TWA 800 Crash Cause Email

barry@corazon.com

The following are the various emails I have sent and have received regarding the TWA Pan Am UAL crashes. My favorite so far is "What a dreamer."

barry@corazon.com wrote:
>
> The cuprit was caught on radar. A radar blip fell with the aircraft, news
> reports state. The cargo door opened inadvertantly and explosive
> decomression leading to disintergration of wing storing fuel to fireball.
> Extensive research on UA Flight 811, Pan Am 103 and other accidents has
> led me to this inescapable conclusion. I welcome contrary discussion.
> Email at barry@corazon.com.

1)I may me wrong, but there is no secondary survillance radar at JFK.
This means that ATC radar will only detect an object if it has a
Transponder that returns the radar signal.

2)Inadvertant opening of a cargo door would not cause massive cabin
decommpression. Also, the TWA 800 was at 13000 where the pressure
differential was insignificant.

This leads me to conclude that structural damage from an opened door
could not have preceded the distruction of flight 800.

To: newyork@fbi.gov
From: barry@corazon.com
Subject: Crash Theory
Cc:
Bcc:
X-Attachments:

I have a reasonable explanation for the cause of crash of TWA flight 800. May I speak with someone involved with aircraft accident investi.gations? I have extensive aircraft experience and am a retired military officer. It's worth listening to.
email at barry@corazon.com

To: webmaster@ntsb.gov
From: barry@corazon.com
Subject: TWA Crash
Cc:
Bcc:
X-Attachments:

I am an experienced aviation professional and have a theory for the crash of TWA flight 800. May I speak with anyone on the staff of NTSB to discuss it? email barry@corazon.com

That sounds ridiculous. The airplane was not at an extreme altitude
where explosive decompression would occur, at least explosive enough
to cause an extremely heavy and rugged airplane such as the 747 to
explode. I work on fighter aircraft and there have been instances of
birds striking the glareshield, actually puncturing it. Fighter
aircraft are a flying fuel tank and never has a rapid decompression
caused an explosion. Most aircraft are pressurized to near 8,500
feet. The 747 was only 5000 feet above that.

Sorry, at that altitude, loss of a cargo door would not cause an
explosive decrompression. The aircraft internal pressure would not be
high enough.

Do you really feel the crash was caused by decompression?
If so how do you explain such a violent explosion at being only
a mild altitude?

To: herald@ix.netcom.com
From: barry@corazon.com
Subject: TWA crash cause explained
Cc:
Bcc:
X-Attachments:

My family and I live in Carmel Valley with a view of the airway overhead of Boeing 747's flying from San Francisco to LosAngeles. They climb out to cruising altitude right above us and that is why the cause of the explosion of TWA Flight 800 is important to us.
The cause is mundane and can be corrected. The cuprit was caught on radar. A radar blip fell with the aircraft, Herald news reports state.
The forward cargo door opened inadvertantly and the skin peeled back like a sardine can leading to disintergration of fulelage and of wing storing fuel to fireball. The cargo door fell, reflecting in the sunlight as it spun down to the ocean giving the impression of streak.
Extensive research on UA Flight 811, Pan Am 103 and other accidents has led me to this inescapable conclusion.
I am an experienced aviation professional and welcome contrary discussion. email barry@corazon.com

PIPEBOMBSTORY. You know as much as I do. The papers in town sell lots
of ads for the airlines. It was detonated by the bomb squad. It was
found on or near the airport, perhaps near the planes. Here's why it's
not front page news: money. power. influence. And the Democratic
convention is coming to town. Also, have you heard of the stalker who
has strangled two ladies near to death in the main hotel being used for
the convention? they don't have a clew. one lady just got out of the
hospital after a month, leaving with brain damage... money. power.
influence. Also, radical groups are planning a march on the convention
center the night Bill C. is accepting the nomination. Thousands will
march. Major news event and mostly uncovered, except by the radicals
themselves. The holdovers from the Chicago 7 will be there, too, i'll
bet. you read it here first. Did you know Hillary C. worked on the
committee that helped indict Nixon? He personally found her to be an icy
cold bitch with a radical agenda. Money, power and influence don't
always win, but it helps. I think an icy cold bitch will win over an old
white guy any day, nowadays. Some guy just put out a book showing how
Hillary knowingly phonied up some of the presentation, knowingly
misrepresenting the facts to achieve her goal. Bring me my metal
detector, i wanna beachcomb.

