---

I found your website through it having been mentioned on Avweb. I was
previously unaware of you.
There is little doubt in my mind that you are absolutely right about the fact
that the forward cargo door on the 74' is an intrinsic weakness which slightly
compromises the safety of this venerably safe aircraft. You have highlighted a
truth which has been (figuratively) swept under the carpet for some time. I
agree completely with your statement that there is no conspiracy or malice in
the 'establishment' consensus that TWA800 was a terrorist bombing. A couple of days ago I used the phrase "consensus of thought" when trying to explain my
opinion to a friend who thought that I was expounding a "conspiracy theory".
It would need an understanding of human psychology, which I do not have, to
explain how a reasonably well informed and literate society can be so easily led
into a tunnel of assumptions such as we are (repeatedly) seeing. It is simply
convenient for a society (an individual too) to make all incoming data fit a
pre-supposed model if the alternative is unthinkable. The simple and most
convenient explanation for something horrible such as the OK City bombing or
TWA800/Air India (et al) is that it is the big bad wolf outside that is the real
danger, not something that 'we' have created. With massive expenditure of
effort it is of course possible to find 'evidence' to support our theory to such
an extent that the theory becomes self-sustaining even in the face of contrary
evidence. Lockerbie is a classic case of this.
message from a thread which has arisen from TWA800.
The writer is a United 747 ground engineer. I reproduce the message in full and
unedited .
>>>
Well, maybe not in this case. My impression was that there were many who
seemed too willing to place the blame on a baggage handler at the outset rather
than Boeing design or our maintenance. Also, the NTSB may not have had exclusive
access to the plane right away because the plane didn't have to be retrieved in
pieces and assembled in a rented hangar. I don't know how long it took the NTSB
to get there or whether that made any difference. Too many bodies trampling the
evidence before the investigation and all of that. I don't know. The FAA
generated a lot of paper as usual, yakking away about non-plugging doors,
outward-opening doors, and other phrases that makes them sound like they know
what they are talking about. Ok, maybe they do.
The electrical harness is still too easily pinched, in my opinion. I think
it's a terrible design. The strengthening of locking mechanisms doesn't do
anything about an electrical short caused by a pinched harness. The
strengthening may prevent the door from opening if a short does occur, however.
Maybe.
I think Boeing and others knew about a problem before the door blew off,
because I heard we had modified (cargo door mod) all but two of our 747s before
the accident. One of our unmodified 747s at the time was the aircraft involved
in the accident, N4713. I think Boeing may be in the courts presently over this
prior knowlege or late implementation or something like that, but I'm not sure.
Another hazy memory based on mechanic hearsay...a mechanic at JFK was
working alone on a 747 in one of our lower lobe galleys which is in the same
space as the cargo door. I think it was at night, *after* the Flight 811
incident. He heard the door opening and then it stopped. He went to the door
and asked if anyone was outside and got no response. When he went outside there
was no ladder by the door, and there is no way to reach the switch to open the
door without a ladder or some kind of vehicle. He asked other mechanics if
anyone had gone out there and nobody had. This, and not the evidence of arcing
at HNL that I mentioned in the previous message may have led to the wiring
harness theory. I think the arcing evidence may have been found at JFK. I can't
remember if the pressure doors handle (the final step in closing the door) was
closed at JFK or not. I assume not. The pressure doors are two little doors or
windows on the larger cargo door that flop open or closed when the manual handle
is opened or closed. A switch actuated by the pressure doors rigging provides
the cockpit with the information that the door is closed or open. The
strengthening was done in that area and another.
I think the safest way to operate a 747 as far as the cargo doors are
concerned is by pulling the cargo door circuit breakers before pushback. On
arrival, the circuit breakers have to be pushed back in before the cargo doors
will open. It's a pain, and most don't feel they have to do it and they don't.
Maybe they're right.
United mechanic-
My Reply...
thank you for informative note. I am not in Compuserve so thanks for note from inside newsgroup.
Regarding the opinion of the opinion makers, government, Boeing airlines, they may not be bad guys but they are acting like bad guys. They are taking the low road. With billions at stake maybe I would too. But I'm not in their shoes, I'm in mine and this defective door system needs to be fixed, like all mechanical problems.
This guy talking about trampled evidence is scary too. He's right on about the electrical harness and I'm going to put that on the web site about reasons why doors open, pinched electrical harness.
Another coincidence times four, the planes are talking on the radios when door opens. Too rare for chance, must be power pulse from transmitter or power supply. A real investigating team should be researching that angle and not trying to prove political acceptable center fuel explosion.
The mechanic refers to Flight 811 door opening and also a mysterious cargo door opening. That may be in the report also. I must put that on the web also. It's called the uncommanded door opening incident. I'm very interested in any cargo door information
new email...
Barry, there is a very large area of overlap between your interpretation of
PA103 and mine. Yes, we have agreed to disagree on the sequence of
explosion/hull-rupture, but we have agreed the fundamental pattern of the front
section of the a/c being ripped off in a manner which has certainly been
repeated.
>> Specifically what was covered up? <<
Two things. First that the US Govt was in possession of high quality
information which warned of the bombing of an American airliner in December from
Germany to the US. This information was not vague or cranky anonymous telephone
calls. It was very specific information which was acted upon. I can tell you
from personal experience (most of my family are from Long Island) that it is
very very difficult to find an available seat on a flight to/from New York in
the 5 or 6 days before Christmas. US Govt employees in West Germany were
specifically warned by their Embassy of the risk of terrorist attack upon the PA
flight and a very large number (100 or so) of them cancelled and rebooked on
other flights for exactly this reason. This information was also made
available to the Bureau of State Security in South Africa who took the
precaution of withdrawing General Malan and Van Tonder from the flight. The
bomb design was known in complete detail because the West German Security
service had found three (of the 4 or 5 which were made) during a raid on a
suspect address in Isarstrase, Neus. Full information about the bomb including
detailed photographs were supplied to PanAm security. Unfortunately all this
information was quite useless because PanAm were not able to examine baggage
which was part of the Controlled Delivery scheme and commercial pressures
precluded the airline from disclosing these warnings to passengers. It is, of
course, unreasonable to expect an airline to give such a warning to its
passengers. What you call the "tape recorder fantasy" did not start with a
fragment of plastic. As soon as the explosion occurred it was immediately
obvious to US Govt agents in London what had occurred. Locals in Lockerbie were
stunned by the rapidity (3 or 4 hours) with which US officials appeared in the
town and how they appeared to be extremely anxious to recover certain particular
suitcases as well as to isolate and identify 4 or 5 of the bodies. The local
Bobbies and the Police Surgeon (comparable to, though slightly different from, a
county medical examiner in the US) were appalled at the blatant interference by
the US officials and their unexplained tampering of material evidence at the
scene. These guys knew exactly what had happened to the aircraft and did not
mind (at the time) who knew that fact. This was not a routine plane crash. It
was immediately obvious to the US Govt (the Brits too) exactly what had happened
and how and why.
>> tiny bit of plastic became a timer <<
I do not see how the AAIB report could possibly mention the MEBO timer fragment
as the report was published in the Summer of '90 and the Vince Cannistraro
disinformation campaign did not even claim to have found that small PCB fragment
until later that year. Cannistraro had planned to use his little masterstroke
in the proposed show-trial of those two Libyan suckers, but when the Libyan Govt
agreed to their extradition to the Hague for a neutral trial by the
International Court of Justice they (the Libyans) showed the MEBO evidence for
what it was: a clumsy fraud. Uncle Sam and Aunty Britannia swiftly back-pedalled
on their demands for extradition although the official line for public
consumption is that those two goons are "fugitives from Justice".
The second item which was covered up was the cock-up which enabled the PFLP-GC
to make monkeys out of the CIA/DEA. There had been an illegal operation by
those agencies (in co-operation with the DIA) to obtain information about US
hostages in the Beka'a (Lebanon) in return for assistance in the import of drugs
(heroin) to the US. This seemed like a very sweet deal at the time because the
DEA were then able to follow the drugs through the wholesale/retail chain and
roll up the domestic distribution network. The Authorities were not only
allowing such contraband into the country, they were actively enabling such
shipments to bypass all normal airport scrutiny. The PFLP-GC took advantage of
this loop-hole and simply inserted the Toshiba bomb with the courier (Jafa'ar)
who was taking a shipment through to Detroit. Locals in the
Tundergarth/Bankshill area were astonished to hear official denials that any
drugs had been found amongst the baggage scattered across their fields, they
know better. If there were no drugs on that flight then it was probably the
first drug-free trans-Atlantic flight in decades!
Barry you asked about my statement " The only area of skin damage which shows
clear evidence of chemical explosive residue was just 20" by 16"." Yes, we are
looking at the same report (Yellow cover). I am as puzzled by your figure of 8"
x 48" as you are by my figure. I agree that we need our facts to agree so here
goes. Page 19 Section 1.12.2.1 says " A small region of structure bounded
approximately by frames 700 & 720 and stringers 38L & 40L, had clearly been
shattered and blasted through by material exhausting directly from an explosion
centred immediately inboard of this location. The material from this area,
hereafter referred to as the "shatter zone "... . Page G-2 says "...resulted in
a shattered region of some 18 - 20 inches in diameter, broadly comparable to the
size of the shattered region evident...". Figure F-12 shows a yellow shaded
patch described as "skin area directly affected by blast". I had visually
estimated the size of this patch to be 20" x 16". This afternoon I returned to
the Library (reference section, does not permit borrowing of books) to look up
your 8" x 48". I am puzzled. The only similar dimension I could find was on
page F-4 which describes a hole (8" square ... for some 50"). This refers to
baggage container number 7511 which is the one behind 4041 which was the one
which contained Jafa'ars bag(bomb) and not the fuselage skin. Let's not quibble
about a few inches (as the actress said to the Bishop). My surprise about the
20" x 16" hole does not mean to imply that that was the only damage to the
fuselage! The report's reference to and description of the blast effects and
shatter zone certainly does not contradict your theory, this much we have
already agreed.
>> Door opened first because of green diamond of radar blip (on right side of
plane, door side, not bomb side) happens before even and epr on engine 3, door
side, not bomb side, happened before event <<
This tangled prose creased my brow this morning. It raises two questions in my
mind. First of all what is the significance of the green diamond plotted on
Figs C-14 thru 23 ? I could not find a clear description in the text. What is
it? I know it is to the right (Stbd) of track, but with a 260 150Kt wind aloft
I would be surprised if much stuff did not go in that direction. Your reference
to "epr on engine 3" drew me to the FDR data extract which clearly shows a wee
blip on Engine 3's EPR trace about a minute and a half before the explosion. I
assumed that this was just a transient spike similar to the one shown by Engine
2 at about 24 and a half minutes into the flight. The AAIB should have written
something in the text of the report about this (#3) spike even if they believed
it was not relevant to the demise of the aircraft. You must have leapt ten feet
off your perch when you saw that trace! What exactly are your thoughts on that
pulse? Do you think that this was the ingestion of some component of the cargo
door? Interesting! The AAIB report states that the "absence of shingling
damage on blades of No. 3 engines was a reliable indication that it suffered no
ingestion until well into the accident sequence".
To return for a moment to the current investigation into TWA800. I think the
NTSB must be mad as hell that the AAIB Safety Recommendations (Section 4, Page
58 of the AAIB Report into PA103) were not implemented. Approximately 35,000
man-days effort have been expended so far in the investigation of TWA800 with
little conclusive evidence of causation. If the 5 recommendations (or even just
a few of them) had been implemented then I think there would have been ample
evidence to rapidly identify the cause and instantaneous effects of the TWA800
explosion.
I am surprised that the AAIB did not comment upon the fact that the PA103 cargo
door seems to have snapped so cleanly in half with each of the two parts being
found several hundred meters from the other. Is this relevant? They certainly
thought it relevant to mention the AD (Service Bulletin SB-53-2200) which
describes "Lower Cargo Doorway Lower Sill Truss and latch Support Fitting".
Presumably this is the AD which ensued after the PA LHR incident >>"There was a
AWD issued in spring 88 after a PAN AM 747-100 from LHR lost compression at
FL80.<< Barry, I think this is another piece of your jig-saw puzzle falling
into place. I happen to believe that PA103 reinforces your case that there is a
fundamental flaw in the design of the forward cargo hold and that the cargo door
mechanism is certainly the weakest point. I also believe that PA103 was
destroyed by a bomb. I do not see any conflict between my belief and yours.
The airline industry knows of three major risk points and is collectively
prepared to accept the consequences of those risks. These three risks are (in
no particular order):
i) The vulnerability of the forward cargo compartment of the 747
ii) The risk that ETOPS will lead to a double engine failure over the sea
iii) The progress towards fly-by-wire (expounded foremost by Airbus
industries) will lead to a catastrophic control failure
The Industry knows that each of these "risks" WILL lead to the loss of an
airliner with great loss of life. Their insurers know that too. It is factored
into the cost of doing business. This harsh reality is not openly discussed for
very obvious reasons.
I read in this morning's New York Times that the FBI claim to have found traces
of Nitrate (PETN) from somewhere between seat rows 17 and 28. First of all,
don't hold your breath. 4 or 5 days after the TWA800 went down I think we were
given a very similar report which was subsequently denied/cancelled/withdrawn.
In the Seventies here in Britain (actually it was the English, in our Scottish
legal system this could not have occurred) we convicted 6 IRA terrorists to life
imprisonment on the basis of only two pieces of evidence. Exhibit One was the
confession they signed. The jury were not shown the jail photographs of the
severely beaten faces of the accused. Exhibit Two was the forensic evidence
which showed that they had all been handling Nitrate based explosives. It took
15 years for the Home Office (=Attorney General's Office) to admit that that
chemical test would also show a positive result for traces of cellophane and
that the Crown evidence at the trial had said that the accused had been observed
playing cards on a train which was travelling away from the bomb scene
(Birmingham, I think). When it came to Press attention that not only had one of
the accused bought the pack of cards at the railway station, but also that the
Cellophane wrapping gave a false positive reading on the Nitrate test, the
accused were released from prison without apology. The other thing about this
NYT report that grabs my attention is the co-incidence that the AAIB report
mentions (page 31) that "the bodies of 10 passengers were not recovered and of
these, 8 had been allocated seats in rows 23 to 28. Co-incidence or
happenstance?
My reply...
>there was no bomb in the forward pit of PA103.
Let's agree to disagree. And it could have been a bomb. I never said it could not have been a bomb. It could have been a bomb. I am saying the inadvertent opening of the door tore nose off and caused crash. Now what caused the door to open. Door opened first because of green diamond of radar blip (on right side of plane, door side, not bomb side) happens before even and epr on engine 3, door side, not bomb side, happened before event. Now, bomb, or as report says, improvised explosive device, caused hole in side of fuselage 8 inches by 48 inches, where did you get 20 inches by 16 inches. Are we looking at same report, AAIB yellow cover? Did you read about the mild blast shatter zone etc? If we disagree about conclusions about facts we need our facts to agree first. The report then goes on to stretch this small hole into bringing down plane with fantastic nonsense about reflected mach stem waves going through air conditioning ducts. Total nonsense and the reports says things like we are not exactly sure how this works etc.
The tape recorder fantasy started with tiny bit of plastic. A tiny bit of plastic then became timer for cassette recorder filled with plastic explosive. Total fabricated nonsense by people who want it to be bomb and unsupported by evidence, just wishful thinking.
There was a blast in the cargo hole. I say it was caused by enormous explosive decompression that caused friction to set of charge of....shotgun, or bullets, or flares, or fire fighting explosive, or bomb for chrissake. It was muffled by clothes, by baggage container, by skin and made small hole. No items are listed with any plactic explosive despite the report saying there were. The only explosive residue is found on container and skin and is called explosive residue.
And the last thing is, the pattern of 182, 103 800 811 all fit door opening, so they are all random bombings that just happen to hit early 747s with bomb just happened to be place in right spot in forward cargo hold and goes off during pressure differential mode of flight. It could happen and the number 17 can come up five times in a row in roulette too.
Or it could be all four are caused by reproducible mechanical fault to occur to similar type aircraft at similar flight modes giving similar destruction pattern started at similar point on fuselage, the cargo door.
Which more likely? Only by looking at the trees can the forest be seen. One tree, 103 could be bomb, but the forest says cargo door.
But, let's leave 103 out of discussion of 800 811 and 182 if you want, or bring it in, it's OK. The fact to be decided is there a structural weakness in 747s that is causing the nose to be shorn off and crashing. I say yes.
I understand the consequences of grounding 747s as you so clearly described and I say, so what? Pay the money, fix the planes and get on with it. But the people who pay the money, read power, say no, rather a few hundred people die once in a while than ruin my day.
Thanks for the AVsig stuff, it is important because it is unfiltered observations and not opinions. He also brings in new noise to be examined, the whine/ whoosh of the motor which could be the start of the mystery sound which is the telltale clue to all door openings.
Interesting about the baggage handler, screwed up his life wrongly. I hope not me next.
>There was a AWD issued in spring 88 after a PAN AM 747-100 from LHR lost
>compression at FL80.
Would love to know the details on that one.
Quoting new email...
Hang in there.

