China Airlines B747 Crash (Merged)

[Trash Hauler]

Volume said

Quote

Let´s hope for some new facts on the China Air accident before the last member leaves this JBS-cargo-door-topic ...

Unquote

Is Firehorse still around. Have they recovered any more of the aircraft or is the search been scaled down. More info desired.

Trash Hauler

[JohnBarrySmith]

Volume>The damage to the engine after sucking in a body must not be very large, and not even be detectable after the engine felt down 40000 ft from the sky.

JBS>For Trans World Airlines Flight 800:
Exhibit 8A, Page 11, paragraph 3, discussing results of engine 3 disassembly, "Of the 46 fan blades in the fan rotor, 21 blades with complete or partial airfoils and 6 root sections were recovered. All of the fan blades had sooting on the convex airfoil surfaces. Most of the full length airfoils were bent rearward and the tips outboard of the outer midspan shroud were bent forward slightly. About half of the fan blades had impact damage to the leading and trailing edges. Almost all of the impact damage to the airfoils could be matched to contact with the midspan shroud on an adjacent blade. One full length blade had four soft body impacts along the leading edge and a partial airfoil had a soft body impact, which had some streaking extending rearward."

Docket No. SA-516, Exhibit No. 7A, Structures Group Report, page 33: "5.1 Horizontal Stabilizer, "Some of the items found in the horizontal stabilizer are sections of seat track, a stator blade from turbine section, and glitter." On 5.1.1 Right Horizontal Stabilizer, page 34, "An engine stator blade from turbine section penetrated the upper honeycomb surface near the outboard trailing edge.

From AAR 00/03 for Trans World Airlines Flight 800:
1.12.4 Engines ‘No evidence of uncontainment, case rupture, fire, penetration of an object from outside into the engine, or preimpact damage was found in any of the engines.’

JBS>The engine obviously came apart in the air throwing the broken from FOD blades everywhere including the right horizontal stabilizer just aft of number three, there is nothing ‘soft’ inside the engine so the ‘soft body impacts’ came from without, and sooting means abnormal fire inside the engine.

To say ‘No evidence of uncontainment, case rupture, fire, penetration of an object from outside into the engine, or preimpact damage was found in any of the engines.’ is as close to a lie as NTSB can come and still not be laughed out of the room.

But then, having one engine have FOD and the others not would conflict with the center tank as initial event explanation. Because, how could engine three have FOD and the others not? They were four huge vacuum cleaners up three nearby a mystery explosion. To say they had nothing negates the whole explosion explanation, especially a center tank explosion while engines at full climb power.

That stator blade in the right horizontal stabilizer of Trans World Airlines Flight 800 will always be there and it will always mean uncontainment of engine three and that will always mean ruptured open nearby cargo door inflight.

And all the opinions of Loeb and Wildey will not change the location or discovery of that stator blade directly aft of engine three.

That broken top part of the aft cargo door of China Airlines Flight 611 will always be there also.

Volume>Of course the Airbus door post from JBS hat nothing to do with the China Airlines crash, but nevertheless some of your remarks are not quite correct :

JBS>Of course the Airbus door post from NTSB had a lot to do with China Airlines Flight 611 crash: A very slight pressure differential can cause an explosive decompression that kills. When the differential goes from .11 to 8.9 the explosive decompression is much more than the mild one on the ground for the Airbus but enough to cause the nose or tail of a 747 to come off. To the people next to the Airbus door, it was an explosion event enough to propel several hundred pounds of human many feet away.

The point is that most people have no idea of the power of explosive decompression in an aircraft at altitude. The Airbus events show a weak one is still powerful enough to toss much weight around. Many times I have received posts from those that think of bomb and see huge explosion and think of explosive decompression and think of a bang and everything goes on normally. For Pan Am Flight 103 small hole on port side, the bomb side, and yet perceived as huge explosion, while huge hole on starboard side at same time is ignored.

For China Airlines Flight 611, more missing fuselage on starboard side the door side and ignored, and less missing stuff on port side, the doubler side, and yet amplified.

The effects of explosive decompression are underestimated. Even by De Hav Comet, Boeing, and former McDonnell Douglas after all these years.

Regarding FOD by bodies: Of course the authorities would not comment on that event because of the emotional horror, but it is important. In the Navy the J57s were cleaned by throwing walnut shells into the intakes at full power, or so I was told. The story of civilian fatalities by ingesting is that it’s only happened twice, one was a midair over New York City in about 1962 and the other was United Airlines Flight 811.

One survivor of United Airlines Flight 811 emailed me that he saw blood on the vertical stabilizer after landing. Another email had the story that the engines were removed and tossed in the bay by the Honolulu airport.

We’ll never know because officially we will never be told for deference to the families. Vital evidence is ignored although the reference to ‘soft body impacts’ may be code for ingested bodies for Trans World Airlines Flight 800. Nothing is said about it in United Airlines Flight 811 report, just FOD.

The main point is at least nine bodies are never recovered when that cargo door pops in flight. They may be ingested in engines three and four as the FOD reaches that far. The unusual thing is not that the bodies were not recovered from the water but from land around Lockerbie. No belt buckles, no skulls, no leg bones and yet they scoured that area and found tiny pieces of plastic.

The conjecture from the 103 report is that the bodies were above the wing and were vaporized when the wing hit the ground.

Well, maybe, but facts show baggage was in the inlet cowl of engine number three and the passengers were sitting just above that baggage compartment and the hole in the wreckage distribution shows a huge hole appearing at initial event time that covers both the forward cargo compartment and the passenger cabin above it.

It would be interesting to match the recovered bodies of China Airlines Flight 611 to the seating plan and see if there are missing passenger bodies above the aft cargo door area.

TH>Is Firehorse still around. Have they recovered any more of the aircraft or is the search been scaled down. More info desired.

JBS>I second that, more facts please. Even more gruel. Or....can Kay Yong be persuaded to release another update on what’s going so everyone can know. As it stands now the repair doubler is the guilty party and the longer it stays guilty the harder it is to reverse if facts show that is the case.

Cheers,
Barry

[JohnBarrySmith]

JBS>’Paranoia strikes deep, into your life it will creep.’ Buffalo Springfield.

Who’s watching?

I think and assume everyone and everybody that has an interest in a subject is checking it out. True power seeks answers; faux power avoids them.

When my stats gave me a breakdown of the computers that accessed corazon.com and their locations, I had dozens and dozens of requests every week from FAA, NASA, Boeing in two locations, Seattle and St. Louis, and NTSB. So I knew they they knew about the shorted wiring/forward cargo door rupture/explosive decompression/inflight breakup explanation for Boeing 747 accidents.

Search engines direct anyone to the site that just puts in Boeing 747 Crashes. After an accident the hits go way up.

Is PPRuNe being watched, monitored, and recorded? I would hope so as some of the information is very important.

So, the Secret Service thing about me is to weed out the wheat from the chaff. Those contributors who post slurs, bad information, and wrong conclusions to cause dissension while remaining anonymous will be deterred when they discover they may be held accountable for their comments and they usually disappear fast. I call them “Chatroom Anarchists” and are the chaff.

The contributors who care about aviation safety, see nothing unpatriotic or treasonous about posting in a forum discussing mechanical explanations for machines coming apart, and will certainly discuss who they are and their background if requested, will stay. They are the wheat.

