was destroyed while on the ground in Bangkok. Recently, preliminary evidence has determined that the explosion had the same cause as the TWA Flight 800 that went down off the New York coast in 1996. Last year, it was ruled that the TWA plane broke in half after a center fuel tank explosion. 230 people were killed because of this explosion. It is suspected that a frayed wire or another source, such as ESD, led to a spark in hot fuel vapors.
According to CNN, a lead investigator for the U.S. National Transportation Safety Board has commented that a possible source of ignition may be caused by static electricity in the fuel tank. At this time, ESD has not been ruled out for either the TWA or the Boeing 737 explosions.
The US National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) explains that the cause of the explosion is linked to the plane's fuel tank. The Thai Airway International 737 exploded on March 3, 2001 and the NTSB has been helping Thai authorities determine the cause because of their expertise dealing with airplane explosions.
The explosion of the Boeing 737 is also similar to an explosion on a Philippine Airlines 737 that exploded in 1990. According to the NTSB, the voice recorder in the Boeing 737 recorded similar noises as those heard in the Philippine Airlines 737.
Steps are currently being taken to reduce the chances of fuel tank explosions. The NTSB recommends that one way to prevent these types of explosions is to switch air condition to off while the plane is on the ground. Because the air conditioning units emit heat, it is possible for this heat to vaporize the fuel in the tank and for the fuel to become explosive. Boeing has began to warn customers on their flights to leave their air conditioning off while on the ground.
Unfortunately, in both the TWA and Thai explosions, the air condition unit adjacent to the center tank was in the on position. According to the NTSB, the Thai Airways International 737 had been running the air conditioning for about 40 minutes on the ground. The outside temperature the day of the explosion was over 90 degrees.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Carmel Valley California USA
Posts: 116
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: us
Posts: 694
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JBS, you said:
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:
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
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
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Carmel Valley California USA
Posts: 116
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JBS, you said:
quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
You see, I trust the evidence, not the massaged explanations which you so readily believe
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SaturnV>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.
JBS>Thank you for quoting a very important part of the CASB report on the forward cargo door below. I do not dismiss the below quotes but embrace them. They are necessary to the wiring/cargo door case. This below quote is the total description of the blow out area of Air India Flight 182 and yet no photographs have ever been released or published. The Indian Kirplal report found that it was a bomb that did the damage; a bomb in the forward cargo compartment on the starboard side. The Canadians demurred and just said explosive decompression in the same area of unknown cause. Now the RCMP have the position of bomb explosion in the aft cargo compartment.
In all my AARs I am very careful to give all pro and con for any premise of the probable cause. For Air India Flight 182 I have literally dozens of pages against cargo door explosion and for a bomb. As usual, even missile and center tank were considered. I also have dozens of pages against bomb explosion and for the wiring/cargo door event. You probably took the below from my AAR and the section I have in it for bomb and against cargo door. It's all in there.
For Pan Am Flight 103 both sides are presented with all the evidence and fuel tank explosion or missile considered.
For Trans World Airlines Flight 800 all things were considered including missile, fuel tank explosion, bomb, meteor and cargo door. Both sides were presented in a fair and objective manner. The reader may make his own conclusions also, unlike the recent AARs of the governments which are more prosecutions of a particular point of view.
All of the support for bomb which you read into the below are explained in Smith AAR for Air India Flight 182. And all the evidence below that is evidence of an explosion is absolutely consistent with the shorted wiring/forward cargo door rupture/explosive decompression/inflight breakup explanation: Explosive decompression implies an explosion. There was an explosion.
There was explosion on United Airlines Flight 811, Pan Am Flight 103, Trans World Airlines Flight 800, and Air India Flight 182. No doubt about it and required for my explanation.
China Airlines Flight 611 aft cargo door may match the description below for Air India Flight 182. Remainder of your quotes are very relevant and should be repeated but will be deleted for redundancy. They support the necessary explosion in the forward cargo compartment of Air India Flight 182.
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.
"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.
JBS> Well, I learned something again, it’s better to appear a fool now than later. All my life I have spelled it ‘judgment’ knowing it should be ‘judgement.’ I should have checked my dictionary first: Number three meaning is my favorite.
judg•ment or judge•ment "jej-ment\ n 1 : a decision or opinion given after judging; esp : a formal decision given by a court 2 cap : the final judging of mankind by God 3 : the process of forming an opinion by discerning and comparing 4 : the capacity for judging : discernment
Saturn V>
quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
-------------------------------------------------------------------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:
JBS>The victims who survived are those scarred individuals of United Airlines Flight 811; as I am scarred from my sudden jet fatal fiery night airplane crash. Their emails are chilling of that ride down to Honolulu from 23000 feet. They, and the crew, all thought it was another bomb as Pan Am Flight 103 has just happened two months earlier. Poor United Airlines Flight 811, it never seems to be considered, it's as if it never happened.