I was on a computer graphics team that developed computer animation
sequences for a documentary about UAL811. The animation sequences showed
how the door latching mechanisms work for the cargo door in question.

At that time, the official story was that a ground handler had damaged
the latching mechanism and/or not closed the door properly. The father
of a New Zealand teenager killed on the flight argued against this, and
as a result, the TVNZ documentary was commisioned, presenting his theory
that an electrical failure initiated the door opening sequence with the
'L' shape of the locking latches making them susceptable to deformation.

In order to create the animation sequences, we had to study and
understand the issues involved. We then predicted that if the door was
found, what the relative positions of the cams and interlocks would be,
and that the L locking bars would be deformed by the backdriven cams.

The documentary was rebuffed by United, who said that that they were
aware, prior to the accident, that the L locks could be deformed by
initiating the door open sequence while locked, and that a modification
had been issued to strengthen them. As that modification had *apparently*
been fitted to 811, we were "therefore" wrong. In addition, local
airlines said that a special 'strengthening' modification had been fitted
to their fleet of B747's, "therefore" it was okay to keep flying.

But when the door was retrieved, the locks were deformed as predicted,
and the cams were in the positions we predicted. Obviously, if fitted,
the modification was not strong enough. This meant that it could happen
again, and I was approached by TVNZ to say so on camera. I did so but
did not realise the personal and professional cost that would occur as a
result.

I was not aware that the NTSB had changed their position, and I cannot
tell you the personal feeling of relief, vindication and resolution that
I felt reading their revised executive summary at your web site. Thank
you very, very much.

But now, the horrifying feeling that our words will continue to go
unheeded, and that more people will die - especially when we hear
airlines continuing to say that they are "okay" because they have fitted
the "special" strengthening mod.
new email...