Below are a small excerpt of my stats for corazon.com for last week:

(I don’t know what all the numbers mean but I do know that this PPRuNe forum is read by many who seek further information and go to corazon.com to try to find it. (I know the site is hard to navigate, it just grew over years and I’m afraid if I try to reorganize it the links will all be lost. The search engine helps and most of the conclusions are supported in the Smith AAR pdf files for download for later reading.)

Cheers,
Barry

Referrer Report
---------------
Listing referring URLs, sorted by the number of requests.

#reqs: URL
-----: ---
1257: http://www.corazon.com/
602: http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php 78:http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthr...&pagenumber=33
30: http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthr...&postid=608516
27: http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthr...&postid=608271
15: http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthr...&postid=608332
11: http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthr...&postid=610022
11: http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthr...&postid=608232
11: http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthr...&postid=609528
11: http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthr...&postid=609852
10: http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthr...&postid=608123
321: http://www.ntsb.org.futuresite.register.com/
320: http://www.ntsb.org.futuresite.register.com/?
313: http://www.corazon.com/nosepicts.html
308: http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/5260/crash.html
225: http://www.corazon.com/Boeing 747.html
179: http://www.google.com/search
153: http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/5260/teknik.html
150: http://www.corazon.com/crashcontentspagelinks.html
138: http://www.corazon.com/mountain.html
118: http://www.corazon.com/Page2.html
94: http://corazon.com/
89: http://www.corazon.com/AirIndiareportcontents.html
52: http://www.pprune.org/forums/newreply.php
44: http://www.pprune.org/forums/newrepl...threadid=54410
11: http://www.pprune.org/go.php
11: http://www.pprune.org/go.php?go=intro.htm
2: http://www.pprune.com/forums/showthread.php
1: http://pprune.org/forums/showthread.php
1: http://www.pprune.org/forums/member.php

[wes_wall]

JBS... Like so many, I have followed but basically refrained from entering the discussion. I say up front, with respect, that I do not agree with much of your reasoning, particularly regarding PA103.

The engines were examined by a number of very qualified entities and their reports published by the UK. Of note, the No 2 Engine had evidence of blade shingling in the area of the shrouds. This is consistent with damage occurring while the engines is delivering power. The airflow disruption would cause the shingling as fan blades failed and were ingested. The engine also had evidence of debris originating from the baggage
containers, and in fact, according to the report, a clear indentation produced by a length of cable from a container was observed.

The number 3 engine conversely, had no evidence of this type of shingling. This would indicate that the engine did not suffer a major intake disturbance while significant power was being delivered by the engine. The intake structure damage was mainly contributed to ground impact.

Had the cargo door failed in flight, then the number 3 engine would most certainly have been subjected to FOD while at power, and such would have been evidenced by similar shingling such as number 2.

Just a few facts.

[lomapaseo]

Wes_Wall < The number 3 engine conversely, had no evidence of this type of shingling. This would indicate that the engine did not suffer a major intake disturbance while significant power was being delivered by the engine. The intake structure damage was mainly contributed to ground impact. >

You got most of this right. No 2 engine also had blast damage to the side of the cowl facing the fuselage However the inlet cowl damage to No 3 engine occured in the air aiter the nose section pivoted off and directly into this engine knocking it off the wing to fall vertically to the ground tailpipe first.

Within the first 5-10 secs none of the engines were running under power having been disabled by gyroscopic loading due to the massive breakup of the aircraft.

[JohnBarrySmith]

JBS>There are many honorable and well intentioned men and women who believe Pan Am Flight 103 and Air India Flight 182 were caused by a bomb explosion. They do not cast slurs at those that don’t, nor fudge, lie, or misrepresent themselves. They do research and frame questions and ask them. I welcome those queries.

The ‘bomb’ proponents for Pan Am Flight 103 and Air India Flight 182 have had a combined 30 years to make their case and Air India Flight 182 is still trying. They have had millions of dollars and hundreds of staff to prosecute the case.

This Forum has had about a month from one guy with a 24 dollar website. And you know what they say about, “It was on the internet.”

From John Garstang to me early on about Air India Flight 182:
‘Thank you for your report expressing concern about the opening of cargo
doors on B-747 aircraft. During any aircraft crash, investigators examine
every piece of evidence, in order to determine cause. In the case of the
Air India flight, the cargo door was in fact retrieved from the bottom of
the ocean by the investigators. The latches were still in place, and there
was no evidence on the edges of the door to indicate in-flight opening of
that door.

On the other hand, there was other solid evidence indicating a bomb blast
had occurred. Aircraft accident investigators are trained people. Anybody
can say anything they want on the Internet. Put your money on the experts;
you will win more often.’

This is the same John Garstang mentioned by Bill Tucker of TSB. Garstang is the RCMP man from TSB seconded for his cause of the 182 accident.Garstang now says the explosion was in the aft cargo compartment of Air India Flight 182. Garstang is the guy how emailed me about a cargo door being retrieved and latched. I know this because he called me on the phone to correct his errors by confirming what I told him, the forward cargo door was not retrieved and it was not latched. He then got mad and slammed down the phone at me when I persisted with the other evidence Air India Flight 182 was not a bomb explosion. Note his arrogance as ‘expert’ against someone who said anything he wanted ‘on the internet.’

(“Put your money on the experts.”! Ha! And that is from one who just made a fool of himself with several factual errors. Now why would he try to deflect me from an alternate explanation other than bomb for Air India Flight 182?)

So I ask those in the forum to give an alternate point of view some consideration so that when you see a fact that seems to support the ‘bomb’ explanation; think if there is a benign alternative; such as shingling for the number two engine for Pan Am Flight 103, or twinning for Air India Flight 182, or streak for Trans World Airlines Flight 800, and missing pressure relief doors for China Airlines Flight 611.

For the shingling: Well, how about the metal (that is contained within a 20 inch diameter shape that was blown out of the port side of Pan Am Flight 103 by a very large shotgun discharge after a nearby powerful explosion decompression) ejecting outward and into the intake of engine number two at high power giving evidence of ‘shingling?”

Regarding the engine evidence for Pan Am Flight 103; after reading the actual breakdown reports from the mechanics who did the breakdown for Trans World Airlines Flight 800, and then reading the interpretation by the safety director which was 180 degrees opposite, I must see the actual breakdown reports for Pan Am Flight 103 before making any conclusions about FOD and where it came from.

For these five cases, I am like a defense attorney who is only allowed to see that selected evidence the prosecutor chooses to show me. There is so much stuff that has been kept hidden or restricted, such as photos of the forward cargo door side of the aircraft and the areas around it, and engine breakdown reports, and wreckage retrieval databases, that it is very hard to make conclusive statements about the shorted wiring/forward cargo door rupture/explosive decompression/inflight breakup explanation for the accidents.

The point is there is enough evidence presented to this forum and the authorities that warrants investigation updates for Air India Flight 182, Pan Am Flight 103, and Trans World Airlines Flight 800 to rule in or rule out the shorted wiring/forward cargo door rupture/explosive decompression/inflight breakup explanation.

Barry

[SaturnV]

When asked to expound on what happened at Narita airport as baggage from CP 003 was being unloaded and there was an explosion in the baggage room, JBS replied that the explanation for this could be found in the Smith AAR on his website. The explanation is indeed there; the crux of the explanation (p. 31 of the Smith AAR on Air India 182) being the following:

The confusion among authorities over the three 'bombs' as to where they came from, where they were going, what aircraft was targeted, and where they were located in the aircraft is understandable because the 'bombs' are phantoms. There were no bombs. The phantom 'bombs' existed only in the minds of those who wished them to exist.