CargoDoor. Was there clear evidence of a metal object parting company
before the crash? Would the FAA and FedGov disinformation this just to
help out the manufacturer? money, power....etc. I also believe that I
heard on the radio the first day that a female eyewitness observed a
"trail like a roman candle" heading skyward toward the location where
the aircraft blew up. Why didn't we hear more about this eyewitness?
Who got to her first, the money (manufacturer) the power (FBI) or the
influence (the city fathers, anyone who knows about her family
skeletons, etc). Did you hear about her? Lots of times I'll hear
something immediately following a sensitive event and then hear nothing
more... is it just me? Now there's the book you should write,

I don't know what an "experienced aviation professional" is, but I am
a senior engineer/analyst specializing in aircraft survivability. I'm
a senior member of AIAA, hold ATP and CFI tickets, have over 5000 hours
in everything from J-3's to F-111's, and am a frequent presenter at
aircraft survivability symposia, including the October 1993 Transport
Aircraft Survivability Symposium in St Louis, Missouri. (You aren't
even on the attendance list.)

I've studied both the UAL 747 over the Pacific and the Lockerbie cases,
as well as all of the post-Lockerbie testing transport aircraft and
analysis done by the task force led by the Air Force Wright Laboratory
Flight Dynamics Directorate. I find your conclusion neither
"inescapable" nor even plausible. The available facts are totally
inadequate to support any conclusion at this point.

Or are you the same person who got on the air by telephone with Peter
Jennings on ABC and hooked him with the story that the pilot of TWA 800
was really Elvis?

I've sent your note to all the members of the news team for reaction.

Questions:

(A) How could a baggage door bring down a 747 from such a low altitude,
other than (say) by hitting and shearing a major control surface of the tail
(pretty unlikely)? In the past, baggage doors have brought down transport
jets because of rapid decompression damage...but from less than 12,000 feet
of altitude, it seems to me that the decompression would have been a non-event.

(B) Even if a baggage door could bring down the 747, why didn't the crew get
off a Mayday first? It would seem to me that the only explanation is that
either the crew was incapacitated or the aircraft suffered a massive
electrical failure. Neither of these scenarios works with the baggage door
theory.

Speculation like this is fascinating, but it has no place in responsible
reporting. As a journalist, I have to grit my teeth and wait until
sufficient hard data is available to draw a conclusion.

Thanks very much for your note. It raises a possibility that I had not
previously considered.

Best.

What about the 100 plus witnesses that saw a "flare" of some sort
going up to the 747 before it turned into a fireball? If true ,then
it's an obvious missile .On 21 Jul 1996 06:05:24 GMT, you wrote:

From: webmaster <webmaster@ntsb.gov>
To: barry@corazon.com
Cc: Schleede Ron <SCHLEDR@ntsb.gov>
Subject: TWA crash cause explained
Date: Fri, 26 Jul 1996 12:35:00 -0400
Encoding: 5 TEXT
Status:

for some reason (dealing with insufficient memory on my 16Mbyte pentium), I
cannot forward the message you sent to the NTSB webmaster at
webmaster.ntsb.gov to the appropriate official. if you can, please resend
it, but this time send it directly to Ron Schleede, schledr@ntsb.gov. thanks.

From: Schleede Ron <SCHLEDR@ntsb.gov>
To: barry <barry@corazon.com>
Subject: RE: TWA crash cause ATTN Robert Francis
Date: Mon, 29 Jul 1996 15:24:00 -0400
Encoding: 17 TEXT
Status:

Be assured that we are checking that. I was the investigator in charge of
the UAL flight 811 case and fully knowledgeable in its causes and factors.