I am very familiar with Lockerbie, both the locality and the circumstances
surrounding PA103. family spoke of that dreadful night with a horror that is hard to describe.
Of course newspapers and television use discretion when publishing photographs
of crash-sites. They usually publish photographs of a teddy-bear or a broken
doll to symbolise the human casualties. The image that we all associate with
PA103 is that famous one of the flight deck section 'Maid of the Seas' lying on
its port side in Jim Wilson's field on the North side of Tundergarth churchyard.
The visual memory that the locals have is less sterile: it is of the vast
quantity of human flesh littering the countryside, on the roofs, in the
gutterings, on rosebushes, in the mouths of dogs etc.
Horror turns to grief and grief turns to anger. You are quite correct about the
surviving ground victims being screwed over compensation, but that is not the
cause of the seething resentment amongst many here in the UK. There is no doubt
that there WAS a major cover-up of a large amount of circumstantial evidence by
US government agencies with the connivance of the UK govt. The official line
that two Libyan spies did the bombing is blatant horse-shit. That convenient
explanation did not come about until long after Lockerbie. Not until the
geopolitical effects of Desert Storm did it become 'necessary' to ease off the
belligerence towards Syria and Iran who were the prime suspects for the placing
of any bomb and the fabrication of a 'case' against those two Libyans.
The part of your argument with which I disagree is your apparent assertion that
there was no bomb in the forward pit of PA103. However there may be some area
of overlap between your theory and my understanding of what happened if one
assumes that the cause of the door popping was the detonation of 12 ounces of
Plastique. This afternoon I spent an hour in my local library studying the AAIB
report to which your HomePage refers. I found nothing that would contradict
their conclusion, but I did find a couple of very interesting things of which I
was unaware. The only area of skin damage which shows clear evidence of
chemical explosive residue was just 20" by 16". That is about twice the area of
my PC keyboard. All the rest of the aircraft breakup was a direct result of a
20" x 16" hole. Bloody hell! If the aerodynamic forces arising from such a
perforation can bring down a 747, then what happens if the forward cargo door
opens in flight? The other interesting thing was that the AAIB had recommended
that CVRs and FDRs should be fitted with a battery power source and/or
non-volatile RAM so that investigators of future accidents would be able to
identify and anayse pressure pulses in order to establish whether an explosive
decompression was a cause or an effect of hull disintegration. Clearly this
recommendation has not been implemented. The NTSB seem to have found no useful
information at all from the TWA recorders.
John, there is no doubt in my mind that PA103 suffered a rapid chain of events
which started with an explosion of a bomb in a Toshiba radio/cassette. I can
even tell you who carried the bomb to the aircraft. Khalid Nazzir Jafa'ar
seated in 53K, escorted by Matthew Gannon (CIA station chief in Beirut who
joined the flight at Heathrow) had taken the bomb aboard as part of a
'Controlled Delivery'. Jafa'ar had received the bomb (which had been assembled
in Neus by Marwin Kreesat as part of a contract being supervised by Hafeez
Dalhomani upon the instructions of Ahmed Jibril) in Frankfurt from Mohammed
Al-Hourani. The only official US Govt acknowledgement of the NSA/DIA/DEA
operation which went so horrendously wrong is on the memorial of Special Forces
Captain Currie which states that he was killed "in the line of duty". Major
Chuck McKee is known to have been furious at the fact that US Government
agencies were actively co-ooperating with known drug smugglers and had been a
vociferous dissident against the Ollie North / Vince Cannistraro policy in the
Lebanon and the whole SpAG operation. The Lockerbie crash is a separate matter
from the Air India/TWA800/UA811 disasters and I believe that although there is
much to be compared amongst all three Cases (4 incl SAA), the fundamental and
ugly truth remains that the public has been misdirected by Government interests
for profoundly dishonourable reasons in the PA103 case. There remains a
horrible vacuum when one looks closely at the vexed matter of 747 'Classic'
forward cargo doors.
It is so much easier for the human mind (or a plurality thereof) to externalise
(big bad wolf outside) such a problem rather than turn inward and face something
truly horrible. The socio-economic consequences of admitting that there is a
life-threatening flaw in something as trustworthy as a 747 and grounding
hundreds of "jumbos" are almost unimaginable. First there is the chaos to the
world air-travel network caused by the sudden (albeit temporary) withdrawal of
800(?) a/c each of which would normally carry 300-400 people while remedial work
is carried out. Then there is the awful prospect of revisiting the "probable
cause" (NTSB catchphrase not mine) of three or four other disasters together
with all the GigaBuck litigation which would consequentially arise. Then there
is the longer term (decade?) consequence of a massive loss of consumer
confidence not only in the 747, but also in other Boeing (for which you may read
American) products. Boeing have a serious competitor in the shape of Airbus
Industries and although no aerospace Company is stupid enough to overtly
capitalise upon the safety misfortunes of another, business is business. The
European company would (for a while at least) clean up the marketplace. The
cost to America (Inc) would be measured in either ten$ or hundred$ of Billion$.
Once again this is not a conspiracy, just a manifestation of the common good.
There is another interesting chap who is participating
actively in the discussion, he was aboard the United 811 flight that you have
referred to. In fact he and his wife were seated in Row 12 from which some
other passengers were sucked to their deaths. Once again I'll just include the whole message in full without
any editing at all.
>>>
Thanks for your comments,Did you know there was a UAL mechanic on 811?
I never did get his name at the time. He was on his way to AKL from LAX to beef
up the AKL staff.
<<We put a 747-400 cargo door on it after the accident and it's in service now
as N4724. Used to be N4713.>>
In fact a couple of years ago, I was getting into a UAL 747 in TPE and
next to us was a 747 with a big patch over door 1R. I asked the purser if that
plane was the "infamous" 811 (told her why I wanted to know). Within 60 seconds
I was in the flight deck talking to the flight crew, one of which had flown the
new N4724 a couple of times. If any choice, I would not fly on N4724!
<<..it's the FAA that puts out airworthiness directives.>>
You are totally correct
<< The cargo door was closed properly by the baggage handler.>>
Yes, but shamefully this guy was abused by NTSB, UAL, FAA, everyone until the
cargo door was pulled from the ocean floor (14,000 ft the second deepest salvage
in history). I had heard from some of my HNL crew friends he has or had
suffered some real problems.
<< The way I heard it, the arcing probably took place during a bumpy taxi to
takeoff, and the door moved a little bit. I'm not sure whether the light in the
cockpit came on or not, but once it was in the air the force of the airstream
pulled it all the way off.>>
this door motor opened this door starting a few seconds before it blew
because we heard the characteristic whine, then a rush of air like an aerosol
can (hate that sound still), then a loud thump and then explosion. There was no
warning light in the flight deck as confirmed by all. Plus there was definite
burning on the door frame where the truss passes from door to mainframe (I have
a picture of this).
<< Did you ever make it to Auckland?>>
HA HA :-) BBBG. I was pretty banged up, walking wounded so not doing much. We
were in HNL 2 days when my wife finally broke down for about two hours. At 1800
we went to a gathering of other Business class survivors. We all got smashed
and at about 2030 one of the group called UAL and said to prepare 9 first class
seats tonight (FLT 811 leaves at 0145); we were going to NZ. And they did and
we did. You never saw such a bunch. The crew was super (what little I can
remember). Spent the next day trout fishing, but was so wounded I was unable to
reel in a fish. Returned to USA 8 days later and flying was very difficult
(still is at times).
<< My impression was that there were many who seemed too willing to place the
blame on a baggage handler at the outset rather than Boeing design or our
maintenance>>
You are correct, refer my earlier comment
<< I think Boeing and others knew about a problem before the door blew off,
because I heard we had modified (cargo door mod) all but two of our 747s before
the accident. One of our unmodified 747s at the time was the aircraft involved
in the accident, N4713. I think Boeing may be in the courts presently over this
prior knowlege or late implementation or something like that, but I'm not
sure.>>
There was a AWD issued in spring 88 after a PAN AM 747-100 from LHR lost
compression at FL80. On returning to LHR discovered the cargo door open one
inch. PAA was so concerned they made a fix on all 747 by replacing the lock
sectors with stronger steel. The AWD gave the carriers 18 months to do the fix
which was later available from Boeing. From my understanding UAL had retrofited
only 2 of their fleet prior to the UA-811 incident. BTW, this particular door
had had a history of problem operation up until DEC 88 (it blew Feb 24, 89) and
evidence a hammer was used to get it to operate and lock. Also, believe all
survivors brought suit against Boeing and UAL in Federal court.
There are lots of interesting things about this incident.
My reply...It
>was immediately obvious to the US Govt (the Brits too) exactly what had happened
>and how and why.
Well, we have a different read on that observation. My read is the the US wanted bomb from day one and made it a bomb. Could be to protect Boeing from product liability which is what is happening again on TWA 800.
Warning, shmarmings, they probably got dozens of warnings, doesn't mean they did it, and your claims are unsubstantiated. Tell me what a good quality warning is. 'Something bad is going to happen to a US airline over christmas' is not a good quality warning.
The State department gives warnings like it gave then all the time, they just predicted one and I don't believe your number of 100 employees canceled or so.
You're using activities of outsiders to deduce what happened inside. They are independent of the variables causing the destruction. Hell, maybe one of them had a dream of an air crash, does that mean the dreamer had inside information. Too far into the conspiracy world. CIA, drugs etc, too weird.
>Full information about the bomb including
>detailed photographs were supplied to PanAm security.
This statement is complete bullshit. Show me as I have shown you on the web site. Show me photographs of bomb and I'll put them on the web site, bomb.html. Here are the pictures of the bomb.
>I do not see how the AAIB report could possibly mention the MEBO timer fragment
>as the report was published in the Summer of '90 and the Vince Cannistraro
>disinformation campaign did not even claim to have found that small PCB fragment
>until later that year.
Well, what's going on? How can a report refer to something that wasn't discovered until later?
I heard the fragment was found six months later in the clothes of someone in the bomb baggage container. And then has so handy serial numbers on the fragment. Fishy.
We agree that the official report is malarkey and disagree to what happened actually. Well, I'm sure any airliner with 300 people in it has murders, spies, adulters and movie stars. The cargo door didn't care about that. It opened first because of the green diamond radar blip and destruction pattern was greater on right side and the destruction pattern matches 811 a confirmed cargo door accident. Now what opened the door? Could have been a bomb, yes. Could have been a bomb, yes. I'll always say, it could have been a bomb that opened the cargo door. 800, cargo door opened. Could have been bomb that caused door to open. 811 cargo door and the official line is electrical short to door control mechanism but could have been a bomb that opened the door, the bomb was blown out with the door and all trace of it disappeared. All three cargo doors could have been opened by bombs. yes.
Ah, drugs in airliners, betrayals, abbreviations, it's exciting but where's the evidence? I give evidence for my conclusions.
>The PFLP-GC took advantage of
>this loop-hole and simply inserted the Toshiba bomb with the courier (Jafa'ar)
>who was taking a shipment through to Detroit.
Proof, please.
18-20 inch shatter zone is based on standoff distance of 25 to 27 inches, so it's a guess based on a guess.But let's assume 19 inch shatter zone, very small and not likely to bring down plane, depressurize it, yes, tear off nose, no. The mach stem nonsense is stretching too far but they need it for bomb theory.
Thank you for correcting me, the 8 inches by ten inches is indeed the relatively mild blast exiting a container and punched that size hole in an adjacent container. Hey, how can a mild blast blow through a suitcase, through a container, through another container, then throw skin of plane and then have enough power to tear nose off. Impossible, even with a 19 inch hole which is growing each time it is talked about. The drawing of petalling is not substantiated with pictures, a glaring oversight, It's an autopsy of gunshot wound to head and no picture of head, just drawing. Fishy.
But explained because there was no petalling, just wishful thinking to make this shotgun blast looks like big damn bomb. I agree a blast occured which pitted metal and made hole in fuselage. That was the red herring that led investigators astray. Have the cargo door decompression set off your cassette bomb if you like.
Why doors open in flight is a question I am open for discussion. On my page I include bomb as possible reason.
Thanks again for close reading of yellow book. There is much more in there to link 103 to 800 to 811. They are birds of a feather. The scary part is the two Air India planes all sound too familiar.
I have a lot to do in updating the pages to reflect your new found linkings and sizes. 19 inch hole in side of fuselage.
>First of all what is the significance of the green diamond plotted on
>Figs C-14 thru 23 ? I could not find a clear description in the text.
Clear description in text is found on page C11 "There was a single primary return received by both Great Dun Fell and Claxby radars approximately 16 seconds before SSR returns were lost. The return was only present for one paint and no explanation can be offered for its presence." Well, Chris, I offer explanation, it is the damn door spinning away and they got it on radar, just like 811 and just like 800, all confirmed radar blips just before destruction. I have made the incredibly insightful deduction that a metal object reflects radar beams, 811 reflected radar beam and that is how they found the door under the ocean, saw it on radar and figured winds etc and got splashdown point. So if it was on 811, and 800 talks about mystery blip and 103 talks about mystery blip, let's call them all doors. It fits. Too much of a coincidence that 800 and 103 have radar anomlies just before destruction.
I'll tell you another scary thing, the crews were talking on the radios every time the door opened. Too often for a coincidence. I think that's the trigger.
> The other thing about this
>NYT report that grabs my attention is the co-incidence that the AAIB report
>mentions (page 31) that "the bodies of 10 passengers were not recovered and of
>these, 8 had been allocated seats in rows 23 to 28. Co-incidence or
>happenstance?
No, common sense, door opens out they go into engine 3, I call those the magic seats, sit in there and you disappear.
>i) The vulnerability of the forward cargo compartment of the 747