Since there were phantom 'bombs', it is now unclear what killed the two baggage handlers that day, and the Canadian authorities, in conjunction with the Japanese police, clearly have perpetrated a grave miscarriage of justice by convicting a Sikh who confessed to making bombs but delivering them to someone else for purposes unknown. And how inconvenient for him (the Sikh) that the shipping carton for the consumer electronic device (I am not going to call it a boom box) that was destroyed by some unknown means or device at Narita was found in his home. It now seems only right that an investigation of the Narita incident should also be re-opened.

[wes_wall]

lomapaseo

Yes, I agree with you. The combination of the explosion and forward speed of the airplane would have had a significant effect on the engine closest to the area of failure. The fact that the
observed damage on the fan case of the number 2 engine is self evident which side of the airplane failed first. From the engine damage, ingestion by number 2 occured during high power output. As you point out, as power was subsiding, the number 3 engine was struck by debris, which I also point out, like number 2, was only 40 feet from the explosion.

The airplane began a nose down left roll attitude almost immediately. The combination of the roll to the left and the twisting of the fuselage to the right caused the front of the airplane to fail, striking the number 3 engine, and separating it from the wing. Damage indications to the number three engine were consistant with the nose down left roll attitude, again, indicating the timing for the damage to number 3 to be after then damage to number 2 engine, and obviously, seconds after the explosion.

The damage to the right side of the airplane was greater that the “shot gun blast” earlier indicated. In fact, the right side of the fuselage was initially blistered in a star-burst pattern approximating an area 5 feet by 17 feet. This large hole then continued to expand rearwards as far as the wing cut and forward totaling some 43 feet in length. Excessive floor buckeling was also present in this area.

Again, just some facts.

[JohnBarrySmith]

SUV>When asked to expound on what happened at Narita airport as baggage from CP 003 was being unloaded and there was an explosion in the baggage room,

JBS>Not in a baggage room but on a baggage cart in a concourse, but, hey, picky is inappropriate when replying to conspiracy guys. The Japanese airport authorities who have never made the data public and just give their ‘opinions’ and the main one is that it was not their fault but some foreigner with a bomb (sound familiar).

SUV>BS replied that the explanation for this could be found in the Smith AAR on his website. The explanation is indeed there; the crux of the explanation (p. 31 of the Smith AAR on Air India 182) being the following:

quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The confusion among authorities over the three 'bombs' as to where they came from, where they were going, what aircraft was targeted, and where they were located in the aircraft is understandable because the 'bombs' are phantoms. There were no bombs. The phantom 'bombs' existed only in the minds of those who wished them to exist.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

JBS>I love it when you quote me; the excerpt does have the quality of poetry, don’t you think? Well, anyway, the crux of the explanation is that there is an alternate explanation available for an explosion on a baggage cart in one of the busiest and controversial airports in the world, Narita. Narita has had bombing and killings before by Japanese themselves who protested when, silly boys, they became upset when ancestral lands were taken away for new modern big noisy polluting airport by the Japanese government. Narita was hotbed of political actions by activists who hated it before 1985.

Technically, an explosion on a baggage cart on the ground in a busy airport is not a bomb explosion on an airplane 8000 miles away at 31000 feet, but it could be to a conspiracy guy trying to connects dots of reality into plots by foreigners.

SUV>Since there were phantom 'bombs', it is now unclear what killed the two baggage handlers that day, and the Canadian authorities, in conjunction with the Japanese police, clearly have perpetrated

JBS>Conspiracy talk again. I believe the Japanese authorities believe it was a bomb from foreigners on that baggage cart and did not perpetrate anything.

SUV>a grave miscarriage of justice by convicting a Sikh who confessed to making bombs but delivering them to someone else for purposes unknown. And how inconvenient for him (the Sikh) that the shipping carton for the consumer electronic device (I am not going to call it a boom box) that was destroyed by some unknown means or device at Narita was found in his home. It now seems only right that an investigation of the Narita incident should also be re-opened.

JBS>I love all this shipping carton talk, it makes me chortle just like when I read about ‘fragments’ of ‘pieces’ of plastic being turned into ‘timers’ for ‘bombs’.

What I’m reading here is: Attempts were made to discredit the shorted wiring/forward cargo door rupture/explosive decompression/inflight breakup explanations for early model Boeing 747 inflight breakups and the attempts were unsuccessful. So, now the attempt is made to support the bomb explanation. And the attempts are very thin.

My priority is not discrediting the bomb explanation but to support an alternate explanation that more closely fits the facts. An honest wiring/cargo door guy (that’s me) would say, “Yes, the cargo door ruptured open inflight for Air India Flight 182 and Pan Am Flight 103 and the cause may have been a bomb.”

I will say that, “Yes, the cargo door ruptured open inflight for Air India Flight 182 and Pan Am Flight 103 and the cause may have been a bomb.”

I will also say that “Yes, the cargo door ruptured open inflight for Air India Flight 182 and Pan Am Flight 103 and Trans World Airlines Flight 800 and United Airlines Flight 811 and China Airlines Flight 611 and the cause may have been a bomb, or a missile, or a center tank explosion, or a repair doubler failure or a wiring short.”

(I vote for the United Airlines Flight 811 cause of electrical.)

Now, let me see any honest ‘bomb’ guys say the same thing:

“Yes, the cargo door ruptured open inflight for Air India Flight 182 and Pan Am Flight 103 and Trans World Airlines Flight 800 and United Airlines Flight 811 and China Airlines Flight 611 and the cause may have been a bomb, or a missile, or a center tank explosion, or a repair doubler failure or a wiring short.”

Now it turns out that Neil Schalekamp of FAA was honest for a few days and said that the cargo door opened in flight for Trans World Airlines Flight 800 and the cause was the center tank explosion. He quickly recanted.

Ken Smart, the current head of AAIB, has said about Pan Am Flight 103,

X-From_: [email protected] Thu Apr 18 09:41:49 2002
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2002 17:41:27 +0100
To: John Barry Smith <[email protected]>
From: Ken Smart <[email protected]>
Subject: Mr. Bill Tucker/wiring/cargo door for PA 103 message!
Cc: "Tucker, Bill" <[email protected]>

Dear Mr Smith

Thank you for your hypothesis on the immediate cause of the PanAm 103.

During the first five days of the investigation into PanAm 103 the AAIB were pursuing two general lines of inquiry. The first was that the aircraft had suffered a structural failure in-flight as a result of a defect or induced structural overload, the second was that an improvised explosive devise was responsible.

When the evidence of an improvised explosive device was found, the investigation nevertheless concentrated on discovering whether there was any evidence that a structural weakness had been exploited. In that respect the fwd. cargo door was the subject of very detailed examination. All the specialists involved were satisfied that the fwd. cargo door was correctly latched when the device detonated and that the subsequent structural failures where secondary events.

All structures by nature of their design have paths of least resistance when subjected to abnormal loading. The structure in the vacinity of large strengthened apertures such as the fwd. cargo door provide very good examples of this. The window belt on pressurised aircraft provides another and similar example. You should not be surprised to find similar patterns of breakup in structural failures that emanate from very different causes. The important differences lie in the detailed examination rather than the macro features.

I'm sorry to be the one to pour cold water on your hypothesis, but the scenario that you suggest was the subject of very considerable examination in the early stages of the Lockerbie investigation.