I got a nice email from Kay Yong this evening.
Cheers,
Barry
quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
You see, I trust the evidence, not the massaged explanations which you so readily believe
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SaturnV>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.
JBS>Thank you for quoting a very important part of the CASB report on the forward cargo door below. I do not dismiss the below quotes but embrace them. They are necessary to the wiring/cargo door case. This below quote is the total description of the blow out area of Air India Flight 182 and yet no photographs have ever been released or published. The Indian Kirplal report found that it was a bomb that did the damage; a bomb in the forward cargo compartment on the starboard side. The Canadians demurred and just said explosive decompression in the same area of unknown cause. Now the RCMP have the position of bomb explosion in the aft cargo compartment.
In all my AARs I am very careful to give all pro and con for any premise of the probable cause. For Air India Flight 182 I have literally dozens of pages against cargo door explosion and for a bomb. As usual, even missile and center tank were considered. I also have dozens of pages against bomb explosion and for the wiring/cargo door event. You probably took the below from my AAR and the section I have in it for bomb and against cargo door. It's all in there.
For Pan Am Flight 103 both sides are presented with all the evidence and fuel tank explosion or missile considered.
For Trans World Airlines Flight 800 all things were considered including missile, fuel tank explosion, bomb, meteor and cargo door. Both sides were presented in a fair and objective manner. The reader may make his own conclusions also, unlike the recent AARs of the governments which are more prosecutions of a particular point of view.
All of the support for bomb which you read into the below are explained in Smith AAR for Air India Flight 182. And all the evidence below that is evidence of an explosion is absolutely consistent with the shorted wiring/forward cargo door rupture/explosive decompression/inflight breakup explanation: Explosive decompression implies an explosion. There was an explosion.
There was explosion on United Airlines Flight 811, Pan Am Flight 103, Trans World Airlines Flight 800, and Air India Flight 182. No doubt about it and required for my explanation.
China Airlines Flight 611 aft cargo door may match the description below for Air India Flight 182. Remainder of your quotes are very relevant and should be repeated but will be deleted for redundancy. They support the necessary explosion in the forward cargo compartment of Air India Flight 182.
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.
"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.
JBS> Well, I learned something again, it’s better to appear a fool now than later. All my life I have spelled it ‘judgment’ knowing it should be ‘judgement.’ I should have checked my dictionary first: Number three meaning is my favorite.
judg•ment or judge•ment "jej-ment\ n 1 : a decision or opinion given after judging; esp : a formal decision given by a court 2 cap : the final judging of mankind by God 3 : the process of forming an opinion by discerning and comparing 4 : the capacity for judging : discernment
Saturn V>
quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
-------------------------------------------------------------------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:
JBS>The victims who survived are those scarred individuals of United Airlines Flight 811; as I am scarred from my sudden jet fatal fiery night airplane crash. Their emails are chilling of that ride down to Honolulu from 23000 feet. They, and the crew, all thought it was another bomb as Pan Am Flight 103 has just happened two months earlier. Poor United Airlines Flight 811, it never seems to be considered, it's as if it never happened.
I got a nice email from Kay Yong this evening.
Cheers,
Barry
I'm not qualified to comment on most of this so I won't. The only relevant matter I know quite a bit about is the Lockerbie trial evidence.
I did originally try to stick to the term "explosive device" rather than "bomb" because one thing that JBS' may be correct about is that there are some big questions about the exact nature of the explosive device that did bring down PA 103.
However, I for one am convinced that PA 103 was intentionally destroyed - although I'm not convinced that the trial at Camp Zeist conclusively established how and by who.
I did originally try to stick to the term "explosive device" rather than "bomb" because one thing that JBS' may be correct about is that there are some big questions about the exact nature of the explosive device that did bring down PA 103.
However, I for one am convinced that PA 103 was intentionally destroyed - although I'm not convinced that the trial at Camp Zeist conclusively established how and by who.
Rebel PPRuNer
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Toronto, Canada (formerly EICK)
Age: 51
Posts: 2,834
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
sorry to break into the conspiracy theorists with some actual CI611 news...
http://breaking.tcm.ie/2002/08/13/story63690.html
Boeing accused after plane crash
13/08/2002 - 6:06:41 am
An American law firm is suing planemaker Boeing, accusing the company of failing to tell a Taiwanese airline that cracks in one of its planes were improperly repaired before the jumbo jet crashed.
The lawsuit, filed in Chicago by the Nolan Law Group, was the first since the China Airlines jet broke apart about 20 minutes into a flight from Taipei to Hong Kong on May 25.
Investigators have yet to say what caused the accident that killed all 225 people on board.
Lawyer Donald Nolan, an expert in aviation disaster cases, filed the lawsuit in the Circuit Court of Cook County on behalf of the family of two victims, Taiwanese doctor Liang Wen Wan, aged 42, and her daughter, Shih Peng Yu, aged eight, the firm said in a statement.