Thanks for the interest.
----------
From: barry
To: schledr
Subject: TWA crash cause ATTN Robert Francis
Date: Sunday, July 28, 1996 9:58AM

Mr. Francis. The reasonable cause of the TWA crash is the inadvertent
opening of the forward cargo door. That is the mechanical cause that must
be ruled out. Compare to United Flight 811 of Feb 1989.

Check out the newsgroup - alt.disaster.aviation
You will find hundreds of posts from the credible to the strange about
TWA 800 and others.

The balloon analogy is completely ludicrous (totally different fracture
mechanics for inflated rubber vs. a pressurized metal cabin). But
it's an intriguing theory.

You're trying to draw a correlation between altitude and catastrophic
failure of an airframe after a cargo door opens. To do this, you're
using a balloon analogy which relies on a completely different
fracture mechanism. While it would've worked for the old BOAC Comets
(a couple of those "popped" in flight due to fatigue failure of their
pressurized cabins), it doesn't work for modern airliners.

The only way I can see the analogy being relevant is if you include
aerodynamic forces after the incident. An inflated balloon is under
enough stress for there to be fast fracture. A pressurized cabin is
not, but aerodynamic forces after loss of part of the airframe could
cause enough stress to begin fast fracture. But then it doesn't
explain why a high altitude door failure would be fatal while a low
altitude one wouldn't. The key factors should be airspeed and plane
attitude.

> Flight 811, Flight 800, Flight 103, all cargo doors coming off and
> maybe Air India too.

Well, I'd wait until they find the cargo door of flight 800 before
classifying it with the others.

> 811, 800, 103, all 747-121 made in 1970,1971, all during climb, all
> with identical destruction pattern and it's random bombers and not
> defective mechanical problem?
> Another ludicrous analogy: Honda Accords made on Tuesday in Flint
> Michigan are catching fire backing out of driveways and it's random
> arsonists from the middle east setting the fires and not defective
> mechanical problem reproducible.

I'm not familiar with the Accord fires. With plane accidents, the
problem is that they are so rare. With so few incidents, it's
difficult to gather enough statistical evidence to establish a trend,
so you have to rely on trying to recreate and explain what happened
during the incident procedurally and functionally. That's why
superficial similarities are usually discounted unless you can come
up with a common mechanical failure which causes the similarity.
That's why I said your theory is intriguing - it comes up with a
common mechanical failure.

To: president@whitehouse.gov
From: barry@corazon.com
Subject: Leon Panetta
Cc:
Bcc:
X-Attachments:

Mr. Panetta, I live in Carmel Valley and we have met. Please ask to rule out inadvertent forward cargo door opening as cause of TWA crash. That is the mechanical cause that must be ruled out. If forward cargo door opens at high speed, front end of plane can be torn off. Ask that that cause be ruled out, please.

From: autoresponder@WhiteHouse.gov
Date: Mon, 29 Jul 1996 10:04:48 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: Leon Panetta
To: barry@corazon.com
Status:

Thank you for writing to President Clinton via electronic
mail. Since June, 1993, whitehouse.gov has received over one
million messages from people across the country and around the
world.

Because so many of you write, the President cannot
personally review each message. The mail is first read by White
House Correspondence staff. Your concerns, ideas, and
suggestions are carefully recorded and communicated to the
President weekly with a representative sampling of the mail.

We are excited about the progress of online communication as
a tool to bring government and the people closer together. Your
continued interest and participation are very important to that
goal.

Sincerely,

Stephen K. Horn
Director, Presidential Email
The Office of Correspondence

P.S. Please read on - you may find the following information
useful.

-- This is the only electronic message you will receive from
whitehouse.gov. No other message purporting to be from the
President or his staff with an address at whitehouse.gov is
authentic. If you have received such a message, you have been
spoofed.

-- You will receive only one autoresponder message per day.

-- The only personal addresses at whitehouse.gov are the
following:

President@whitehouse.gov
Vice.President@whitehouse.gov
First.Lady@whitehouse.gov

Please write to Mrs. Gore and other White House staff by regular
mail. The address is:

The White House, Washington, D.C. 20500.