Ken Smart
Chief Inspector of Air Accidents

JBS>I evaluated this letter at length and responded to him pointing out that essentially he said the cargo door structural failure occurred in flight but was secondary. I then argued that the only difference of opinion we had was ‘when’ it occurred. I pointed out the at initial event time the large hole where the forward cargo door used to be appeared as well as the 20 inch shatter hole on the port side (According to AAIB report itself). So, by the evidence, holes on both side of nose occurred at the same time. He never replied, most bomb guys never do when confronted with the evidence. Note how quick the AAIB rushed to judgment, five days. The NTSB narrative has the ‘go’ team thinking bomb before they took off from Andrews AFB that same night of the event.

KS>'All the specialists involved were satisfied that the fwd. cargo door was correctly latched when the device detonated and that the subsequent structural failures where secondary events.'

JBS>Another assumption that once assumed, it's bomb forever. 'When the device detonated...' It's like assuming from day one that JFK was killed by two or more people and then all the conspiracy 'facts' make sense. It's a false initial premise.

Anyway, Ken Smart is an honest bomb guy because he says essentially an open cargo door in flight for Pan Am Flight 103 was a secondary event to the bomb explosion.

The missile guys for Trans World Airlines Flight 800 would never admit that the cargo door ruptured open in flight and the missile caused it by striking the door and exploding.

The bomb guys for Air India Flight 182 are the RCMP and they won’t release any pictures of the nose on either side and never discuss any alternative to bomb.

The reason the bomb guys and missile guys and center tank guys rarely admit the cargo door opened in flight is that it brings United Airlines Flight 811 into play. That is the best evidence for a ruptured open cargo door in flight and its not a bomb or missile or center tank explosion or repair doubler failure.

Again, support for bomb explanation has had 30 years, millions of dollars, ten of thousands of man hours, billions of words, and it still does not hold together against one hour of facts, data, and evidence.

The bomb guys can support bomb all they want. The focus of this forum member is supporting the wiring/cargo door explanation for China Airlines Flight 611 and others.

I say it may be a bomb cause for all of those ruptured open cargo doors at the midspan latches.

Can you bomb guys say it could have been wiring?

Weswall>lomapaseo The fact that the
observed damage on the fan case of the number 2 engine is self evident which side of the airplane failed first.

JBS>Huh? Starboard side engine has FOD from baggage compartment and Port side engines had shingling from unknown and port side failed first? Small hole in fuselage on port side and big hole on starboard side at same time and small hole failed first?

Weswall>From the engine damage, ingestion by number 2 occurred during high power output. As you point out, as power was subsiding, the number 3 engine was struck by debris, which I also point out, like number 2, was only 40 feet from the explosion.

The damage to the right side of the airplane was greater that the “shot gun blast” earlier indicated.

JBS>You mean ‘left side’ or ‘port side’ but not ‘right side’.

Weswall>In fact, the right side (sic) of the fuselage was initially blistered in a star-burst pattern approximating an area 5 feet by 17 feet. This large hole then continued to expand rearwards as far as the wing cut and forward totaling some 43 feet in length. Excessive floor buckeling was also present in this area.

JBS>Of course the holes got bigger as the nose disintegrated. The starboard cargo door hole started big and got bigger, always remaining much larger than the expanding port side hole. The initial hole was 20 inches as shown by photos, diagrams, drawings, wreckage distribution, and fuselage reconstruction.

WesWall>Again, just some facts.
JBS>Again, just some facts.

It’s impossible to disabuse conspiracy believers from their fantasies because by definition conspiracy stories can not be disproved. There is always another coverup, another mystery man, another mystery event that fills in the gaps.

Sooner or later, the conspiracy guys will start to think that I am a foreign government agent or why else would I be putting this out? What are my motives, who’s paying me, what is my ‘real’ motive?

I would hope that the rational person would consider the wiring/cargo door explanation for the five Boeing 747 accidents, find ways to rebut it if possible, and if persuaded that the mechanical explanation has merit, to pursue in your own manner to get the wiring problem fixed and the design error of nonplug cargo doors with inadequate latching corrected.

Cheers,
Barry

John Barry Smith
www.corazon.com
[email protected]

[wes_wall]

JBS, please excuse the mistake. I did in fact mean the left side when refering to the fuselage damage. Got my hands mixed up when typing, I guess I was concerned about the spelling.

[JohnBarrySmith]

JBS>At 0541 GMT, 23 June 1985, CP Air Flight 003 arrived at Narita Airport, Tokyo, Japan, from Vancouver. At 0619 GMT a bag from this flight exploded on a baggage cart in the transit area of the airport within an hour of the Air India occurrence. Two persons were killed and four were injured. From the day of the occurrences, there have been questions about a possible linkage between the events.

”Questions, yes, questions.” Rutger Hauer as Roy Batty, Bladerunner.


Regarding left, right, and all around:
I understand: seriously here is what I have to keep straight:
Aft/forward. (Cargo doors)
Bulk/cargo/passenger/crew/maintenance/access (doors)
Left/right (Horizontal stabilizers)
Port/Starboard (wings)
611/182/811/103/800/123/181/1862/46/003/086/060(flight numbers)
1/2/3/4 (engines)
Nose/tail (nose tail)
Bomb/missile/fuel tank/wiring/doubler (causes)
Vertical/horizontal (aft stabilizers)
AAIB/TSB/CASB/NTSB/FBI/CIA/FAA/ASC
TWA/PanAm/United/Air India/China Airlines/Japan Airlines/CP
Vancouver/Montreal/Toronto/Tokyo/Malta/Frankfurt/London/New York/Delhi/Honolulu/Bangkok/Paris/Los Angeles/Sydney/Taipei/Hong Kong/Athens (Departures and destinations and layovers.)
Up/down and all around.

See, the 103 bomb guys have only one crash to explain away and any inconsistencies are greeted with, “Well, strange things happen when a bomb goes off.”

I have four and maybe five accidents that the facts all have to hold together with the same common cause, ruptured cargo door in flight.

Well, it’s tough all over, the Chaplain will be here in ten minutes and we can tell somebody who gives a damn.

Cheers,
Barry

[whauet]

You know...

No matter which 'side of the fence' people are on this issue, there are a few facts that none of us can dispute.

We're all 'connecting the dots' here, unfortunately those dots don't always have numbers to guide us to the same complete picture. We connect them based on our own beliefs and perceptions. We are also all human and facts can be interpreted based on those same beliefs and perceptions while we strive for the perfect answer, and we all share the same desire to discover why these accidents happen and try to prevent them from happening again.

Some of us have posed questions to try and see things from your point of view, but we are nevertheless labeled as 'bomb guys' or spoken down to simply because we do not immediately jump up and agree with you. Some of us have questioned your interpretation of the facts just as you question the interpretation of the facts by the investigators.

I do not wish to engage in the back and forth banter that has taken over this thread and apologize if you read this as such. I am not 'running away' from this thread, but to be frank, I am disappointed to be generally labeled as an uncaring moron simply because my perceptions and interpretation of the facts differ from yours. I am not qualified to say whether you are right or wrong just as I am not qualified to say whether the investigators or right or wrong. But with all due respect, chiding those who do not necessarily see things the same way you do simply because of that fact is not the way to persuade others to listen to what you have to say.

In any case, best of luck with your research and I think I can speak for everyone when I say that we all hope we don't see another cargo door incident take lives.

William Hauet
Seattle, WA

[JohnBarrySmith]

Whatuet>Some of us have posed questions to try and see things from your point of view, but we are nevertheless labeled as 'bomb guys' or spoken down to simply because we do not immediately jump up and agree with you.