Both were permanent residents of the United States, the statement said.
Investigators are still recovering wreckage from Flight CI611, which plunged deep into the Taiwan Strait.
But officials have said that pieces they have found indicate that the plane apparently first split apart in the tail section, and investigators are analysing cracks in that area.
Nolan, who recently met investigators in Taiwan, said that stainless steel - not aluminium alloy - patches had been used to repair damage caused after the Boeing 747-200’s tail hit or scrapped the runway on take-off - a common event called a "tail strike".
The work was done shortly after China Airlines bought the 23-year-old plane from Boeing, his statement said.
When the repairs were done, they were in line with Boeing’s guidelines at the time, Nolan said.
But Chicago-based Boeing later changed its structural repair manual and forbid the use of stainless steel patches, his statement said.
"Improper blending of metals in repairs can alter stress paths and overload surrounding areas," the firm’s statement said.
"Once the use of stainless steel was prohibited for use, there is no evidence disclosed so far to indicate that Boeing advised airlines to inspect or correct prior repairs," Nolan said.
The lawyer warned that other aircraft could be flying with stainless steel patches similar to the ones used by China Airlines.
China Airlines would not immediately comment on the lawsuit or the issue about what materials have been used for repairs on other planes.
In Seattle, Boeing spokeswoman Kathleen Hanser told The Associated Press: "We just heard about it (the lawsuit), but since it’s active litigation, we wouldn’t comment anyway."
Boeing accused after plane crash
13/08/2002 - 6:06:41 am
An American law firm is suing planemaker Boeing, accusing the company of failing to tell a Taiwanese airline that cracks in one of its planes were improperly repaired before the jumbo jet crashed.
The lawsuit, filed in Chicago by the Nolan Law Group, was the first since the China Airlines jet broke apart about 20 minutes into a flight from Taipei to Hong Kong on May 25.
Investigators have yet to say what caused the accident that killed all 225 people on board.
Lawyer Donald Nolan, an expert in aviation disaster cases, filed the lawsuit in the Circuit Court of Cook County on behalf of the family of two victims, Taiwanese doctor Liang Wen Wan, aged 42, and her daughter, Shih Peng Yu, aged eight, the firm said in a statement.
Both were permanent residents of the United States, the statement said.
Investigators are still recovering wreckage from Flight CI611, which plunged deep into the Taiwan Strait.
But officials have said that pieces they have found indicate that the plane apparently first split apart in the tail section, and investigators are analysing cracks in that area.
Nolan, who recently met investigators in Taiwan, said that stainless steel - not aluminium alloy - patches had been used to repair damage caused after the Boeing 747-200’s tail hit or scrapped the runway on take-off - a common event called a "tail strike".
The work was done shortly after China Airlines bought the 23-year-old plane from Boeing, his statement said.
When the repairs were done, they were in line with Boeing’s guidelines at the time, Nolan said.
But Chicago-based Boeing later changed its structural repair manual and forbid the use of stainless steel patches, his statement said.
"Improper blending of metals in repairs can alter stress paths and overload surrounding areas," the firm’s statement said.
"Once the use of stainless steel was prohibited for use, there is no evidence disclosed so far to indicate that Boeing advised airlines to inspect or correct prior repairs," Nolan said.
The lawyer warned that other aircraft could be flying with stainless steel patches similar to the ones used by China Airlines.
China Airlines would not immediately comment on the lawsuit or the issue about what materials have been used for repairs on other planes.
In Seattle, Boeing spokeswoman Kathleen Hanser told The Associated Press: "We just heard about it (the lawsuit), but since it’s active litigation, we wouldn’t comment anyway."
Quote from a quote in a Michael Crichton book (from memory):
'One of the ironies of the information age is that it has given a new respectability to uninformed opinion.'
Ring any bells?
'One of the ironies of the information age is that it has given a new respectability to uninformed opinion.'
Ring any bells?
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: USofA
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JBS, still a fascinating-if occasionally muddy-thread. The fact that posters sometimes make typos or use imprecise grammar, however, doesn't make them wrong, stupid or illiterate. You have always impressed me and, I'm sure, others with the way you handle the impolite remarks made about you here. Stay above this type of stuff, old chap!
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Carmel Valley California USA
Posts: 116
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Stagger:
I'm not qualified to comment on most of this so I won't.
JBS>You are qualified if you are a thinking human being and care about aviation safety. If you read the entire Zeist fiasco trial report, then you know more than most and are very well qualified to give details, flaws, and observations.
Stagger>The only relevant matter I know quite a bit about is the Lockerbie trial evidence.
I did originally try to stick to the term "explosive device" rather than "bomb" because one thing that JBS' may be correct about is that there are some big questions about the exact nature of the explosive device that did bring down PA 103.