>ii) The risk that ETOPS will lead to a double engine failure over the sea
>iii) The progress towards fly-by-wire (expounded foremost by Airbus
>industries) will lead to a catastrophic control failure
iv. The computer in Air bus will fail. Naw not fail but decide not to give the pilot what he wants, like power. The power program was done by guy on ground not scared shitless pilot asking for all the power the plane has to get him out of trouble. Computer denies request, plane crashes, has happened three times so far that I can count. I call them computer crashes, all on Airbuses.
Well, let's concentrate on doors for now, do we agree doors opened on 811, 800 and 103, why they opened could be any reason, including bombs on all, or two, or one, or none. If I say it could be a bomb on 103 that opened door, you can say it could be electrical short that opened door on 103. The blast we can talk about, but after door opened, or before, damn it.
The problem you will run into is three perfectly similar cases and one of them for sure is cargo door. It follows that more likely all cargo doors than one bomb and two doors, or two bombs and one door. Impossible three bombs, most likely three doors.
Bombs go off in 747s before and don't blow it out of sky, it puts hole in side and plane lands, so bomb does not mean for sure blown out of sky. It means maybe blown out of sky, just like door open means maybe blown out of sky. Here's the problem, murder victims can't talk.
My mind is spinning.
new email...
The warnings to which I referred were very specific and were taken very
seriously by the Authorities at the time. It was known that Iran had vowed an
act of revenge (tit for tat) against America in retaliation for Vincennes
blowing up a civilian airliner on a scheduled flight within an International
airway with great loss of life. Their religion demands such "justice". It was
known that a contract ($10M) had been awarded to the Ahmed Jibril group to
execute this act. Abu Nidal in Libya was mightily pissed off about this, Arabs
are worse than Scots when it comes to internal feuding! He passed information
to the Western Security Services in an attempt to torpedo his rival (Ahmed
Jibril). Now, the specific intelligence warnings have not all been placed in
the public domain, presumably for very good reasons, but one of the most
accurate ones (there were others) which has come to light was the warning on the
8th of December '88 to the American Embassy in Helsinki that a woman would carry
a bomb onto an American (the country not the airline, I think) airliner in
Frankfurt bound for New York. This warning (which did not exist in vacuous
isolation) was passed to Pan Am in London as well as being circulated amongst
all US citizens whose status in West Germany gave them access to Embassy
information and was supplied to the FAA/CAA and other interested parties. PanAm
(contrary to subsequent claims) took this very seriously and sent a senior
official from their London office security department to liaise with his
Frankfurt opposite number and proceed to the US Embassy in Helsinki for a
detailed briefing. For very obvious reasons, PanAm clammed up on this subject
after Lockerbie. The extant US Ambassador in London, Charles Price, stated at a
press conference soon after the explosion that the Grosvenor Square Embassy had
received this 'advisory' warning on the 9th of December and had taken it
seriously enough to disseminate it throughout the US Embassies in the UK and
West Germany and had formally submitted it to all US carriers in Western Europe.
Generals Malan and Van Tonder took their own separate warning even more
seriously which specifically mentioned PA103 and they urged Pik Botha to rebook
onto the earlier PA101. They then travelled separately in order to reduce risk
exposure. These Quality warnings were not "dozens of warnings that something
bad is going to happen over Christmas" as the State Dept would have us believe.
The cluster of cancellations which occurred mostly amongst Govt employees and
their families in the second and third week of December was real, not an
artifact of stochastic probability. If you choose to believe that those 150 (or
whatever is was) empty seats were occupied by teddy-bears and dolls then we have
both overestimated eachothers intellect.
You have posed a very revealing question when challenging my assertion that
PanAm (and others) had photographs of the Toshiba. I have thought very hard and
reached deep into my memory and I must admit that I cannot remember where (I
think) I saw such a picture. The best I can offer is that perhaps I saw a
picture on TV on some kind of report about Lockerbie a few years ago.
The whole subject of the warnings of PA103 is something that I know rather
little about. I have just (Sunday evening) telephoned Dr Jim Swire whose
daughter Flora was killed aboard PA103 and who is a leading member of the UK
relatives group. He has done a great deal of research into the causes and
consequences of 103 and appears on television here in the UK from time to time.
I called him to ask if he knew of such a photograph and whether it was true that
PanAm had received it before the departure of 103. He confirmed that the
photograph exists and that he is in possession of a copy of it. We had a
lengthy chat (nearly an hour) about the whole subject and particularly about the
US/UK fabrication of evidence against Libya. I learned a great deal, some of
the things he told me cast more doubt in my mind than was there before. He is a
very intelligent man and is extremely interesting to talk to. He is departing
this evening for a two week holiday on the Isle of Skye where Flora is buried,
but when he returns he will send me a copy of the photograph which I will relay
to you for your HomePage as you requested. Dr Swire planted a couple of
thousand trees as a living memorial to his daughter and the Ordnance Survey
(Britains National Mapping Authority) have agreed to plot the name (Flora's
Wood) on the published maps. When I mentioned that I'm a PPL he asked if I
would take him flying over his wood so he can photograph it from the air to show
the F shape of oak trees that is concealed amongst other species and is not
visible from ground level. Although it will mean a several hundred mile
round-trip flight for me, I have agreed to his request. I learned something
that has no been highlighted in any of the press coverage I have seen. A few
months ago it was discovered that the UK Government Forensic Laboratory at Fort
Halstead had found that there was a serious contamination problem in their
centrifuge apparatus. Lab technicians had been unaware of some component, a
grommet or somesuch, and had never cleaned it. It was normal practice to
calibrate the device with a known quantity of the target material (eg PETN, RDX
etc) immediately prior to examination of the sample to be analysed. Although the
machine was scrupulously cleaned between each measurement, this cleaning
procedure did not include this one particular component. Thus the sample being
analysed would be contaminated by the known substance and the test was likely to
give a false positive result. The only forensic examination of "explosive
residues" referred to in the AAIB report was conducted at this facility using
this equipment. Think about that. If the residue evidence is bogus then what
does that do for your theory! Could I be so bold as to make a suggestion,
Barry? Could I suggest that you do some research to independently verify that
this information is correct and consider adding this small piece of the jig-saw
to your HomePage.
I had travelled Eastbound on PA102 (fully booked) only a few days before I was
working near Rota on a seabed-search-and-recovery job (I am a Hydrographic
Surveyor) for what was then called Steadfast-Oceaneering which has Corporately
mutated into Oceaneering Technology aka Otech when we got the call from Virginia
that a 74' had gone down. The Company had (still has, Otech is currently
working for SUPSALV off LI) the DOD contract for immediate mobilisation for
seabed search. We rapidly got word that a US a/c had disintegrated at cruise
altitude on Amber One Northbound near Lockerbie, Scotland. My immediate
thoughts were twofold. The first thought was for my (then) partner, she had gone
to stay with her folks for the festive season due to my departure for a
protracted job in Spain. My second thought was that if the upper winds were
Northerly (common at that time of year) then we would be dispatched from Rota to
Carlisle for immediate search ops in the shallow waters of the Solway Firth. We
were soon stood-down and spent the next couple of months on our original task.
As I do not speak Spanish my only newssource as the time was Armed Forces Radio
being transmitted locally on the Base (idiotically called 'The Fever Station' by
the disc-jockeys, inevitably called the 'Beaver station' by us!) and of course
Stars & Stripes. The official line at that time was that the State Dept had
formally issued PanAm with detailed information warning of the plot to bomb
PA103. The feeling amongst my colleagues was that PanAm should have told all
passengers the same information that was given to US Govt personnel in the UK
and West Germany. I was in a minority of one (not uncommon for me when I am the
only Brit amongst a bunch of USN types!) in believing that it is unreasonable to
expect a commercial airline to alarm its customers in this way. Upon my return
to the UK I spent some time amongst the locals in Dumfriesshire and became
intrigued by their version of events. They had much to tell in the Pubs! The
horse-shit that was promulgated by the Authorities is held in contempt by the
locals who know better. The official version of events contains several blatant
lies and I get very angry when I see our side committing such fraud, we are
meant to be the Good Guys for Chrissake! I am pleased that I have never worked
on the recovery ops of any of the 747s as this means that I have no OPSEC
obligations at all. I have precisely zero inside information arising, directly
or indirectly, from my work. This means that I can expound my views with
impunity. I do have have views!! I think you share most of them, Barry!
Once again, you and I have to correlate what we are talking about. I said " I
do not see how the AAIB report could possibly mention the MEBO timer fragment as
the report was published in the Summer of '90 and the Vince Cannistraro
disinformation campaign did not even claim to have found that small PCB fragment
until later that year." To which you replied: >> Well, what's going on? How can
a report refer to something that wasn't discovered until later? I heard the
fragment was found six months later in the clothes of someone in the bomb
baggage container. And then has so handy serial numbers on the fragment.
Fishy.<<
We are talking about two different fragments. You are talking about the AAIB
reported plastic fragment of the Toshiba, I am talking about the purported PCB
fragment of the Swiss (MEBO) timer which the FBI/US Govt claim was found near
the Kildare forest. The fragments reported by the AAIB were small and were
noted for (sooty?) deposits which were declared to be consistent with explosive
residue. The fragment of something-or-other which the FBI claimed as proof of
Libyan blame for the event in the forward pit was only "identified" on the 15th
of June '90 and is the subject of hoots of derision in the Pubs amongst the beer
drinking members of the search party who combed the large area to the West of
Lockerbie and meticulously recovered every item that did not look like
sheep-shit. That search operation lasted about two weeks. It was not until
more than a year later that "the Yanks" turned up again and persuaded the local
(Dumfries and Galloway) Police to try to get somebody in the search party to
sign an affidavit that three items in small plastic bags had been found during
that search. Bob Ingram, a good beer drinker and an excellent chap, agreed to
sign for the three items. One of the small bags he was shown contained what he
reckons was a piece of cloth, another contained what looked like a fragment of
plastic from the shell of a brown Samsonite case and he cannot remember what the
third packet contained. He signed for the lot and regrets it. Fortunately the
horse-shit concocted by the CIA (I know you don't like such abbreviations so
I'll spell it C-a-n-n-i-s-t-r-a-r-o) was such patently obvious crap that even
the Crown Office and the White House staff cringed at the prospect of exposing
this bogus 'evidence' to International judicial scrutiny.
All this (my) talk of Lockerbie is beginning to feel as if I am expounding some
kind of theory. Let's get away from that for now and look at yours. I still do
not understand what you are saying about the green diamond. Are you suggesting
that the Engine#2 EPR blip at ~24.5' into the flight is related to the
Engine#3 EPR blip which occurred a minute and a half before the explosion? Are
you saying that the lower half of the Fwd cargo door popped 90 seconds before an
8.9psi pressure differential drop was noticed by the occupants? Are you saying
that the green diamond which appeared 16 seconds before the loss of CVR/FDR/SSR
was the second separation of the door? How did the hull preserve the 8.9psi
pressure differential until the vinegar stroke? What about the AAIB report (P&W
analysis) of the absence of shingling in Engine#3 which they believe indicated
the absence of FOD (other than a bloody great big punch in the face by the
high-rent district of a Jumbo --or words to that effect!).
Barry, I have still seen no evidence to contradict your fundamental thesis.
There was undoubtedly a concerted effort to cover up the circumstances of the
demise of PA103. There is a major problem of catastrophic failure of the
forward cargo door. The Safety Recommendations of the AAIB Report have not been
implemented. Nothing has changed. Nothing has been done by any of the ICAO
Authorities to ameliorate this 'risk'.
The similarities amongst Scare India 182, PA103, UA811 and TWA800 are
compelling evidence of commonality. Once is happenstance, twice is
co-incidence, three times is ... , four times is ... ?! What has been done to
prevent the next one? At the very least it is certain that more fare-paying
self-loading baggage is going be slurped by the Stbd inner fan of another 747.
At worst, and more likely, another total loss WILL occur.
The Air India crash off Ireland showed very clearly that the forward cargo door
came off. No evidence of a bomb was ever found. The circumstantial evidence
was extremely weak and revolved around a complicated tangle of late bookings,
cancellations, re-bookings and no-shows by people with the suspicious surname of
Singh! The physical evidence was unequivocal. I quote from Capt Stewarts
report written in 1986:
This text which is reproduced here without copyright permission is Copyright of
S. Stewart 1986.
"The sudden loss of electrical power and photographs of the front fuselage
section and the detached forward cargo door damage indicated an explosion in the
forward cargo hold. The other cargo doors were noticed to be intact and still
attached to the fuselage. ... The [CVR] recording, [scientific] dissenters
claimed, was more consistent with an explosive decompression, such as a cargo
door blowing out, than an explosive device"
When I sent my previous message 'Lockerbie' ~22:00UTC Fri 23rd I had not read
much of your HomePage. I subsequently had plenty of time to browse your
subpages more extensively and found that you have been aware of this 'risk' for
a number of years and you had accurately predicted that another 747 would go
down with exactly these symptoms. I have contemplated the gravitas of your a
priori dictum. To have been ignored and proven correct (most recently by TWA800)
is the hollowest imaginable victory. That such grief was forseeable and
foreseen, predictable and predicted, knowable and known is grievous indeed.
Rudyard Kipling wote in a poem called "The Secret of Machines" which describes
how machines talk back to humans:
But remember, please, the Law by which we live,
We are not built to comprehend a lie.
We can neither love nor pity nor forgive -
If you make a slip in handling us, you die.
My reply...