JBS>Posted earlier below:

JBS>There are many honorable and well intentioned men and women who believe Pan Am Flight 103 and Air India Flight 182 were caused by a bomb explosion. They do not cast slurs at those that don’t, nor fudge, lie, or misrepresent themselves. They do research and frame questions and ask them. I welcome those queries.

JBS> I shall have to repeat the above to the allegation that you are ‘spoken down to simply because we do not immediately jump up and agree with you.’

Well, this is good, you don’t like me. That gets rid of the “I don’t know whether he’s right or not, but since I like him, I’ll go along with him.” It voids the nice guy bias you might have had, had I been cool, charming, persuasive, and oh, so friendly. I bear no ill will towards anyone on this forum...except the stupid bomb guys, just joking. We all have our interpretations of evidence to connect the dots. The bomb guys and the missile guys and the repair doubler guys all get to laugh at me, that's fair. I mean, come on, I am in the minority here, about 100 million to one.

You have never personally insulted me and I do not mean to insult you, Mr. Hauet. I just mean to insult the stupid bomb guys who made fun of me by calling me names such as turkey (oh how dastardly) and apparently can give it, but they can't take it.

We are not important as personalities in this forum, the goal is to find out why a flying machine failed in flight. Our skin tone or vocal tone or any tone is trivial, only the ideas are important. The bomb explanation is an idea and is important.

But I never seem to hear that admission from the bomb or missile guys.

Mr. Hauet, you have not been getting flames from the bomb guys for Pan Am Flight 103 for six years as I have done. You have not had to withstand the onslaught of the missile conspiracy guys for Trans World Airlines Flight 800 or hear responses to what I say about the bomb explanation for Air India Flight 182 and Pan Am Flight 103. If the bomb explanation as I describe it sounds ‘funny’ and ‘crazy’ to you, it does to me, too. Every time I start the logic for bomb explanation, my voice rises and I start to laugh in derision. I am not laughing at you personally, only on the absurd stretches of imagination the bomb guys make in order to keep the bomb fantasy alive.

If you lay it out in writing you will see how impossible the whole scenario is for a bomb on Air India Flight 182 for 17 years or Pan Am Flight 103 for 13 years or Trans World Airlines Flight 800 for seventeen months.

I am laughing at the concept of bombs exploding in Boeing 747s with the evidence provided. I should not be laughing at those that believe the concept based on the evidence. But I do and I’m a lesser man for it. I shouldn’t make fun of paranoia of plots and evil schemes for airplane crashes but I do. The humor is a tension release when the mind sees the conflict of the way it should be and the way it is.

A person either laughs, gets angry, or cries to release the cognitive dissonance.

I laugh....ready....these terrorists manage to place their bombs in the same place although there are many places to put them and the placement is done randomly independent of the bombers wishes. The luggage can go in the bulk hold, the aft hold, the forward hold, or even the passenger cabin. But no, they always seem to end up on the forward cargo compartment. That’s funny to me. The bombs are about the same for explosive power also, knocking off the nose of a 747 but not vaporizing it, and yet they were made by different terrorist groups over many years apart. That's funny to me. All those coincidences.

Also, the explanation for the FOD for engine 3 of Pan Am Flight 103 is given in the AAIB report as the material is ejected on the port bomb side and goes over or under the fuselage and into the intake. That is of course ignoring the direct path from forward cargo compartment that has a huge hole at initial event time to the adjacent engine number three, as has happened before with United Airlines Flight 811. That’s funny to me as I see fast ejected pieces from the 20 inch shatter hole go towards port wing, then stop, back up, and go under the fuselage and into engine three on the starboard wing.

Or I could get angry at the convoluted reasoning and false conclusion or I could cry knowing that irrational thinking like that will and has probably led to another plane lost with 225 aboard. So I laugh. Ha, ha ha.

I am not laughing at bomb guys who say the cargo door ruptured and it may have been a bomb that did it because I say it could have a bomb that blew out the forward cargo door of Air India Flight 182 and Pan Am Flight 103.

Can you say that?

Can you also say the cargo door ruptured inflight in those planes and it may have been wiring caused?

I have it by email that the lower cargo door picture will be published in Aviation Week in the September 2 issue. It will show the lower part of the aft cargo door still latched to the sill frame with cargo rollers still attached. The center part of the door is still missing.

I shall be looking for the aft peeled back skin from the aft midspan latch position. This is very exciting news as more real evidence is becoming public.

Can we agree on this statement?
China Airlines Flight 611:
1. Was a Boeing 747 that was:
a. early model
b. high flight time
c. aged
d. high flight cycles.
2. Was flying normally for an hour or less and was normally pressurized
3. And within a few seconds had a sudden audible sound on the CVR
4. And had a sudden power cut to the FDR.
5. And had a hull rupture,
6. And had an inflight breakup
7. And had a retrieved cargo door in the wreckage that showed:
a. intact hinge.
b. vertical tear lines above the door ends.
c. missing pressure relief door
d. shattered in two longitudinally into more than one piece.
e. missing bottom section and missing midspan latches.
e. was considered as a initial probable cause.
8. And had at least nine never recovered bodies.
9. And had a bomb suspected as the cause for the accident in the first few days of the event.

Pan Am Flight 103 and Trans World Airlines Flight 800 also:

1. Were a Boeing 747 that was:
a. early model
b. high flight time
c. aged
d. high flight cycles.
2. Were flying normally for an hour or less and was normally pressurized
3. And within a few seconds had a sudden audible sound on the CVR
4. And had a sudden power cut to the FDR.
5. And had a hull rupture,
6. And had an inflight breakup
7. And had a retrieved cargo door in the wreckage that showed:
a. intact hinge.
b. vertical tear lines above the door ends.
c. missing pressure relief door
d. shattered in two longitudinally into more than one piece.
e. missing midspan latches.
e. was considered as a initial probable cause.
8. And had at least nine never recovered bodies.
9. And had a bomb suspected as the cause for the accident in the first few days of the event.

The above is correct for Pan Am Flight 103 and Trans World Airlines Flight 800. It almost fits for Air India Flight 182 except the door was not retrieved and the event happened five hours into flight. It almost fits United Airlines Flight 811 except they did retrieve entire door except for midspan latches.

But for three early model Boeing 747 inflight breakups the above evidence matches fit. The significance is that the cause of the door rupture may be a common one. Either they are all bombs, or missiles, all fuel tank explosions, all repair doubler failures, or all wiring caused. And there could be three different causes.

But....in my humble opinion and based upon the available evidence, I believe the shorted wiring/aft cargo door rupture/rapid decompression/inflight breakup explanation deserves full suspect status warranting a complete investigation into cargo doors of Boeing 747s in particular their known faulty Poly X wiring and the design defect of inadequately latched non plug cargo doors with no locking sectors at the midspan latches.

John Barry Smith
www.corazon.com
[email protected]

[SaturnV]

My previous post on the explosion at Narita airport had been composed from memory, and contained several mis-statements. To set the facts straight, and to minimize, if not extinguish, the possibility that any such bomb could have been the work of still-disgruntled farmers over Narita construction, the evidentiary record is as follows.

Singh Reyat was a Sikh auto mechanic and electrician living in Duncan, a community near Vancouver, British Columbia. The bomb at Narita had been placed in a Sanyo model FMT 611K AM-FM stereo tuner, measuring 16 by 14 by 5 inches. Sanyo had produced only 2000 of this particular model; all had been shipped to its warehouse in Vancouver. Sanyo had ceased production of this model in 1982, and most had long been sold, and no longer stocked in stores. However, police discovered that one of these Sanyo tuners had been sold on June 5, 1985 (17 days before the bombing) in the F. W. Woolworth store in Duncan to two Sikhs.