-- On October 20, 1994, President Clinton and Vice President
Gore opened a World Wide Web home page called "Welcome to the
White House: An Interactive Citizens' Handbook" and it remains
one of the more popular spots on the Web. The White House
home page provides, among other things, a single point of access
to all government information available electronically on the
Internet. "Welcome to the White House" can be accessed at:

http://www.whitehouse.gov

-- White House documents and publications are available on the
World Wide Web (see above) and by email. To receive instructions
on retrieving documents by email, please send a message to the
following address:

publications@whitehouse.gov

In the body of your message, type "Send Info" (without quotes);
do not include other text (such as message headers or
signature lines (.sig files)). The instructions will be sent to
you automatically.

****************************************************************
List of Clinton Administration Accomplishments (three documents
compose the whole):

To: publications@whitehouse.gov
Message body: send file 317571
send file 317573
send file 317575
****************************************************************

-- The White House Public Access Email FAQ (Frequently Asked
Questions) document is available at the following address. The
FAQ, among other things, lists alternate sources of government
information, i.e., the Congressional email projects. Send an
email message (no text necessary) to:

faq@whitehouse.gov

(This FAQ address is an autoresponder only; any comment sent to
this address will not be acknowledged.)

To: mbusch@avweb.com
From: barry@corazon.com
Subject: TWA crash cause
Cc:
Bcc:
X-Attachments:

You are sitting on the aviation story of the decade. Inadvertent forward cargo door openings are causing crashes of 747s killing hundreds while bombs are being blamed. Bombings would be inconsistent in type of aircraft and time of detonation and damage caused. Flight 800, and Flight 103 all were all 747-121 identically destroyed shortly after takeoff. The only consistent mechanical cause to explain that is inadvertent opening of forward cargo door. Flight 811 is the victim that came back to identify the killer. It is the same as the others but did not completely come apart, only partly. Please have one of your staff call me for further discussion.

To answer your points in order:

1. I have an open mind. I'm ready to consider any analysis based on specific,
factual/credible data.

2. Your message contained two different email addresses, and I wanted to be sure you
got my note. It appears you got the email, althout I'm not sure you got the message.

3. I've never been in a plane crash. However, being in an airplane crash doesn't by
itself make one an expert on accident investigation. And I've been taught by some
internationally respected aircraft accident investigators (including Frank Taylor of the
UK AAIB) who've never been in a crash either as a pilot or passenger.

4. I've read both the PA103 and UA811 reports, including the structural analyses on the
damage that led to PA103's breakup, as well as the extensive transport aircraft
explosion testing programs conducted since the AAIB report was written.

5. Emotional? Reread my first message. Apart from one wisecrack at the end (for which
I'm willing to apologize publicly if you can provide credible evidence for, and
documentation of, your analysis of TW800 and documentation for your statement that the
crash of PA103 was due to separation of the same baggage door involved in the UA811
incident), it's "just the facts, ma'am."

6. Whether one is "important" or not is not an issue. My message lists my relevent
credentials (not "what a great guy" I am) because the weight attached to one's opinions,
speculations, and analyses depends in part on one's credibility. I really would like to
know what technical background you have. Are you a graduate of the aviation safety
course at USC? Or perhaps an aerospace or mechanical engineer specializing in aircraft
structrual design and analysis? Anyone from the lead B747 structural design engineer at
Boeing to a ticket agent with 20 years experience could claim to be a "senior aviation
professional".

7. You're absolutely right in saying I wrote nothing about the crash of TW800. I'm
waiting for the facts to emerge from the depths of Moriches Bay before I draw any public
conclusions as to the cause of the crash.

8. I do not believe that one can make a valid comparison between a car hood and an
aircraft structure. They're constructed very differently, and cars aren't pressure
vessels. The difference in the mechanics of the two situations you describe is both
substantial and significant.