However, I for one am convinced that PA 103 was intentionally destroyed - although I'm not convinced that the trial at Camp Zeist conclusively established how and by who.
JBS>You don’t know how or who but you do know a bomb explosion happened .
Sort of like the NTSB saying for Trans World Airlines Flight 800 we don’t know how or what started that center tank fire but we know it happened first.
Or AAIB saying we don’t know how such a small mild blast caused the nose to come off but it did for Pan Am Flight 103.
Or the Indians saying we don’t know how or what caused that explosion in the forward cargo compartment of Air India Flight 182 but it was a bomb.
The shorted wiring/forward cargo door rupture/explosive decompression/inflight breakup has no basic, “We don’t know’ statements. It explains ‘streak’ and ignition source for the center fuel tank fire for Trans World Airlines Flight 800, the small shatter hole and the green diamond for Pan Am Flight 103, and the source of the explosion for Air India Flight 182.
SLF3>
Quote from a quote in a Michael Crichton book (from memory):
'One of the ironies of the information age is that it has given a new respectability to uninformed opinion.'
Ring any bells?
JBS>Ah yeah, the millions of passengers who get on jet airliners and fly for 12 hours and get off and don’t know how many engines the plane had and even if it had propellers....but they have an opinion that they know they are safe because the crews and authorities are trying real hard to stop the planes from coming apart in the air. That’s uninformed opinion. My opinion after reading hundreds of accident reports and hundreds of press reports and dealing with head in sand attitudes like some in this forum, is that crews and the authorities are not trying real hard to find the reason why planes are coming apart in the air, but are trying real hard to keep their jobs, their status, their friends, and their reputations.
People that care act funny. You can tell when someone loses something they really care about, they look everywhere, weird places, they bother people, they keep it up for a long long time. People that don’t care consider appearances and don’t want to look funny or weird. They just try to do the minimum and try to get back to the usual as soon as possible.
Those on this forum that advise to wait..and to wait... and to not contribute...and to not speculate, guess, or conclude...are those who don’t care.
Meds>JBS, still a fascinating-if occasionally muddy-thread. The fact that posters sometimes make typos or use imprecise grammar, however, doesn't make them wrong, stupid or illiterate. You have always impressed me and, I'm sure, others with the way you handle the impolite remarks made about you here. Stay above this type of stuff, old chap!
JBS> You got that right, dude! I succumbed to temptation to fight fire with fire, dipped low, and criticized and bang, nailed. It serves me right.
That email from Kay Yong has given me inspiration. That official appears to me to be fair, polite, open minded, and objective. I have hopes the probable cause for China Airlines Flight 611 will make sense whatever it is, unlike the others.
Cheers,
Barry
I'm not qualified to comment on most of this so I won't.
JBS>You are qualified if you are a thinking human being and care about aviation safety. If you read the entire Zeist fiasco trial report, then you know more than most and are very well qualified to give details, flaws, and observations.
Stagger>The only relevant matter I know quite a bit about is the Lockerbie trial evidence.
I did originally try to stick to the term "explosive device" rather than "bomb" because one thing that JBS' may be correct about is that there are some big questions about the exact nature of the explosive device that did bring down PA 103.
However, I for one am convinced that PA 103 was intentionally destroyed - although I'm not convinced that the trial at Camp Zeist conclusively established how and by who.
JBS>You don’t know how or who but you do know a bomb explosion happened .
Sort of like the NTSB saying for Trans World Airlines Flight 800 we don’t know how or what started that center tank fire but we know it happened first.
Or AAIB saying we don’t know how such a small mild blast caused the nose to come off but it did for Pan Am Flight 103.
Or the Indians saying we don’t know how or what caused that explosion in the forward cargo compartment of Air India Flight 182 but it was a bomb.
The shorted wiring/forward cargo door rupture/explosive decompression/inflight breakup has no basic, “We don’t know’ statements. It explains ‘streak’ and ignition source for the center fuel tank fire for Trans World Airlines Flight 800, the small shatter hole and the green diamond for Pan Am Flight 103, and the source of the explosion for Air India Flight 182.
SLF3>
Quote from a quote in a Michael Crichton book (from memory):
'One of the ironies of the information age is that it has given a new respectability to uninformed opinion.'
Ring any bells?
JBS>Ah yeah, the millions of passengers who get on jet airliners and fly for 12 hours and get off and don’t know how many engines the plane had and even if it had propellers....but they have an opinion that they know they are safe because the crews and authorities are trying real hard to stop the planes from coming apart in the air. That’s uninformed opinion. My opinion after reading hundreds of accident reports and hundreds of press reports and dealing with head in sand attitudes like some in this forum, is that crews and the authorities are not trying real hard to find the reason why planes are coming apart in the air, but are trying real hard to keep their jobs, their status, their friends, and their reputations.