>on the
>8th of December '88 to the American Embassy in Helsinki that a woman would carry
>a bomb onto an American (the country not the airline, I think) airliner in
>Frankfurt bound for New York.
Not good quality. Poor quality. Rejected.
> I cannot remember where (I
>think) I saw such a picture.
The mockup of a cassette with yellow plastic explosive tucked in small box looks great and scary. It's an artist's interpretation, not real.
There exists no picture of the 'bomb' hole in the reconstructed fuselage of 103 either, a more serious glaring omission and I've looked and looked. There is a drawing way out of scale with the text with a hole. Artist's interpretation, not real.
I have just (Sunday evening) telephoned Dr Jim Swire whose
>daughter Flora was killed aboard PA103 and who is a leading member of the UK
>relatives group.
I have been trying to locate this man for months. He's the only one of the victim's families I would talk to if I had the chance. It appears you neglected to tell him the cause of his daughter's death, a serious glaring omission. He would be able to grieve for her without the hate.
Maybe he wants the hate of daughter being murdered, it helps his grief, and the truth of accident would make it more meaningless.
Well, if you telephone him again you might tell him that an experienced aviation person believes with documentation that his daughter died when a cargo door inadverently opened in flight setting off a decompression explosion which set off a mild charge of some explosive material which made small hole in side of nose which would have been an inconvencience to return to London safely but unfortunately the whole nose got torn off by huge hole a thousand times larger than blast hole which lets air in at 300 knots. The plane fell and disintergrated. She died.
Ask Dr. Swire to call, please. 408 659 3552
>he will send me a copy of the photograph
So what? It's obviously not the real one because the 'real' one blew up. This photograph is a model done under instruction from someone who deduced this fantasy of timer to plastic to cassette to luggage.
No proof of bomb. rejected. The word bomb is not in entire 103 official report. The whole bomb thing is easily rebutted by evidence presented in 103 report which you have access to. The reflected mach stem waves through air conditioning ducts is a real hoot.
>independently verify that
>this information is correct
No can do, Chris. It's a great story but too little too late. Probably true, lab contaminated sample on which fate of world resides. We live in dangerous times. If you give good evidence of course I'll put in on 103 section. I think there was mild blast in cargo hold after door blew. Like a shotgun maybe as the report suggests.
But no bomb brought down the huge hulk of 747. Bombs do go off on 747s and they return safely to land.
>The official version of events contains several blatant
>lies
Like what?
Number two fragment not mentioned in report and unknown to me. It is funny that small fragment turns up six months later.
> I still do
>not understand what you are saying about the green diamond
The green diamond is the green diamond on the chart which shows the radar track of 103. It goes along, then the green diamond, then the planes breaks up into little radar pieces.
The sequence shows normal, then door comes off, then plane disintegrates.
>Are you suggesting
>that the Engine#2 EPR blip at ~24.5' into the flight is related to the
>Engine#3 EPR blip
No, not related. engine 2 blip irrelevant. Engine 3 blip probably relevant, could be ingestion of cargo debris which led to shutdown of flight data recorder shortly thereafter.
>Are
>you saying that the lower half of the Fwd cargo door popped 90 seconds before an
>8.9psi pressure differential drop was noticed by the occupants? Are you saying
>that the green diamond which appeared 16 seconds before the loss of CVR/FDR/SSR
>was the second separation of the door? How did the hull preserve the 8.9psi
>pressure differential until the vinegar stroke?
Ok Chris, finally good questions that I have difficulty answering. I believe the timing mechanism are off or that indeed it took that many seconds to bring down liner. We think it happens in a split second but no it maybe took sixteen seconds for plane nose to tear off and rest of plane to disintegrate after full door opened and went.
The 90 second pressure drop?Where did you get that? Blip time to disintegration? Well, they noticed right away when their eardums all blew out as they sat their strapped into seats in a plane that soldiered on until nose tore off.
Good point is what is exact sequence after door blows off and gives green diamond. What is the loud sound time hack? The green door time hack? Should be very close in time. And maybe match epr engine 3 blip time. All within a second or two would be right. Difficult to determine but should be able to do within general time zone.
>shingling in Engine#3 I don't know what the hell they are talking about there with their interpretation but I do know report states blade tip rub on all engines and 3 had FOD. Shingling? I'm not sure.
The physical evidence was unequivocal. I quote from Capt Stewarts
>report written in 1986:
>This text which is reproduced here without copyright permission is Copyright of
>S. Stewart 1986.
>"The sudden loss of electrical power and photographs of the front fuselage
>section and the detached forward cargo door damage indicated an explosion in the
>forward cargo hold. The other cargo doors were noticed to be intact and still
>attached to the fuselage. ... The [CVR] recording, [scientific] dissenters
>claimed, was more consistent with an explosive decompression, such as a cargo
>door blowing out, than an explosive device"
Chris, where did you get this? This is incredible. Who is Captain Stewarts?
>But remember, please, the Law by which we live,
>We are not built to comprehend a lie.
>We can neither love nor pity nor forgive -
>If you make a slip in handling us, you die.
The plan is, you die.
My reply...
I've written to the NTSB today, laying it all out, here it is...
Dear Mr. ,
Well, back again. The issue is too large for emotion to blot out.
Maybe I'm an asshole, but so what? I am unimportant. Does the cause of an accident care about the discoverer? Does the messenger change the facts of the message? I would hope not.
So before we get to facts that we can agree on, let me again humble myself before you as a senior accident investigator and I am the amateur sleuth with a hot lead who goes around shouting, hey everybody, look at this, look at this; over exuberant, emotional, and making mistakes left and right. Really, I'm on my virtual hands and knees begging patience, understanding, and guidance. Forgive my abrasive personality. I swallow my pride in the goal of preventing airplane crashes.
I checked, upon your recommendation, the public information about NTSB and read the biographies of the Board members. And except for a few emotional moments of perceived bitter defeat after weak FBI explosive find, I have kept to facts.
We have basic differences between us; I was Navy, you were Air Force, I was navigator, you were pilot, I loved Catch-22, you probably hated it. So, rather than go into differences, let us agree on basic facts of the case. If you don't agree it's a fact because it's open to interpretation, then it gets thrown out. And if I don't agree it's a fact because it is open to interpretation then it gets thrown out. The interpretations get thrown into the interpretation pile.
Facts, facts, facts. Actually five facts that I ask that we agree on. From those basic fundamental, essential facts, conclusions may be drawn which may be correct, or at least more likely to be correct than conclusions drawn on guesses.
The facts I got from you, Mr. , you are the one who made the key called UAL 811 which I have fit into other crashes and am saying, hey, look it fits so far, let's try it further, need some help here. I am asking you to use your key of 811 to unlock other similar early 747 crashes. If true, great, we have solved the mystery. We will both go down Fifth Avenue in a parade with confetti everywhere and pretty girls running out to the limo and kissing us. And hope we don't get stuck in the eye by a thrown rose like Major -deCoverly of Catch-22 who then wore an eye patch. He's the one who refused to sign a loyalty oath before chow by saying, "Eat. Now."
Facts:
1. On 811 a radar blip fell from the plane during some destruction.
Support: The blips were tracked down to ocean to splashdown point and door found on ocean floor. Your official 811 report states radar blips were debris from plane.
2. On 811 at least ten missing persons sitting in forward fuselage were not found.
Support: Your 811 report states 9 passengers lost in flight. An extensive air and sea search for the passengers was unsuccessful. The passengers sat in seats 8H, 9FGH, 10GH, 11GH 12H.
3. On 811 a short loud bang was heard on the cockpit voice recorder then silence.
Support: Your official report states a loud bang could be heard on the CVR. The electrical power to the CVR was lost for approximately 21.4 second following the loud bang.
Ok, now that's three facts. I'm going slow here because this is very very important. Let us disregard emotion and conjecture and speculation to look closely at each word and agree on that word and not any implications, just the word. So far, I've said the three facts are; on 811 there was a radar blip during some destruction, under ten passengers sitting in forward fuselage were never found, and a short loud bang was heard on the CVR then silence. That's all so far, no more, no less.
4. On 811 engine number three had foreign object damage.
Support: Your official report states No. 3 engine exhibited extensive foreign object damage.
5. 811 was an early model Boeing 747 with high flight time.
Support: Your official report states Flight 811 was a Boeing 747-122, serial number 19875, the 89th built, and had 58,815 flight hours.
Well, Mr. , there they are, five facts that we can agree on. Do you agree with them? Exactly as they are, no more, no less. To review: 811 had radar blips during some destruction, under ten bodies never found, a short loud bang, then silence, engine number 3 Fodded, early model high time Boeing 747.
We know the cause of 811's moderate destruction, the inadvertent opening of the forward cargo door in flight. Support: Your report says probable cause was the sudden opening of the forward lower lobe cargo door in flight.
Ok so far, I believe. Now it gets harder.
Let's move to Pan Am 103 and stick to the facts and try to disregard seven years of daily emotional input about the evil bombers.
Facts that we can agree on are:
1. On 103 a radar blip fell from the plane during some destruction.
Support: Official report has strange blip from plane before destruction and many blips during destruction. Report has chart with radar blips showing destruction pattern. Mystery blip shown as green diamond.
2. On 103 at least ten missing persons sitting in forward fuselage were not found.
Support: Official report states the bodies of 10 passengers were not recovered and of these, 8 had been allocated seats in rows 23 to 28 positioned over the wing at the front of the economy section.
3. On 103 a short loud bang was heard on the cockpit voice recorder then silence.
Support: Official report states the tape ended with a sudden loud sound followed almost immediately by the cessation of recording.
4. On 103 engine number three had foreign object damage.
Support: Official report states No 3 engine intake area contained a number of loose items originating from within the cabin or baggage hold.
5. 103 was an early model Boeing 747 with high flight time.
Support: Official report states that 103 was a Boeing 747-121 serial number 19646, and had 72,464 flight hours.
Now, Mr. Schleede do you agree to the facts above? No conclusions yet, no conjecture, no musings, no speculation, no guessing. That's later in the interpretations section. This is the fact section. Facts unemotional, boring, slow, but let's be precise and correct. The fun part of what the hell does it all mean comes later.
Now to 800. I don't have your 811 NTSB official report nor the 103 United Kingdom Air Accidents Investigation Branch official report to support these facts so we can disregard them if you wish. I am using reputable news reports which are flimsy support at best but it's all I have and I use what I can. I need all the help I can get. If you can correct these facts, please do, sir. When the official 800 report comes out I can use it to support my facts and I can refer to it as your 800 NTSB official report because you are intimately involved again in the greatest aircraft accident mystery series ever to strike aviation. And you made the key to unlock the mystery, your 811 report.
1. On 800 a radar blip fell from the plane during some destruction.
Support: Newsday reports "law enforcement and aviation officials were particularly perplexed by an unidentified ''blip,'' signaling the presence of some object, that appeared on air traffic control radar near the plane just before the crash, a senior law enforcement source said. Authorities were repeatedly replaying recordings of the radar transmission ''but we are stymied,'' the source said.
2. On 800 at least ten missing persons sitting in forward fuselage were not found.
Support: News reports gives body count found on 800 and number of missing bodies is now at twenty and decreasing, but at least ten. News reports state: In all, a dozen of the 22 missing bodies were supposed to be seated between rows 18 and 28, where investigators are rebuilding a section of the aircraft located over the center fuel tank.
3. On 800 a short loud bang was heard on the cockpit voice recorder then silence.
Support: News reports state: 'So far, investigators have been frustrated in trying to decipher the only audible evidence of the blast, a sound heard for 130 milliseconds, or just over one-tenth of a second, before the recording abruptly ended.'
4. On 800 engine number three had foreign object damage.
Support: News reports state: The right inboard engine was relatively intact but suffered ``foreign object damage'' from debris sucked in while it was apparently still running. News reports state: Investigators completed a meticulous tear-down of the right inboard engine of TWA Flight 800 yesterday and sent debris that had been sucked into the apparently still-running engine to FBI and National Transportation Safety Board labs in Washington.
5. 800 was an early model Boeing 747 with high flight time.
Support: News reports state: 800 was Boeing 747-131. The TWA airliner was 25 years old and was among a group of aircraft required to undergo more frequent inspections for metal fatigue, cracks and other age-related stresses that might pose safety concerns.The airplane is one of the older 747s in service and was the 153rd of the model to roll off Boeing's assembly line in Seattle. News reports 800 had 16869 flight cycles. Actual hours unknown.
Regarding the five facts for 800, they are flimsy, subject to change and qualification, yes. So are all the facts but today, using the broad language as stated, I submit them to be true. Here they are again in total:
1. On 800, 103, and 811 a radar blip fell from the plane during some destruction.
2. On 800, 103, and 811 at least ten missing persons sitting in forward fuselage were not found.
3. On 800, 103, and 811 a short loud bang was heard on the cockpit voice recorder then silence.
4. On 800, 103, and 811 engine number three had foreign object damage.
5. 800, 103, and 811 were early model Boeing 747s with high flight time.
The mystery event we wish to identify is seen on radar, it is heard on recorder, it is felt by engine, it has known consequences of death, and it happens to the same kind of airplane.
What does it mean? Well, there we may go in different directions, but maybe not.
What does it mean? Well, pattern. Five strong, important, facts exist in three airplane crashes. And your report states the cause of one of them.
My conclusions are:
It is most likely that the cause of the other two crashes is the same cause as yours.
It is less likely, but possible, that the three airplanes have three different causes to explain the five facts.
It is even less likely, but possible, your report is wrong and the three airplanes have a same different cause for the five facts.
And of course, it is less likely, but possible, that your report is right for one cause and the other two crashes have a same different cause for the same five facts.
Why my conclusion? It is most likely that your cause of the one crash is the right one and the same cause exists for the other two because the cause is a mechanical event that can be reproduced accurately under similar conditions to similar airplanes to give similar results.
Other less likely causes would give variables such as different model aircraft, different engine fodded, different number of bodies missing, different sounds on voice recorder, different radar information. Different causes can give similar results but more likely similar cause gives similar results.