The tuner that exploded at Narita was packed in the original carton complete with styrofoam packaging and the original manual. Other components of the bomb were a Micronta car clock as a timer, an electrical relay, an Eveready 12-volt lantern battery, Liquid Fire brand engine starting fluid, single-base smokeless gunpowder, dynamite and a blasting cap. According to the explosive experts, the use of gunpowder and starting fluid was an unusual feature of the bomb, because neither would have added in any way to its explosive force. (The amount of dynamite in the Narita bomb is estimated to be eight sticks.) When Reyat's home was searched, the police found a receipt for a Sanyo FMT 611K tuner, but could not find the tuner or any of its packaging. (The police were eventually able to establish that the tuner used in the bombing was not only the same model as that purchased by Reyat, but was in fact the very same tuner.)

The evidence also established that during the months prior to the bombing, Reyat had purchased two Micronta car clocks, two Eveready 12-volt lantern batteries, three electrical relays, two or three blasting caps, single-base smokeless gunpowder and a quantity of dynamite. Liquid Fire starting fluid would have been available to Reyat at his place of work, and a can of it was in fact found in his toolbox. Reyat did not have a blasting permit, nor was there any evidence of blasting activity around his property.

Reyat was arrested in November 1985 and questioned by the police. Reyat denied having made the Narita bomb. He did however make the following admissions:
- that he had been approached by one Talwinder Singh Parmar, who had asked the accused to make him a large explosive device for use in India ;
- that he had tried to make an explosive device for Parmar, but that when he and Parmar had tried to detonate it on 4 June 1985 it had failed to detonate;
- that he had tried to detonate another device, but had again failed; and
- that he had therefore been unable to help Parmar.

Reyat was convicted of indirect manslaughter in the Narita bombing, and has been re-arrested in the bombing of Air India 182. The evidentiary record to date does not show the purchase of a second piece of audio or video equipment by Reyat for potential use on Air India 182, but it does show that two or more parts of all the Narita bomb components (other than the cabinet) were in Reyat's possession.

[wes_wall]

JBS, let me see if I can keep my right and left sides in correct order. What I tried to illustrate was the damage to the number 2 engine was consistent to a failure occurring on the LEFT side of the airplane. The star burst pattern of destruction which was present on the LEFT side of the airplane was the source of debris which was ingested by the number 2 engine. The number 3 engine did not ingest debris until later, most likely during or milliseconds prior to the nose of the airplane separating and making contact with it. Suffice it to say, no ingestion occurred until well into the accident sequence.

The destruction to the left side of the airplane clearly indicated a directional force from inside to outside. The investigation also clearly validated the likely cause, which I think you will agree, to
be an explosive action. Two, which are simple to understand. Examination of the cargo container revealed that internal explosive forces ordinating there produced the shatter zone on
the left side of the airplane. The floor beams in the region of the container were extensively broken, and displayed clear indications of overload failure due to upward buckling. The buckling of the floor beams was the result of explosive over pressure, gases emerging from the explosion, and not contact by debris.

To me, the report is quite clear and adequately documented on the likely cause of the destruction of N739PA. I do not consider myself a “bomb guy” but rather a retired aviator who had and still
has more than a passing interest in this terrible tradegy. I consider myself to be both literate and rational, and willing to accept what is realistically proven. If we cannot have trust, and accept the best judgement and integrity of those responsible, educated, and trained to investigate and provide likely causes, then it will be Katy bar the door. I find no fault with your keen pursuit in what you believe to be potential causes, and I am in no means indicating you have tunnel vision, but I feel you may be wrongly ignoring findings which support the conclusion found by the UK in its investigation.

Accident comparisons certainly have a place in ones consideration, and I agree, often call for attention. But comparisons are only as good as they relate specifically to the event. One could say that N739PA operated the LAX - HNL - PPG- AKL - SYD - MEL and return line of flying many times, and additionally, the flight numbers were PA811 and PA812, both carriers crew bid the line out of the west coast based personnel, and UA took over the flying when it purchased the Pacific Division from Pan Am, but does that make it a likely candidate that should be compared with UA811? You continue to compare incidents with one another, but there is one very large and obvious variance between PA103 and UA811.

Can you see it?

Just a few facts.

Edited for spelling

[PickyPerkins]

Re: CI611 Missing

Please do not misunderstand this post - I am all for working from facts, and sticking to them as closely as possible. Nearly every post on this thread brings new information to light. However, the silent majority of viewers of the vigorous exchanges on this thread (109,748 views vs. 517 posts at the last count) may be amused to see from p. 35 of the forthcoming Sept. 2002 issue of Scientific American that simply providing more facts and/or repeating old facts generally (and not just on this thread) does little to change mind-sets which are already established. Here are some extracts:
------- Start quotes ---------
……… Smart people believe weird things because they are skilled at defending beliefs they arrived at for non-smart reasons.

Rarely do any of us sit down before a table of facts, weigh them pro and con, and choose the most logical and rational explanation, regardless of what we previously believed. Most of us, most of the time, come to our beliefs for a variety of reasons having little to do with empirical evidence and logical reasoning. Rather, such variables as genetic predisposition, parental predilection, sibling influence, peer pressure, educational experience and life impressions all shape the personality preferences that, in conjunction with numerous social and cultural influences, lead us to our beliefs. We then sort through the body of data and select those that most confirm what we already believe, and ignore or rationalize away those that do not.

This phenomenon, called the confirmation bias, helps to explain the findings published in the National Science Foundation biennial report (April 2002) on the state of science understanding:
30% of adult Americans believe that UFOs are space vehicles from other civilizations
60% believe in ESP
40% believe astrology is scientific
32% believe in lucky numbers
70% accept magnetic therapy as scientific, and
88% accept alternative medicine.

Education by itself by itself is no paranormal prophylactic. Although belief in ESP decreased from 65% among high school graduates to 60% among college graduates, and belief in magnetic therapy dropped from 71% among high school graduates to 55% among college graduates, that still leaves more than half fully endorsing such claims! ……….

……… We can glean a deeper cause of this problem in another statistic: 70% of Americans still do not understand the scientific process, defined as comprehending probability, the experimental method and hypothesis testing. ……………….(only) 53% of Americans with a high level of science education (nine or more high school and college science/math courses) understand the scientific process, ……… a study that found no correlation between science knowledge (facts about the world) and paranormal beliefs. ……..
------- End quote ------

Seems like getting together over some beers might be more effective than piling up the facts in changing minds. Politicians kiss the baby and otherwise press the flesh. And I have probably fallen into the same trap by imagining that I might affect existing mind-sets by presenting the above facts.

[JohnBarrySmith]

JBS>I’ve just had a paranormal experience:

Fifteen minutes ago, I was reading Scientific American on page 35 in a section called the Skeptic.

It was a good article; I thought the information refers to the forum members and decided to tear it out and print it in a post.

I tore the page out, it’s right beside me and the computer and I prepared to type it in my word processor prior to posting.

But first, I got an email saying Picky Perkins had replied to the topic. So, I checked it out, and as the screen appeared, I read the exact words I was going to type in!

Now is that weird or what?

Apparently Picky Perkins read the same article, thought the same thoughts, and posted a few hours ahead of me.

Incredible. ESP?