People that care act funny. You can tell when someone loses something they really care about, they look everywhere, weird places, they bother people, they keep it up for a long long time. People that don’t care consider appearances and don’t want to look funny or weird. They just try to do the minimum and try to get back to the usual as soon as possible.
Those on this forum that advise to wait..and to wait... and to not contribute...and to not speculate, guess, or conclude...are those who don’t care.
Meds>JBS, still a fascinating-if occasionally muddy-thread. The fact that posters sometimes make typos or use imprecise grammar, however, doesn't make them wrong, stupid or illiterate. You have always impressed me and, I'm sure, others with the way you handle the impolite remarks made about you here. Stay above this type of stuff, old chap!
JBS> You got that right, dude! I succumbed to temptation to fight fire with fire, dipped low, and criticized and bang, nailed. It serves me right.
That email from Kay Yong has given me inspiration. That official appears to me to be fair, polite, open minded, and objective. I have hopes the probable cause for China Airlines Flight 611 will make sense whatever it is, unlike the others.
Cheers,
Barry
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: EGLD
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thank you JBS - I will read the reports on your website when I get the chance - time is not on my side at the moment however. From a personal point of view, I do hope that the suggestions you put forward are wrong - I say that because I weekly make use of commercial air transport and as such I have to place trust in the teams of people responsible for investigating why things sometimes go wrong and ensuring that the appropriate corrective actions are put in place to prevent reoccurance. saying that, I'm a firm believer in approaching everything in life with an open mind.
Although information regarding the progress of the 611 investigation has somewhat dried up - the subsequent discussion in this thread between yourself and those experienced in the day to day operation of the 747 has been fascinating. Although the scope of the thread has become a little wider, hopefully the moderators will keep it open and let it run. There are other questions in my mind, but by reading all the relevant reports in full I dare so I'll be able to answer one or two of them myself first. But in the meantime ........... let the discussion continue ...................... it really is very, very good.
-S
Although information regarding the progress of the 611 investigation has somewhat dried up - the subsequent discussion in this thread between yourself and those experienced in the day to day operation of the 747 has been fascinating. Although the scope of the thread has become a little wider, hopefully the moderators will keep it open and let it run. There are other questions in my mind, but by reading all the relevant reports in full I dare so I'll be able to answer one or two of them myself first. But in the meantime ........... let the discussion continue ...................... it really is very, very good.
-S
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Carmel Valley California USA
Posts: 116
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Suction>I say that because I weekly make use of commercial air transport and as such I have to place trust in the teams of people responsible for investigating why things sometimes go wrong and ensuring that the appropriate corrective actions are put in place to prevent reoccurance. saying that, I'm a firm believer in approaching everything in life with an open mind.
JBS>I’m often asked via email about safety. Here is my response to friends too:
It’s all odds and chances, like everything else in life.
So, the goal is to increase the odds of an accident by decreasing the chance of it happening.
The chance of a wiring short causing a cargo door to open in an early model Boeing 747 are very very slim and not worth worrying about, one fatal accident every three years is the average by my count.
Likewise sabotage or terrorism. Those categories of accidents are so small they are in the category of ‘other’. Talk about irrational worry, that’s the public about bombers in planes.
The big ones are pilot error and mechanical which add up to about 90% of all accidents.
To reduce the realistic chances of an accident follow this advice:
1. Only fly if the departure and destination weather is good. That means not bad. Fog, rain, snow, tornado, ice, and sandstorms are bad. Do not fly or take off or land in them.
2. Fly a reputable airline. That implies modern well maintained aircraft and well trained pilots.
And that’s it. If there is bad weather don’t go, and if there is no reputable airline, then fly yourself or don’t go. With good weather and a good airplane and a good pilot, the flight will be a success.
This is peacetime and if you cancel the world will not end. You know the departure weather and you can find out the destination weather at estimated time of arrival.
The only thing I can add is to wear a parachute. Just joking, although those of us who have had our lives saved by a parachute don’t laugh at the suggestion.
Cheers,
Barry
JBS>I’m often asked via email about safety. Here is my response to friends too:
It’s all odds and chances, like everything else in life.
So, the goal is to increase the odds of an accident by decreasing the chance of it happening.
The chance of a wiring short causing a cargo door to open in an early model Boeing 747 are very very slim and not worth worrying about, one fatal accident every three years is the average by my count.
Likewise sabotage or terrorism. Those categories of accidents are so small they are in the category of ‘other’. Talk about irrational worry, that’s the public about bombers in planes.
The big ones are pilot error and mechanical which add up to about 90% of all accidents.
To reduce the realistic chances of an accident follow this advice:
1. Only fly if the departure and destination weather is good. That means not bad. Fog, rain, snow, tornado, ice, and sandstorms are bad. Do not fly or take off or land in them.
2. Fly a reputable airline. That implies modern well maintained aircraft and well trained pilots.
And that’s it. If there is bad weather don’t go, and if there is no reputable airline, then fly yourself or don’t go. With good weather and a good airplane and a good pilot, the flight will be a success.