That is my point sir, we could all be right or wrong, but at this time, what is more likely? Where should the investigation proceed? Toward the most likely, or the less likely?
What are the basic aircraft investigator procedures? I don't know, I wish I did. Maybe I should go to school and learn and then people would not ignore me when I talk about airplane crashes and their causes.
I believe based upon the scant evidence of facts above, that the potential cause of the crash of 103 and 800 might be the same as 811, that is, the opening of the forward cargo door in flight. I recommend the cargo door be considered a prime suspect and be investigated to either rule the door in or to rule the door out.
May I jump ahead. The question now to me is, why do the doors open in flight? I have eleven reasonable answers, all requiring skill and objects beyond my capability. And yes, could be a bomb opening those doors. Yes, yes yes, could be a bomb opening the doors. Again possible, but less likely bomb to cause three events, and possible, more likely cargo door to cause three events. But could be bomb, it is one of the eleven reasonable explanations for why the doors open inadvertently.
Based upon the forward cargo hold being the danger zone of several fatal crashes, there is enough evidence to weld all the forward cargo doors shut until further notice. If it's bombs getting in to the sensitive area, then seal it shut. If it's a door opening, then seal it shut. The danger is diminished until further investigation.
If another door opens or another "bomb" goes off in forward cargo hold area, there will be questions like, Why didn't you recommend sealing off the forward cargo hold area when you knew trouble, either bombs or doors, always seems to start from there in Pan Am 103, UAL 811, TWA 800?
Let the airlines worry about revenue loss, you and I care about lives and safe planes.
Mr. , this is not wartime, not secret stuff, not VIPs, not embarrassing revelations; this is peacetime with a civilian airplane with civilians involved in US territory. Let us be open as can be. This is not CIA, FBI, DIA, NSA, Joint Chiefs of Staff stuff; this is civilian peacetime stuff. If we get shut out of this vital above board process now, we will never know what's happening when secret, coverup, shameful, illegal stuff goes on.
The FBI is releasing info every day. They are in a PR war for control and funds and they may win. The NTSB must fight back. Give the non bomb guys a chance. Give the non missile, non terrorists, non weirdo guys a chance to present our case. There are a lot of people out there who believe in a simple common sense explanation for a crash such as cargo door or something else. They are distressed to hear bomb bomb bomb everyday and how the terrorists are out to kill us. We need a rational voice out there with technical details.
My eighty year old father, who will never believe 103 was not a bomb, says, "We hear about a catastrophic mechanical failure possibility for TWA 800, but they never tell us what kind that could be." Well, sir, state that the NTSB is examining the possibility of a catastrophic mechanical failure such as open cargo door, or exploding nose wheel, or cockpit glass imploding or something to get the bomb guys away from your evidence and out of your pockets.
Mr Francis gives the general info to the general media as he should, he is the political appointee. You are the career professional investigator with the technical facts that the intelligent, reasonable public wish to know.
We know more about the inside of the secret FBI crime lab in Wash DC than we do about the inside of the four PW engines or unlocked or locked cargo door latches.
You are technically knowledgeable with email, and I hope reading my web site and newsgroups. Use the internet to get out technical info to the informed public. Use newsgroups, start your own web site from NTSB home page, answer requests for interviews by AVweb, send me email with permission to put on web site with source name.
Let the FBI use all this anonymous secret crap, they live on fear.
Let the NTSB be open and forthright by living of facts.
What is the goal? The goal is to prevent death. We prevent death by not allowing airplanes to crash. We prevent airplanes from crashing by eliminating the causes. We eliminate the causes by finding out what they are. We find out what they are by using the benefit of hindsight, superior information collection and dissemination called the internet, remembering experiences of our own flying days, and acquiring education. Then we add common sense and gut feelings.
I have a gut feeling that 800 was not a bomb but a cargo door opening in flight that tore nose off.
I have a gut feeling that 103 was a mild cargo blast but a cargo door opening in flight that tore nose off.
I have a gut feeling that 811 was a cargo door opening in flight almost tearing nose off.
There is a reason why the first page of my 80 page site has a picture (that you may have taken, Mr. ,) of the huge gaping hole of 811 where the cargo door peeled back skin and left this big, black hole in side of nose open to 300 knot slipstream. That is truth. That is what happens for real when door goes. People really die when door goes.
...And blip shows up on radar, and engine 3 fodded, and at least ten bodies never recovered, and a loud bang heard on voice recorder, and yes, that picture of 811 is of a early model Boeing 747 with high flight time.
Please, please, please, pursue cargo door angle. Whatever you do to rule causes in or out, please do it for the cargo door. Please keep public informed of your activities. Please correspond with me using email. Please find cause of 800 crash.
Sincerely, John Barry Smith
Well, I kept it basic, let's hope it works. And I never even mentioned Scare India 182. Will truth out? That is the question.
new email...
In this message I shall address the following topics:
i) The Helsinki warning
ii) The Toshiba photograph
iii) Sketch and photograph of the 103 "bomb-hole"
iv) Dr J Swire
v) PA103 AAIB timeline and matters arising
vi) Captain Stanley Stewart
vii) Your action plan
First of all, Barry, let me say that I am beginning to have misgivings about
your style of investigation and your apparently unscientific approach to
research.
The 'Helsinki Warning' (which was only one of several) was taken very seriously
by its recipients at the time and turned out to be almost completely accurate in
every respect except the gender of the bomb courier. The phrase "Not good
Quality, poor quality, Rejected" was probably used by some recipients of your
own warning (documented as far back as 1992, I believe) which correctly
predicted the demise of a 747. Hindsight shows that both warnings were correct.
There are those who sneer at such warnings. There are those whose agenda leads
them to deny such warnings. The provenance of such warnings is not known to me,
but I am interested in their proven existence because of their proven
correctness.
A couple of messages ago I stated that one of the warnings to PanAm included a
photograph of a Toshiba Cassette/Radio bomb (or IED in the jargon). Your
riposte to that statement said that "this statement is complete bullshit". I
recoiled from your riposte because I could not remember where I had seen that
photograph and knew that I could only have seen it on television which we all
know is a lousy source of information. You effectively challenged me to source
that information saying that you wanted to publish such a picture on a SubPage
of your WebSite. I rose to your challenge while acknowledging the limits of my
knowledge and resourcefulness. I contacted Dr Swire in my attempt to confirm
whether (or not) I had imagined the press report that PanAm had been presented
with that photograph by Govt Int agencies. He confirmed that such a photograph
had been supplied to PanAm (and other US air carriers) prior to the departure of
PA103 on the 21st December 1988 and told me that he had obtained a copy of that
photograph in the course of his investigations into the truth of the events that
surround his daughters death. Your reply to me after my having told you of this
does you no credit.
You said >>>" The mockup of a cassette with yellow plastic explosive tucked in
small box looks great and scary. It's an artist's interpretation, not real. "<<<
and >>> This photograph is a model done under instruction from someone who
deduced this fantasy of timer to plastic to cassette to luggage. No proof of
bomb. rejected. <<<
The photograph to which I referred (and your consequential response thereof) was
given to PanAm by the Intelligence agencies by the BKA (West German Criminal
Police) who had raided a cell of Ahmed Jibril in Isarstrase, Neuss, arrested one
or more members, confiscated the assembled bomb, photographed it and, to their
subsequent chagrin and acute embarassment, allowed most of the suspects to go
free. Your statement that the bomb which was confiscated and photographed and
which turned out to have been (to the certain knowledge of the Western Int
agencies - see 'Op Autumn Leaves') one of a series constructed (by (I think)
Marwin Kressat) was not the actual one which exploded on PA103 is facile. The
authorities were in possession of detailed, accurate, valid and correct
information about the design, construction and intent of the series of bombs.
The photograph to which I refer was produced by counter-terrorist Police
*BEFORE* PA103 and is not an artists impression. That photograph was in the
hands of Western (including, I think PanAm) Security Authorities. Your sneering
at these facts does you no credit.
You claim that the AAIB report contains " no picture of the 'bomb' hole in the
reconstructed fuselage of 103 either, a more serious glaring omission and I've
looked and looked. There is a drawing way out of scale with the text with a
hole. Artist's interpretation, not real."
The Skin Fracture Plot Figure B-21 of the PA103 AAIB report is drawn
meticulously to scale in both axes as is the one on Fig F-12 which you and I
have already discussed in the context of your earlier blooper about the AAIB
stated size of the skin area directly affected by blast. The two A4 sized
colour photographs of the AAIB 3-D reconstruction of the forward fuselage of the
airframe published as Figs B-16 and B-17 clearly (most particularly in B-17)
show the hole in the fuselage to which you refer as the 'bomb hole'. The colour
photograph in FigB-15 titled "Detail of shatter zone of fuselage" is exactly
what you say is an 'omission'. Denial of the existence of such published
evidence does you no credit.
You say that "I have been trying to locate this man [Dr Swire] for months".
This does you no credit at all, Barry. You are the sleuth not me. How come I,
with no experience of, or training in, investigative research took about sixty
seconds to find his home phone number? It's a listed number for Chrissakes! I
simply picked up the telephone handset, dialled Directory Enquiries and asked
for his number.
I talked to the chap for about an hour and told you so. You say that I "appear"
not to have discussed the forward cargo door problem and its likely candidacy as
the cause of the destruction of PA103 and several other 747s. I take this
stupid slander as a personal insult against myself. Do you really think (after
all I have have read and written about my certainty that there is a problem with
the 747 Forward Pit Door) that in an hour of conversation with the worlds most
distinguished amateur investigator into the causes of the PA103 disaster near
Lockerbie I would not have talked extensively about my belief that the forward
cargo door is probably the single most important common factor? You give my
intellect no credit. Your assertion also does your own intellect no credit
either.
I do not share your opinion that Dr Swire is motivated or characterised by hate.
That was not my impression of the man from what I have seen of him on television
and is certainly not any part of the character of the man that I talked to on
the telephone. Of course he is driven by the grief of his intense personal loss
in his determined pursuit of the truth about those who colluded in the plot to
slaughter his daughter (amongst many other innocents). Of course the man has an
axe to grind. I have gained quite the opposite impression. My
impression of the man was that he wants to know what were the circumstances
surrounding the downfall of that aircraft. I know that he is appalled by the
vitriol and focussed hate that has been expressed by some of the other grieving
relatives (of PA103) who have called for extreme acts of violence (ie bombing)
to be a sequel to what was probably the sequel to another explosive act of
multiple slaughter. He has great personal empathy and sympathy with others who
have suffered the loss of close relatives who were slaughtered in the name of
self-righteous revenge, I do not believe that he wants anything other than the
Truth to come into the public domain. These are my thoughts and interpretations
of the mans opinions and are not an expression of his opinion.
He did say that he is not interested in engaging with anyone whose mind is
closed. If you wish to lecture to him then I suggest that you do not bother.
If you simply want to utter dogma such as "no bomb brought down the huge hulk of
a 747", then I think it best that you do not have the nous to engage such a man
as Dr Swire. It would do you no credit.
You have not explained to me what your theory is about the fact that the
radar/ATC/CVR/DFDR time-tagged data does not correlate to your hypothesis. If
you wish to debunk selective parts of that dataset then you must have a
carefully considered appraisal of the detailed evidence. It does you no credit
to simply dismiss inconvenient evidence such as the #2 EPR blip if you wish
weight to be given to same data source which shows the #3 engine EPR blip. You
must have a reasoned explanation for the long (at a diff. pressure of ~8.9psi I
call it very long) time between the EPR3 blip and the CVR record of the "event".
The record shows this time gap to be about a minute and a half. If you want to
incorporate the green diamond (let's call it that, you and I know what the
phrase refers to) in your theory then you must have a coherent expostulation of
your hypothesis. The AAIB have explained why they believe that their timeline
accuracy is better than +/- 1 second. For your alternative report to have
credibility you must have a reasoned alternative hypothesis. It is no good just
saying that you are a US Army Major or Naval aviator or whatever as if
self-testimonials about ejections from jets are anything other than a tribute to
Martin-Baker (or local equivalent, batteries not included). "War stories" may
go down well at the local VFW but are not worth a flying fuck if you want to
trade them with the NTSB/FAA/ICAO in a scientific argument about matters of
civil aviation safety. To earn credibility amongst that crowd you must have all
your ducks lined up in a row. Barry, your theory has much merit. To be
credible you must not simply dismiss evidence that does not support your theory.
You must tackle noise in order to differentiate it from the signal. That is
what the pros are having to do right now (as always) in their investigation of
TWA800.
I have noticed an apparent pattern in your communication. You appear to be too
ready to dismissively sneer at any contrary evidence which does not support your
theory or viewpoint. This is profoundly unscientific and does you no credit.
>> Who is Captain Stewart?<<
Stanley Stewart is an ATPL who is currently (I think) flying 747s for British
Airways. He is rather unusual (in British aviation anyway) in that he is both a
qualified Flight Engineer as well as a qualified 747 pilot. This combination is
common in the States, not here. He is a meticulous investigator into civil
aviation accidents and their causes. He has written at least four books that I
know of, maybe more. Two books with which I am familiar are "Air Disasters"
and "Emergency". He has a meticulous approach to investigating the
circumstances of inflight safety incidents which does him credit.
I believe, (I could be wrong here) that you are in communication with someone
who knows the present location (Lincolnshire?) of the wreckage of PA103 airframe
which is not incorporated in the 3-D reconstruction at Farnborough. I would be
very interested in hearing from you exactly where this scrapyard site is
located. The description suggests that the wreckage is in a walled-off
compound. Does this mean out of doors? If the Fwd cargo door of PA103 still exists then would that not be of
enormous importance? The fwd cargo door of IA 182 lies on the seabed where it
was dropped by the recovery crew. The one from TWA800 lies at Calverton (or
somesuch place). The one from UA811 is presumably still in existence and
available for comparison. Barry, think about that. Would that be good
research material?