9. The PA103 report (Aircraft Accident Report 2/90, "Report on the accident to Boeing
747-1221, N739PA at Lockerbie, Dumfriesshire, Scotland on 21 December 1988) says nothing
about a cargo door opening. In fact, in the analysis in Section 2.12 and figures B-19,
B-20, and B-24 to B-26 of the report, one can see that the explosion occured on the
opposite side of the aircraft from the door which detached on UA811 (in fact there is no
cargo door on the left side forward of the wing where the IED was located), and that the
door was undamaged by the initial explosion even though skin sections aft of it and
below it were peeled back due to reflected shock waves inside the baggage compartment.
Also, as discussed in Section 1.14, only the number 3 engine (which fell separately from
the other three engines) had the appearance of "a ball of flame" during the descent, and
as discussed in Section 1.12.4, the damage leading to this appearance took place well
after the initial explosion.

10. The UA811 incident was, as you correctly note, due to improper latching of the
cargo door forward of the right wing. However, despite the loss of the door and
considerable skin area around it, as well as some structural damage, the aircraft did
not break up and there was no fire or explosion due to the structural damage. There was
considerable engine FOD, but despite that and the negative aerodynamic effects, the
aircraft recovered and landed as safely as possible under the circumstances.

11. It has not yet been established that TW800's baggage door did "pop" nor is there yet
any credible evidence to support that theory. The two other cases you mentioned were
quite different from each other in terms of structural damage cause, propagation, and
effects. And neither matches the available reports (scant and contradictory though they
are) on the nature and sequence of events of TW800's breakup and descent.

12. Presentation of the data and analyses on the PA103 crash has already been done (I
was there to hear it) and it doesn't need doing again. My presentation was on the
damage/effects of shoulder-fired SAM (aka Man-Portable Air Defense, or MANPAD -- SA-7,
Stinger, etc) warhead impact on transport aircraft, which may have helped the Air Force
justify its expenditures on MANPAD countermeasures equipment being installed in the new
C-17 and added onto older transports. If that has kept our crews flying into Bosnia a
little safer, that is my reward -- not the microphone time.

Bottom Line: My point is that your conclusion is not "inescapable" based on the
available information. My concern is that public speculation by a "senior aviation
professional" based on inadequate data and incorrect information (i.e., the cause
of PA103's crash) could cause public reactions detrimental to aviation. My opinion is
that any conclusion on the cause of the crash of TW800 based on the information
available as of 23 July should be considered as reliable as the statement that Elvis was
flying the plane. My plan is to keep my speculations on the possible causes of the
TW800 crash private until I have sufficient data to produce a credible opinion.

I await your reply.

Yours,

At 10:25 PM 7/29/96 -0700, you wrote:
>Loved your recent issue where you push the bomb theory.
>Balanced reporting. Excitement sells, hey, boring doors coming off doesn't.

We haven't (and won't) "push" any theory, Barry. We just report, we don't
theorize.

FYI...I've been conscientiously forwarding all of your messages to our news
staff are professional newspaper reporters who write our avnews;
I edit/proof their stuff and format it for AVflash and NewsWire every week.

Sorry for the sarcasm. Barry.

quote today follows from yahoo news and San Jose Mercury News. "Investigators also said that a cargo door, presumably the front one, had been found significantly closer to Kennedy International Airport, where
the flight originated, than almost all of the other parts located so far."
Does not that quote, which indicates the door came off first, warrant an interview from one of your hotshot investigative reporters?

I have read your 747/cargo door page. What is your assessment as of
today, regarding the reported discovery of a cargo door in TW800?

What a dreamer.

Stick to your science fiction foolishness.