This is peacetime and if you cancel the world will not end. You know the departure weather and you can find out the destination weather at estimated time of arrival.
The only thing I can add is to wear a parachute. Just joking, although those of us who have had our lives saved by a parachute don’t laugh at the suggestion.
Cheers,
Barry
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Gulf
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Barry,
I am new to the forum. Did you write the last post above whilst in a frim state of mind? Were you having a laugh? Are you beng serious?
Mis-guided comments like the above have no real place on this foum, I feel.
Sorry. But it's my opinion.
I am new to the forum. Did you write the last post above whilst in a frim state of mind? Were you having a laugh? Are you beng serious?
Mis-guided comments like the above have no real place on this foum, I feel.
Sorry. But it's my opinion.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Carmel Valley California USA
Posts: 116
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DanAir>Barry,
I am new to the forum.
JBS>Welcome. I’ve been at PPRuNe since August 2000 and you since August 2002.
DA> Did you write the last post above whilst in a frim state of mind?
JBS>I was most certainly in a frim state of mind. Sort of a Frodo/Yoda state of mind.
DA>Were you having a laugh?
JBS>Well, I am on the ground and my plane is not on fire, so I guess, yeah, I was having a laugh.
DA> Are you beng serious?
JBS>Whenever I talk about shorted wiring/aft cargo door rupture/rapid decompression/inflight breakup explanation for China Airlines Flight 611 I am darn beng serious.
DA>Mis-guided comments like the above have no real place on this foum, I feel.
JBS>Opinion noted and welcomed. Anymore for this foum?
DA>Sorry.
JBS> For what?
DA>But it's my opinion.
JBS>You are sorry for your opinion? Why? For coming into a thread that has 30 pages of posts , reading a few, and telling a long time contributor he is mis-guided?
Apology noted for your opinion.
Awaiting support for allegation.
John Barry Smith
www.corazon.com
[email protected]
I am new to the forum.
JBS>Welcome. I’ve been at PPRuNe since August 2000 and you since August 2002.
DA> Did you write the last post above whilst in a frim state of mind?
JBS>I was most certainly in a frim state of mind. Sort of a Frodo/Yoda state of mind.
DA>Were you having a laugh?
JBS>Well, I am on the ground and my plane is not on fire, so I guess, yeah, I was having a laugh.
DA> Are you beng serious?
JBS>Whenever I talk about shorted wiring/aft cargo door rupture/rapid decompression/inflight breakup explanation for China Airlines Flight 611 I am darn beng serious.
DA>Mis-guided comments like the above have no real place on this foum, I feel.
JBS>Opinion noted and welcomed. Anymore for this foum?
DA>Sorry.
JBS> For what?
DA>But it's my opinion.
JBS>You are sorry for your opinion? Why? For coming into a thread that has 30 pages of posts , reading a few, and telling a long time contributor he is mis-guided?
Apology noted for your opinion.
Awaiting support for allegation.
John Barry Smith
www.corazon.com
[email protected]
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
John, I echo Suction's comments regarding your contribution, it is both interesting and welcome by some, at least.
I too consider myself to have an open mind about most things, including your assertions.
It is curious that those who criticise your reports (which I have now spent many hours reading) as being inconsistent or contradictory ignore the inconsistencies and contradictions in AAIB reports, or at least make no mention of them.
In particular, I would like to draw attention to your comments regarding the stated causes of the explosive decompression of PA103 - the 20inch hole in the port side. As you say, there is no reason given why this small hole, which the aircraft was designed to withstand, caused it to break up. As far as I can see, no-one has addressed even that single issue here, they rather choose to attack you personally.
Come on guys - you can do better than that - let's stick to discussing issues rather than personalities.
I have to say that I am immensely sceptical about the "large shotgun" issue, brought up by the AAIB and quoted by you. This seems almost tongue in cheek in the AAIB report, and there is no place there for that sort of attitude, but it seems to be more relevant than a "bomb" (going by the subsequent deliberate destruction of a 747). Of course, a bomb, is a bomb, is a bomb, and we don't know how the various devices planted by DERA compare to the supposed charge used in PA103 for both size and type of explosive, but although they pressurised the aircraft, one major factor was still missing - the massive force of a 300MPH+ wind entering the hull after equalisation!
Lastly, thanks for replying to my previous questions John, I am still considering your replies.
I too consider myself to have an open mind about most things, including your assertions.
It is curious that those who criticise your reports (which I have now spent many hours reading) as being inconsistent or contradictory ignore the inconsistencies and contradictions in AAIB reports, or at least make no mention of them.
In particular, I would like to draw attention to your comments regarding the stated causes of the explosive decompression of PA103 - the 20inch hole in the port side. As you say, there is no reason given why this small hole, which the aircraft was designed to withstand, caused it to break up. As far as I can see, no-one has addressed even that single issue here, they rather choose to attack you personally.