Well, for the record, I don’t believe any of that stuff but do believe in coincidence and “Confirmation Theory’ as detailed in Scientific American and quoted by Picky.

The article is so true.

Cheers,
Barry

[JohnBarrySmith]

JBS>I’m still shuddering from the coincidence of PickyPerkins posting something that I was going to post. A moment in time to be never forgotten. The words in my mind appeared on the screen as the PPRuNe page loaded. My referenced article was in print and I had torn it out of the magazine, I don’t know if it is available online. The article is from a theme issue of Time. And a very good issue it is.

Time is everything for the shorted wiring/forward cargo door rupture/explosive decompression/inflight breakup explanation for 4 Boeing 747s and the shorted wiring/aft cargo door rupture/rapid decompression/inflight breakup explanation for one, China Airlines Flight 611.

The doubler never did break as I understand it, just cracks around it which may or may not have cracked.

The aft cargo door did break into at least three parts, Top retrieved, bottom retrieved, middle missing.

Which came first, the broken in three at least aft cargo door or the cracks around an intact repair doubler?

I vote for door first at this time but can change to cracks pending further evidence.

Am I suffering from Confirmation Bias?

My turn to quote from Article on page 35 of Scientific American:

“Most of us, most of the time, come to our beliefs for a variety of reasons having little to do with empirical evidence and logical reasoning. Rather, such variables as genetic predisposition, parental predilection, sibling influence, peer pressure, educational experiences and life impressions all shape the personality preferences that, in conjunction with numerous social and cultural influences, lead us to our beliefs. We then sort through the body of data and select those that most confirm what we already believe, and ignore or rationalize away those that do not.

Ah ha! Truth. It’s neutral. It works both ways.

Let us look at a contrary truth for Pan Am Flight 103 that deals with time and yet is rationalized or ignored by those that believe a bomb blew apart the aircraft.

The sudden loud sound on the CVR for Pan Am Flight 103 is not a bomb sound. The authorities have tried very very hard to make it so and have even staged a real bomb explosion in a real airplane with real microphones to try for a sound match.

The sound has been matched to something else and that something is not a bomb sound but it is the sound of an explosion.

If the sudden loud sound is not a bomb sound, how did the bomb explode and not be heard on the CVR? Timing is everything. There had to be a first sound that was different from the normal sound and that sound was not a bomb sound. A bomb explosion sound would be the first thing to be heard on the CVR when it exploded. It was not heard at all.

If the sudden loud sound was part of the shorted wiring/forward cargo door rupture/explosive decompression/inflight breakup sequence, it would be heard on the CVR and was heard on the CVR and on Chart 12 of NTSB Public Docket that matches the sound to other events.

The sound on the CVR of Pan Am Flight 103 is the sound of a explosive decompression.

There was no bomb. There was no bomb explosion. There were no sneaky foreign spies trying to blow up our planes.

There was explosive decompression from lots of causes, most mechanical.And it happened before and documented in NTSB AAR 90/01 and the corrected NTSB AAR 92/02 for the same event with United Airlines Flight 811.

Where is my confirmation bias? I see none. I see confirmation accuracy. My explanation holds true with the evidence presented by the CVR, the best evidence existing.

Where is the bomb guys confirmation bias? Ignoring that logic of sound first is the initial event and bomb sound was never heard so no bomb explosion is very very possible reality.

Let's look at the engine evidence scientifically:

Engine number two had shingling whatever that is:

AAIB>(i) No 2 engine (situated closest to the site of the explosion) had evidence of blade "shingling" in the area of the shrouds consistent with the results of major airflow disturbance whilst delivering power. (This effect is produced when random bending and torsional deflection occurs, permitting the mid-span shrouds to disengage and repeatedly strike the adjacent aerofoil surfaces of the blades). The interior of the air intake contained paint smears and other evidence suggesting the passage of items of debris.

(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. Such evidence is usually unmistakable and its absence is a clear indication that No 3 engine did not suffer a major intake airflow disturbance whilst delivering significant power. The intake structure was found to have been crushed longitudinally by an impact on the front face although, as stated earlier, it had struck the ground on its rear face whilst falling vertically.
(iii) All 3 engines had evidence of blade tip rubs on the fan cases having a combination of circumference and depth greater than hitherto seen on any investigation witnessed on Boeing 747 aircraft by the Pratt and Whitney specialists. Subsequent examination of No 4 engine confirmed that it had a similar deep, large circumference tip rub. These tip-rubs on the four engines were centred at slightly different clock positions around their respective fan cases.

JBS>OK, shingling on engine number two which means what?

Random bending and torsional deflection occurred. What does that mean? FOD? Not really as FOD using breaks blades, starts fire and throws out blades. This could be extreme airflow disruption over the intake of engine number two after forward cargo door blows out at 31000 feet at 300 knots.

Or it could be shift in airflow from FOD from bomb explosion nearby which tossed out a 20 inch hole of fuselage skin into the intake of engine number two.

Let’s look at engine number two and number three for Pan Am Flight 103: The two vacuum cleaners next to the port and starboard side of the nose at high power at event time.

Number three had ‘ingested debris from within the aircraft,’ and ‘contained a number of lose items originating from within the cabin or baggage hold’ an evaluation which is not mentioned for engine number two, which implies engine two did not ingest debris from within the aircraft, just paint smears and other evidence suggesting the passage of items of debris. “Debris’ is not really baggage from within the baggage hold as was said for engine three and ‘suggested’ is not for certain and ‘other evidence’ is oh so vague.

AAIB>“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.”

JBS>The confirmation bias for the bomb guys is ignoring the timing for the sudden loud sound presenting no bomb and the engine evidence which says shingling and maybe FOD and it could from the 20 inch hole nearby when very large shotgun went in off in forward cargo compartment after explosive decompression had occurred when the forward cargo.....midspan.....locking sectors......manual locking... pressure.....sequence of timing succinctly stated as the shorted wiring/forward cargo door rupture/explosive decompression/inflight breakup explanation for Air India Flight 182, Pan Am Flight 103, United Airlines Flight 811, and Trans World Airlines Flight 800, in chronological sequence. The shorted wiring/aft cargo door rupture/rapid decompression/inflight breakup explanation explanation for China Airlines Flight 611 is the very preliminary, tentative, conjecture, wild speculation, imaginative conclusion made on 29 August 2002 awaiting the picture of the bottom of the aft cargo door.

Let’s look for peeled back skin from the midspan latches, latched bottom eight held tight by the strengthened locking sectors done after AD 88-12-04. Or outward petal shaped twisted metal, frozen in time like a drop of milk in high speed camera work. Sadly, the middle of the door is missing which shall contain those clue matches. But there is still a lot to work with. For instance, has the rectangular fuselage frame been recovered? The rupture outward twist the frame too at those mid points. Are there hinge overtravel markings on the hinges? NTSB AAR 92/02 talks all about hinge overtravel. Paint smears from top of aft cargo door to the fuselage skin directly above the door? It happened with United Airlines Flight 811. www.corazon.com has the pdf of that report.

The manual locking handle, if retrieved, shall show in normal stowed and locked position. The midspan latch pins, which are in the fuselage frames, shall show bluing of stress.

So, the point? We are not stupid. We are not dumb. We may be wrong in our thinking conclusions.

Am I wrong? Is there anything I said above which defies logic, facts, and evidence?

Are you wrong?

We both say each other is wrong. I give evidence the bomb guys are wrong for Pan Am Flight 103 and others.