I have just read your interesting web page with your theorys about 747 cargo
doors. I am a flying instructor and engine/airframe inspector ( light
aircraft/gliders) for 25 years. Also a regular long-haul-therfore 747-
traveller, so I have followed the 103 affair with interest. Have you seen or
heard of a television documentary called the maltese double-cross? If not It is
perhaps because I heard that it's showing was banned in the U.S. ( I may be
wrong about that). The U.K. prliament attempted to prevent it's showing here,
but eventually it was shown on Scottish Television. Breifly, It cast great
doubt on the Lybian connection, but went on to imply a rather fantastic theory
concerning botched CIA drug running operations. One thing that did emerge,
however, was that all aspects of the investigation were highly suspect,and
smelt strongly of a cover -up of some sort. The main spokesman for the
Lockerbie victim@s famolies in the U.K. is Dr. Jim Swire who@s daughter was on
board. He has worked tirelessly to uncover the truth about the disaster, and
knows a lot about 'officially ignored and unacknowledged' evidence. I am not
aware of how to contact him, but I am sure he would welcome any assistance in
uncovering the truth. In 1992 I found myself in a walled-off compound in a
scrap-yard in Lincolnshire, England, which contained the wreckage of 103.
according to the owner of the yard, All of the retreived wreckage was there
except for approx. 20 ft. of the fuselage and the luggage- container, which
were at R. A. E. Farnbourgh. He told me that at that time the wreckage, was
still relevant evidence and could not be touched ( no-one was supposed to know
it was there, or was permitted to see it, but I was there on aviation business
and stumbled on it accidentaly) He also told me that, given the relevent court
clearance, and release from the insurers, He was free to dispose of it as he
wished, BUT THE PARTS AT FARNBOURGH, SHOWING THE BOMB EVIDENCE WERE TO BE
MELTED DOWN.I did not understand the reasoning behind this. I agree that It is
nobody's interest for your door theory to be proved correct, as the World's air
transportation system would grind to a halt with the grounding of 747's if that
was the action that was taken. I an always rather cynical when it comes to
large amounts of money and those people that control it. I suppose it is
cheaper to blame Lybia and accept the occasional 747 loss. I hope some of this
is of interest. I have a copy of The Maltese Double Cross on VHS PAL format if
think it may be of interest.

It all sounds plausible... However, how do you explain
the fact that government agencies prohibited employees from
flying on PanAM 103 months before the crash? There was
considerable evidence that they knew this flight on that
specific day was going to be bombed.

Thanks for your research, and your reply. I am a former news director
and the producer of "Earthwatch: Transterrestrial Radio" on WBAI, a Pacifica
radio station in New York (for an explanation of the show, see the Earthwatch
home page indicated in my sig).

Over the past two weeks I have had the newsworthy (mis)fortune to be live
on-air when (1) the crash happened; and a week later when the flight data
recorders were retreived. I tried to intelligently present dispassionate
information without the emotional speculation which was intrinsic to so many
commercial "news" reports. So I was naturally resonant with the tone of your
presentation as a viable speculation.

Last night (bnefore I got your e-mail) I read excerpts of your treatise on
the show. I immediately got several requests from listeners for further
information about you, and other sources.

Their comments are available if you wish them forwarded.

Today, I have replied to them with your web address, and a 1-page attachment,
along with the recommendation that they visit your page.

I expect we'll be in touch quite a bit in the near future. Thanks for the
good work!

What a tragedy...the loss of life seems to dull the senses and almost starts to cause a
desensitivity, if you will, for those not aquainted with the types of work you do. Is it
possible that TWA 800's brief stint with the Imperial Iranian Air Force (is it really
true?...) provided the right environment for the cargo door to be altered for military
service? You mentioned this in one of your articles, and I was wondering if that was
something that is being considered. Did TWA send/sell this particular airliner to the
Iranian military and are there any simularities with the 747 that crashed in Spain while
in the military's use? Thanks for doing your work...its really interesting to see
persons like yourself doing their work.

Well i checked your web site and your examples point toward the opposite,none
of these a/c suffered suddend and total failure they landed safetly

An excellent senario for this crash..No Missile, No Bomb, No engine
failure, Just human error...

We have met the emmeny, and he am us !
Pogo, about 1966..
------
I've checked oil, fuel, engine records, production/overhaul records and
your senario is, in my opinion excellent.

You are nuts. You need to substantiate your hypothesis. Seeing as how
they found an exploded cargo container aboard Pan Am 103 directly
reflecting the presence of a bomb, I think that you need to do your
homework

Just so that you will know, in 1985 the Aviation Safety Institute's late
founder John Galipault tried to have the FAA require major revisions made to
this area on B-747s.