Come on guys - you can do better than that - let's stick to discussing issues rather than personalities.
I have to say that I am immensely sceptical about the "large shotgun" issue, brought up by the AAIB and quoted by you. This seems almost tongue in cheek in the AAIB report, and there is no place there for that sort of attitude, but it seems to be more relevant than a "bomb" (going by the subsequent deliberate destruction of a 747). Of course, a bomb, is a bomb, is a bomb, and we don't know how the various devices planted by DERA compare to the supposed charge used in PA103 for both size and type of explosive, but although they pressurised the aircraft, one major factor was still missing - the massive force of a 300MPH+ wind entering the hull after equalisation!
Lastly, thanks for replying to my previous questions John, I am still considering your replies.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Carmel Valley California USA
Posts: 116
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Suction>I have to say that I am immensely sceptical about the "large shotgun" issue, brought up by the AAIB and quoted by you. This seems almost tongue in cheek in the AAIB report, and there is no place there for that sort of attitude, but it seems to be more relevant than a "bomb" (going by the subsequent deliberate destruction of a 747). Of course, a bomb, is a bomb, is a bomb, and we don't know how the various devices planted by DERA compare to the supposed charge used in PA103 for both size and type of explosive, but although they pressurised the aircraft, one major factor was still missing - the massive force of a 300MPH+ wind entering the hull after equalisation!
JBS>Always glad to talk about facts. Quotes from AAIB 2/90 below. (Relevance to China Airlines Flight 611 is both early model 747s suffered hull rupture in flight and could be same cause.)
"The fuselage frames were spaced at 20 inch intervals and given the same numbers as their stations, defined in terms of the distance in inches from the datum point close to the nose of the aircraft."
'Calculations suggest that a charge standoff distance of approximately 25 inches would result in a shattered region approximately 18 to 20 inches in diameter, comparable to the size of the shattered region evident in the wreckage.'
‘Surrounding the shatter zone were a series of much larger panels of torn fuselage skin which formed a 'star-burst' fracture pattern around the shatter zone. Where these panels formed the boundary of the shatter zone, the metal in the immediate locality was ragged, heavily distorted, and the inner surfaces were pitted and sooted - rather as if a very large shotgun had been fired at the inner surface of the fuselage at close range.’
‘With the two container reconstructions placed together it became apparent that a relatively mild blast had exited container 4041 through the rear lower face to the left of the curtain and impinged at an angle on
the forward face of container 7511. This had punched a hole, Figure F-10, approximately 8 inches square some 10 inches up from its base and removed the surface of this face inboard from the hole for some
50 inches. Radiating out from the hole were areas of sooting, and other black deposits, extending to the top of the container.’
JBS>I detect no tongue in cheek attitude to report on very large shotgun explanation for damage viewed by investigator. The largest shotgun in the world could do the damage necessary to blow the nose of a 747 with one shot. Especially since the fuselage is designed to withstand that size hole. 20 inch for shatter zone hole and 20 inch spacing for frames is no coincidence.
Spherical, non sooty plastic explosive, loud on CVR, fuselage shattering power; now that’s a bomb and is needed for the bomb explanation to make sense for Pan Am Flight 103.
Didn’t happen as you can see and read in the report on the actual evidence, not the massaged conclusions.
Directed, sooty, not heard because power had been cut by the time the discharge occurred, and mild blast; now that’s what a very large shotgun would do.
Did happen and you can see by the photos.
Now, at the same time in the same cargo compartment but on the other side, the starboard side, a huge hole opened up at and around the forward cargo door. That shatter zone was huge, about twenty feet by thirty feet and the rectangular shape matches United Airlines Flight 811. As the seconds ticked by the hole on the port side grows larger and so does the starboard side, always staying larger.
To see the split forward cargo door of Pan Am Flight 103 with its similarities to the China Airlines Flight 611 aft cargo door, you must go to corazon.com and download the Smith AAR for Pan Am Flight 103. That photo of the starboard side was only recently given to Bill Tucker of TSB from Ken Smart of AAIB. No photos of the starboard side of Pan Am Flight 103 exist in the report or any press coverage. There are two photos of the port side.
The working hypothesis for the nose coming off is the 300 knots on the nose pushing it to the right, impinging engine number three and tearing off nose and engine. When the bomb went off in a 747 in Bruntingthorpe the pieces were small and the damage was huge. Photos in Smith AAR appendix.
The destruction sequence in the AAIB report reads as if the huge hole appeared on starboard side and nose canted to right, contrary to huge hole on port side if bomb exploded there.
Well, that’s just a taste of the point of view of wiring/cargo door for Pan Am Flight 103 which makes sense and the contradictions of the bomb explanation.