My reply...

>the warning on the
>8th of December '88 to the American Embassy in Helsinki that a woman would carry
>a bomb onto an American (the country not the airline, I think) airliner in
>Frankfurt bound for New York.
Let's see, a man carries a bomb onto an American airliner from London UK to New York before Christmas and that matches a woman carries a bomb onto an American airliner from Frankfurt Germany to New York over Christmas. I don't think so. But you can think so.
>First of all, Barry, let me say that I am beginning to have misgivings about
>your style of investigation and your apparently unscientific approach to
>research.
Me, too, if I said I had a scientific approach to research. If you want to do your scientific research, then do it. I do my research my way and you do yours your way. Opinion noted.
>He confirmed that such a photograph
>had been supplied to PanAm (and other US air carriers) prior to the departure of
>PA103 on the 21st December 1988
So what? What is the significance of this unsubstantiated statement? Where is the photograph? Why did you not attach it?
>given to PanAm by the Intelligence agencies by the BKA (West German Criminal
>Police)
Who gave what to who? The West German Criminal Police gave photos to the intelligence agencies of unnamed country who gave them to US airlines? More unsubstantiated statements with phrases like "intelligence agencies" in them.
>The
>authorities were in possession of detailed, accurate, valid and correct
>information about the design, construction and intent of the series of bombs.
Like what? What information? Was it in English? Were the pictures on napkins? Let me see the design of the bomb.
>Figs B-16 and B-17 clearly (most particularly in B-17)
>show the hole in the fuselage to which you refer as the 'bomb hole'.
Well, Chris, I'm a lookin' but I ain't a seein'. I see several large holes in partially reconstructed fuselage, none have flower petal outward pretty pattern as artist drew in drawing. In fact on one lower hole the skin petals in so that's not the right hole. The other hole looks too high, and another hole looks to far forward. All the holes are less than one third the size of the hole when a cargo door lets go, and gosh, why didn't they take a picture of the cargo door side? And where is the front of the plane, the picture never tells.
Regarding B-15 shatter zone of fuselage, it looks just like a mild blast, rather like a large shotgun, had gone off at close range at fuselage, I guess, to me it looks like nine or ten pieces of metal laid about on a gridded floor. The pieces don't even fit. This group of pieces of metal could be anything anyone wants it to be. You only say it is a shatter zone because the caption says it is a shatter zone. It doesn't look like a shatter zone to me, no petalling from a center entrance hole. It looks like something someone took a picture of and said, let's call this a shatter zone because it's near where an area we want to say a bomb went off and we need a hole.
>How come I,
>with no experience of, or training in, investigative research took about sixty
>seconds to find his home phone number?
Uh, cause he lives 8000 miles closer to you than me? Uh, he's in your phone book but not mine?
>Do you really think (after
>all I have have read and written about my certainty that there is a problem with
>the 747 Forward Pit Door) that in an hour of conversation with the worlds most
>distinguished amateur investigator into the causes of the PA103 disaster near
>Lockerbie I would not have talked extensively about my belief that the forward
>cargo door is probably the single most important common factor?
Uh, yes.
And my closed or open mind is not important, the facts are important and speak regardless of the personality of the person who displays them.
This is freaky, Chris, what the hell does do me no credit got to do with anything? We are talking stopping death here, not glory.
> I do not share your opinion that Dr Swire is motivated or characterised by hate.
Ehhh, not true, never said that. By realizing your daughter was killed by accident unintentionally is different than thinking your daughter was targeted and murdered. Still grief but not the hate.
>To earn credibility amongst that crowd you must have all
>your ducks lined up in a row.
Well, Chris, now you are an expert with dealing with NTSBFAAIDAO, and telling me how to do it. You ever work for the US Government? I have for 24 years. But that's not worth a flying fuck either, I bet.
Why all the insults to me? All this no credit stuff? It must be that you are faced with changing your mind and in defense you attack the messenger. I may be an asshole, but so what? The facts in the report, the pictures in the report speak for themselves. The sounds in the report and all the other reports speak for themselves. Radar blips, cvr sounds, fodded engine, missing bodies, same type aircraft, all the same on three crashes and one cause was clearly known. The facts of the pattern lead you into a change of mind you are not willing to make and few are. So don't. It was a fucking bomb that blew Pan Am 103 out of the sky. Oh, and UAL 811, too, and TWA 800, oh, and Air India 182, all similar evidence of the crime, same cause, bombs built years apart, by different people, placed randomly in any baggage hold, and just manage to hit early model 747s and get bomb placed in key spot in forward baggage hold, and detontate within an hour of takeoff to cause extremely similar results of short loud sound, radar blips, missing bodies, and fodded engines.
Hey, it could happen.
I got this in the mail...
The details about electronic sounds interesting to me:
1) "One of the parts of the bomb that authorities recovered was a
microchip from the detonator circuit. This microchip fragment linked
the explosion of Flight 103 to explosions investigated in the past.
Each microchip is microscopically unique that is, it has a unique
pattern of transistors etched onto it. Investigators found that the
structure of the chip they recovered from Flight 103 was exactly
like that of one they had found two Libyan agents carrying (along
with twenty pounds of Semtex) in Senegal in 1986 [Wright and Ostrow,
1991]."
This was written definitely by a non-specialist. In a short,
(written by a somewhat more specialist, but not a specialist in the
chip design) the investigators found a chip fragment which is from
a similar chip to what they found in a semi-ready bomb earlier.
This proves nothing unless the chip is a specially designed one.
A bomb can be made using, say a PIC chip. The same chip is in some
security devices ("dongles") used in some MAC and PC copy protec-
tion. This doesn't mean, FBI can go and arrest the dongle manufac-
turer. PIC (or some National Semiconductor) chips can be programmed
(basically, burned) different way. You can put the code of the MAC
ROM (say, MAC+) and an AMI BIOS in two sibling pairs of EPROM.
Still, one will boot your MAC+ and fail on PC, the other will boot
a say, 486, but never ever work on the MAC+. Same chips, different
functions. PIC is actually a better sample, because it is a
programmable microprocessor. It can be used in a "dongle", in some
cockpit instruments and (why not?) in a bomb triggering device.