Also 3 of the possible nose off crashes the B-747s started out on the
production line as freighters. (Not Lockerbie) But a small bomb there could
have started this type failure by blowing out the cargo door..completely or
enough into the airstream to let it tear back as you have described..(I
never thought that the bomb was big enough to blow up the aircraft..only in
movies..right?)

In December 1992, I was chastized severely by an employer for speaking to
the Pilots Training Association on the importance of a preflight inspection
and I used several pictures like those that you used build your case..I
resigned the next day.

Do you want to go futher with this? is a reporter at Newsday
her e-mail is "" I will be sending her a note shortly
concerning your report.

After The UAL incident, an Airworthyness Directive was issued against the
B747. The latches and locked indicators were redesigned and retrofitted to
all Civil B747. The forward cargo door has been under close scrutiny
since that time. Your premise is that the engineers screwed up a second
time, while under close examination by the FAA. I am leaning toward the
missle(s) theory since they are not screened at the airport and are cheap
and numerous to our many enemies - thanks to our governments medling
in other countries business. By the way, July 29th Aviation Week had an
good expose on all the shoulder launched missles available and their
capabilities. The Stinger is definately up to the job despite what the media
says.

I am very impressed by your theory on the cargo doors. Your arguments are
the most sensible that I have come accross so far. Have you contacted the
NTSB about this?
Regards,
Hong Kong

Well, we've been away 2 days and yikes it is. Why melt down the key
evidence? Did you forward this to your man at AVweb? Or to the relative
of the passenger?

Hi John,
Do you want to bet that on TWA:800 that apx 6+ bodies from first class area
are never recovered..
Don't forget cabin crew in first class/galley areas..
I'm trying to get info on passenger seating for PA103/UAL811 /others..I'll
relay to you ASAR if I get a response..?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
At 08:36 PM 8/4/96 -0700, you wrote:
>>Do you want to go futher with this?
>Hell, yes, full speed ahead. The planes are still flying as we speak.
>Thanks for reference. I'm the middle of making chart of all
>the similarities of 747 catastrophic crashes but have little info on two
>Air India nor South African Airways. New coincidence discovered this
>morning, possibly not significant...Pan Am 103 had eight missing bodies
>they could not find, UAL 811 had nine missing bodies they could not find,
>TWA has at least nine and maybe more. Let's keep in touch.

Checked out your page and lo....very interesting. The door did it. I wonder
what will happen next. I hope you get a LOT of publicity on it.

Impressive work. As I understand it, you aren't discounting a bomb
or missile, you're simply describing the failure mode, which might
have been just a human error closing the door, but could also have
been explosively triggered, like Pan Am 103. Do I have it right?

I assume from your background and the articles you had published that
the investigators are aware of the fact that a failed cargo door may
have been the reason.
I am planning on sending your web site address to my friends. Maybe if
more people are aware of this possiblity, it will force someone to look
into it?
I am not convinced by any of the evidence so far that there was a bomb.
It doesn't make sense to me. If you were a terrorist, and want them to
know who you are, it seems to me someone would've taken responsiblity by
now. If you didn't want to be found out, blowup the plane over the
middle of the ocean, where recovery would be all but impossible. Maybe
the thought of a bomb makes me uncomfortable. However, the thought that
it could be an already documented mechanical failure doesn't make me
feel a whole lot better.
Thank you for taking the time to publish a well-written web site.

Hello there,
I'm reading your pages with a lot of unbelieve and intrest.
I think that there's much more than we know.
The fact that it takes that long before they (FBI, goverment etc) come
with a explanation for the crash makes it creepy.
Sure thing that it was a bomb. Now the olympics are history, the
information about the palne crash wil come much faster, they don't want
to scare a lot of people in Atlanta and the rest of the world. These
things won't happen in the USA! don't they??
Greetings and sorry for some poor words,
The NetherlandsComment:

It used to be called hate mail, now it's called flaming by flamers. Any comment means thought, and thought means caring. Any caring is better than indifference. Keep 'em coming.

Contents