The bomb guys do not give me evidence the shorted wiring/forward cargo door rupture/explosive decompression/inflight breakup is wrong for Pan Am Flight 103.

Even more evidence is presented if I will not be accused for kicking a bad idea while it is down: The same reasons that a bomb explosion was ruled out in the forward cargo compartment of an early model Boeing 747 called Trans World Airlines Flight 800 are the very same reasons to rule out a bomb explosion in the forward cargo compartment for an early model Boeing 747 called Pan Am Flight 103; here they are:

NTSB>The NTSB states in AAR 00/03 regarding Trans World Airlines Flight 800: Page 180, footnote 368: ‘Evidence of a bomb explosion included deformation of materials away from a location at the height of the passenger seat pan, hot-gas pitting damage on multiple pieces of wreckage that formed a pattern radiating from the same location (including into the CWT), punctures radiating from the same location, and shrapnel. Further, according to the FBI's laboratory report, No. 91204034 S YQ YB/91207052 S YQ YB, dated January 30, 1990, chemical analysis of a piece of wreckage from the right side of the CWT identified the presence of RDX and PETN high explosive. These two explosives comprise about 86 percent of the composition of SEMTEX, which is a rubberlike material manufactured by Synthesia Corporation of Semtin, Czechoslovakia, primarily for use in mining and other civil engineering activities. According to the FBI, SEMTEX has been used by criminal and terrorist elements in Europe since 1966. (SEMTEX was identified as the material used in the bomb placed on Pan Am flight 103. For additional information, see section 1.11.1.2.)’

Page 257 to page 259 of NTSB AAR 00/03 for Trans World Airlines Flight 800 ‘2.2.1.2 Consideration of a High-Energy Explosive Device Detonation (Bomb or Missile Warhead) Several factors led to speculation that the accident might have been caused by a bomb or missile strike. These factors included heightened safety and security concerns because of the 1996 Olympics then being held in the United States, the fact that TWA flight 800 was an international flight, and the sudden and catastrophic nature of the in-flight breakup. In addition, numerous witnesses to the accident reported seeing a streak of light and then a fireball, which some people believed represented a missile destroying the airplane. Further, some anomalous primary radar targets were recorded by the Islip, New York, radar site in the general vicinity of TWA flight 800 at the time of the accident that apparently could not be explained. Accordingly, the Safety Board considered the possibility that a bomb exploded inside the airplane or that a missile warhead from a shoulder-launched missile exploded upon impact with the airplane. Testing performed by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) found trace amounts of explosives on three separate pieces of airplane wreckage (described by the FBI as a piece of canvaslike material and two pieces of floor panel). However, none of the damage characteristics typically associated with a high-energy explosion of a bomb or missile warhead (such as severe pitting, cratering, petalling, or hot gas washing) were found on any portion of the recovered airplane structure, including the pieces on which the trace amounts of explosives were found. Only about 5 percent of the airplane's fuselage was not recovered, and none of the areas of missing fuselage were large enough to have encompassed all of the damage that would have been caused by the detonation of a bomb or missile. Although several large holes are visible in the reconstructed portion of the airplane fuselage, almost all of the structure that originally filled in these holes is attached to the remaining structure but is folded either inward or outward. No area of structure in the reconstructed portion of the airplane contained any unexplained holes large enough to represent the entry point of a missile. Further, the victims remains showed no evidence of injuries that could have been caused by high-energy explosives, nor was there any damage to the airplane seats and other interior components consistent with a high-energy explosion. Investigators considered several scenarios to determine how the trace amounts of explosive residue might have gotten on the wreckage from the accident airplane. Trace amounts of explosive residue could have been transferred to the contaminated pieces from the military personnel (and their associated clothing, boots, and equipment) that were on board the accident airplane when it was used to transport troops during the Gulf War in 1991. In addition, explosives were placed and then removed from several locations in the accident airplane during a dog-training explosive detection exercise about 1 month before the accident. Despite being unable to determine the exact source of the trace amounts of explosive residue found on the wreckage, the lack of any corroborating evidence associated with a high-energy explosion indicates that these trace amounts did not result from the detonation of a high-energy explosive device on TWA flight 800. Accordingly, the Safety Board concludes that the in-flight breakup of TWA flight 800 was not initiated by a bomb or a missile strike.”

Repeat NTSB>Although several large holes are visible in the reconstructed portion of the airplane fuselage, almost all of the structure that originally filled in these holes is attached to the remaining structure but is folded either inward or outward.

JBS>The same above for Trans World Airlines Flight 800 can be said for the reconstruction of Pan Am Flight 103, all holes accounted for sir, on the port side, but there are missing pieces on the starboard side, in and around the forward cargo door. Both Pan Am Flight 103 and Trans World Airlines Flight 800 had, relative to their starboard sides, smooth undisrupted skin or folded back by airstream skin on the port sides. Not the tiny pieces of shattered skin as a bomb or fuel tank explosion would do on the port side, but the tiny pieces were recovered for the cargo door starboard side. So the port bomb side should not have most of its pieces accounted for on Pan Am Flight 103 but does. It’s only the starboard side that has large missing pieces. The larger explosion was on the starboard side.

The point? Ruling out a bomb for an inflight breakup of an early model Boeing 747 is not that hard. Check the metal for certain things, check the victims for certain things and if the required real non wishful thinking clear headed things like evidence of injuries that could have been caused by a high energy explosive are not there, then bomb is probably not there. The evidence keeps on adding up there was no bomb explosion but there was an explosion but on the starboard side near the forward cargo door.

Is there a reasonable plausible alternative to the bomb explanation for Pan Am Flight 103 and others? If not, then the bomb explanation becomes the default explanation.

There is a plausible reasonable explanation for Pan Am Flight 103 and you bomb guys know it and I know you know it.

If you continue to believe in the bomb explanation for Pan Am Flight 103 you will be suffering/experiencing the phenomenon called ‘confirmation bias.’ as stated in the issue of Scientific American on page 35 in section called the Skeptic. It's OK, it's human, it just means you are not being objective and thus may have a wrong conclusion in an objective airplane crash investigation which relies on science, not genetic predisposition, parental predilection, sibling influence, peer pressure, educational experiences and life impressions to make a conclusion as to why China Airlines Flight 611, Air India Flight 182, United Airlines Flight 811, Pan Am Flight 103, and Trans World Airlines Flight 800 suffered a hull rupture in flight.

Cheers,
Skeptic John Barry Smith

[GlueBall]

Major:
...so then in the case of PA103, Colonel Muammar al-Qaddafi also may be suffering from an overdose of confirmation bias by offering compensation...for an apparent Boeing design flaw that had caused the forward belly door to open inflight and rip the fuselage apart?

[wes_wall]

JBS.. When you recover from the shuddering from the coincedence of the Picky Perkins posting, perhaps you could repost the following in english that I can understand...

quote JBS>The confirmation bias for the bomb guys is ignoring the timing for the sudden loud sound presenting no bomb and the engine evidence which says shingling and maybe FOD and it could from the 20 inch hole nearby when very large shotgun went in off in forward cargo compartment after explosive decompression had occurred when the forward cargo.....midspan.....locking sectors......manual locking... pressure.....sequence of timing succinctly stated as the shorted wiring/forward cargo door rupture/explosive decompression/inflight breakup explanation for Air India Flight 182, Pan Am Flight 103, United Airlines Flight 811, and Trans World Airlines Flight 800, in chronological sequence. unquote

Aside from this, you continue to completely discount the facts re PA103, Talk about confirmation bias.