The info about manufacturer of the found chip and wether anybody
was able to read both chips in Senegal(???!!!) and in Lockerbie.
Don't forget: in Lockerbie we have just a fragment. It is unlikely,
anybody was able to read it and disassemble the microcode. Without
that, if I am a jurror, I dismiss the microchip evidence as it is.

Anyway the chip story sounds highly suspicious. You just cannot make
any assumptions unless there are very special, unique chips made just
for libian agents. I just imagine some guy sent by Moammer el-Gaddafi
negotiating the price of production of such a chip at, say, Motorola.
"Well, we need that ASIC, in numbers, say...how many of your planes are
flying?" Or maybe thay chip was made at some high-tech place in Russia,
specially for these purposes? Nobody will do a special "bombing" chip -
they would do a more generic one, which can be used in a washer,
dryer, portable radio, TV, satellite, personal computer, airplane,
submarine, Semtex-bomb. I will be fully sure, it was a Semtex-bomb in
the PA 103 because of the chip fragment (as evidence), if it can be out-
ruled, that: - none of previously mentioned devices (excluding
probably satellite and submarine) was on the plane
and:
that chip wan't used on any device of PA's B-747

- or the chip fragment matches a very specific
Russian/Czech/East German chip and the only other
specimen known was found in Senegal in 1986.
The chip cannot be used for any other purpose, just
for explosive devices, the (unique) microcode was
read, disassembled and fully discussed (or the original
source was obtained from the now ex-socialist state)
and the authors of the microcode are ready to prove.
>you must not simply dismiss evidence that does not support your theory.
Did not. I said your blip was too far from event to be relevant. It may be. My blip is close to event therefore relevant. And your blip is not blip but a spike, that's what random noise looks like, a spike. A blip looks like my blip. But hey, call the blip/spike important, it may be. It was also ignored in the official report.
Different email...
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.
>research material?
I have emailed to the NTSB early on a suggestion to check all the door cam latches on 800, 103, and 182. The door theory is so easy to disprove yet hasn't been done or tried.
My action plan. My action plan is to enjoy life and pursuing interest in unexplained airplanes crashes is it for today, then that's it. Tomorrow something else, maybe, maybe not. What ever the day's interests lead me, that's my action plan.
But for the once, I shall endeavor to check my credit, be more scientific, and be sure not to fly on early model 747s.
I got the fax and will read it soon. I'm not sure a fax from a paperback book put on the web will count with the boys from NTSB FAA ICAO. But I don't have a budget of millions and lab techs to check my work and hundreds patting me on the back urging me to press on but there is no stortage of persons telling me I'm nuts and to stop. It does me no credit. My credit's all run out. Busted, it's all over. To the flying public: You will not believe me and now you will die.
PostScript:
>You have not explained to me what your theory is about the fact that the
>radar/ATC/CVR/DFDR time-tagged data does not correlate to your hypothesis.
Fact? Fact, you use the word loosely. So loose as to be meaningless.
All the best, Barry

---

Comment: I thought I knew about Lockerbie but now I know I don't. Flame wars erupt, subside, erupt, subside. Well, we only criticize that which we care about. We are not indifferent.

---

Contents
barry@corazon.com