Let us hope for China Airlines Flight 611 than any repair doubler failure as initial event makes more sense than bomb for Pan Am Flight 103.
Cheers,
Barry
JBS>Always glad to talk about facts. Quotes from AAIB 2/90 below. (Relevance to China Airlines Flight 611 is both early model 747s suffered hull rupture in flight and could be same cause.)
"The fuselage frames were spaced at 20 inch intervals and given the same numbers as their stations, defined in terms of the distance in inches from the datum point close to the nose of the aircraft."
'Calculations suggest that a charge standoff distance of approximately 25 inches would result in a shattered region approximately 18 to 20 inches in diameter, comparable to the size of the shattered region evident in the wreckage.'
‘Surrounding the shatter zone were a series of much larger panels of torn fuselage skin which formed a 'star-burst' fracture pattern around the shatter zone. Where these panels formed the boundary of the shatter zone, the metal in the immediate locality was ragged, heavily distorted, and the inner surfaces were pitted and sooted - rather as if a very large shotgun had been fired at the inner surface of the fuselage at close range.’
‘With the two container reconstructions placed together it became apparent that a relatively mild blast had exited container 4041 through the rear lower face to the left of the curtain and impinged at an angle on
the forward face of container 7511. This had punched a hole, Figure F-10, approximately 8 inches square some 10 inches up from its base and removed the surface of this face inboard from the hole for some
50 inches. Radiating out from the hole were areas of sooting, and other black deposits, extending to the top of the container.’
JBS>I detect no tongue in cheek attitude to report on very large shotgun explanation for damage viewed by investigator. The largest shotgun in the world could do the damage necessary to blow the nose of a 747 with one shot. Especially since the fuselage is designed to withstand that size hole. 20 inch for shatter zone hole and 20 inch spacing for frames is no coincidence.
Spherical, non sooty plastic explosive, loud on CVR, fuselage shattering power; now that’s a bomb and is needed for the bomb explanation to make sense for Pan Am Flight 103.
Didn’t happen as you can see and read in the report on the actual evidence, not the massaged conclusions.
Directed, sooty, not heard because power had been cut by the time the discharge occurred, and mild blast; now that’s what a very large shotgun would do.
Did happen and you can see by the photos.
Now, at the same time in the same cargo compartment but on the other side, the starboard side, a huge hole opened up at and around the forward cargo door. That shatter zone was huge, about twenty feet by thirty feet and the rectangular shape matches United Airlines Flight 811. As the seconds ticked by the hole on the port side grows larger and so does the starboard side, always staying larger.
To see the split forward cargo door of Pan Am Flight 103 with its similarities to the China Airlines Flight 611 aft cargo door, you must go to corazon.com and download the Smith AAR for Pan Am Flight 103. That photo of the starboard side was only recently given to Bill Tucker of TSB from Ken Smart of AAIB. No photos of the starboard side of Pan Am Flight 103 exist in the report or any press coverage. There are two photos of the port side.
The working hypothesis for the nose coming off is the 300 knots on the nose pushing it to the right, impinging engine number three and tearing off nose and engine. When the bomb went off in a 747 in Bruntingthorpe the pieces were small and the damage was huge. Photos in Smith AAR appendix.
The destruction sequence in the AAIB report reads as if the huge hole appeared on starboard side and nose canted to right, contrary to huge hole on port side if bomb exploded there.
Well, that’s just a taste of the point of view of wiring/cargo door for Pan Am Flight 103 which makes sense and the contradictions of the bomb explanation.
Let us hope for China Airlines Flight 611 than any repair doubler failure as initial event makes more sense than bomb for Pan Am Flight 103.
Cheers,
Barry
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Carmel Valley California USA
Posts: 116
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Correction: 'The largest shotgun in the world could do the damage necessary to blow the nose of a 747 with one shot. 'Should read:
'The largest shotgun in the world could not do the damage necessary to blow the nose of a 747 with one shot.'
I must have been in a frim state of mind again.
Barry
'The largest shotgun in the world could not do the damage necessary to blow the nose of a 747 with one shot.'
I must have been in a frim state of mind again.
Barry
Just for the record.
PA103 did have bomb blast damage to engine Pos #2 including severe FOD.
I really don't want to get into PA103 in this thread but it seems that this thread has been hijacked already.
PA103 did have bomb blast damage to engine Pos #2 including severe FOD.
I really don't want to get into PA103 in this thread but it seems that this thread has been hijacked already.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Carmel Valley California USA
Posts: 116
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.'
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.'
JBS, try as you might you can not remove evidence to suit your twisted theories.
If anyone cares to audit my facts they may do so through the AAIB. I placed these facts in evidence for the benefit of those that may believe that your misleading posts are based on fact rather than fancy.
If anyone cares to audit my facts they may do so through the AAIB. I placed these facts in evidence for the benefit of those that may believe that your misleading posts are based on fact rather than fancy.