This sounds very much like Clancy's book 'Executive Orders'
Damn, that guy is prophetic !
Right or wrong, none of these factors apply to CI611.
Flight 800 was struck by a shoulder-launched SAM, probably a Stinger, probably a Stinger we gave to the Afgans to repell the Soviets. The 'evidence' given by the FBI and NTSB is not as compelling to me as the eye-witness accounts from so many people.
Tuor
how about an errant missile, a more likely scenario, give the numerous, independent eye witnesses who saw something streaking upward before the explosion, and, the navy was in the area holding exercises.
this was right before the olympics, and does anyone here, given the recent info on the fbi ignoring terrorist warnings, think that
a. klinton would never cover something like this up, in the face of the start of the olympics on US soil, with the entire world watching, literally
b. the fbi is competent, not corrupt, would act independently of Klinton and reno, and has no history of cover up to begin with.
not to mention, i cannot recall any other planes blowing up in the middle of the sky in recent history of its own accord. i can recall many planes blowing up in the middle of the sky from missles and bombs.
John Barry Smith's Cargo Door Theory
Smith Table for Matches for Air India Flight 182, Pan Am Flight 103, United Airlines Flight 811, Trans World Airlines Flight 800, and China Airlines Flight 611 |
|||||
Evidence | AI 182 | PA103 | UAL 811 | TWA 800 |
China Airlines Flight 611 |
Boeing 747 | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
Early model -100 or -200 | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
Polyimide wiring (Poly X type) | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
Sudden airframe breakup in flight (partial or total) | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
Breakup occurs amidships | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | |
High flight time (over 55,000 flight hours) | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
Aged airframe (over 18 years of service) | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
Previous maintenance problems with forward cargo door | Yes | Maybe | Yes | Maybe | |
Initial event within an hour after takeoff | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
Initial event at about 300 knots while proceeding normally in all parameters | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
Initial event has unusual radar contacts | Maybe | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
Initial event involves hull rupture in or near forward cargo door area | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | |
Initial event starts with sudden sound | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | |
Initial event sound is loud | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | |
Initial event sound is audible to humans | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | |
Initial event followed immediately by abrupt power cut to data recorder | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | |
Initial event sound matched to explosion of bomb sound | No | No | No | No | |
AI 182 | PA103 | UAL 811 | TWA 800 | China Airlines Flight 611 | |
Initial event sound matched to explosive decompression sound in wide body airliner | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | |
Torn off skin on fuselage above forward cargo door area | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | |
Unusual paint smears on and above forward cargo door | Maybe | Maybe | Yes | Yes | |
Evidence of explosion in forward cargo compartmen | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | |
Foreign object damage to engine or cowling of engine number three | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | |
Fire/soot in engine number three |
Maybe |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
|
Foreign object damage to engine or cowling of engine number four |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
|
Right wing leading edge damaged in flight | Yes | Maybe | Yes | Maybe | |
Vertical stabilizer damaged in flight | Yes | Yes | Yes | Maybe | |
AI 182 | PA103 | UAL 811 | TWA 800 | China Airlines Flight 611 | |
Right horizontal stabilizer damaged in flight |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
|
More severe inflight damage on starboard side than port side |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
|
Port side relatively undamaged by inflight debri |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
|
Vertical fuselage tear lines just aft or forward of the forward cargo door |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
|
Fracture/tear/rupture at a midspan latch of forward cargo door |
Maybe |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
|
Midspan latching status of forward cargo door reported as latched |
No |
No |
No |
No |
|
Airworthiness Directive 88-12-04 implemented (stronger lock sectors) |
No |
No |
No |
Yes |
|
Outwardly peeled skin on upper forward fuselage |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
|
Rectangular shape of shattered area around forward cargo door |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
|
Forward cargo door fractured in two longitudinally |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Maybe |
|
Status of aft cargo door as intact and latched | Yes | Yes | Yes | Maybe | |
AI 182 | PA103 | UAL 811 | TWA 800 | China Airlines Flight 611 | |
Passengers suffered decompression type injuries | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | |
At least nine missing and neverrecovered passenger bodies | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | |
Wreckage debris field in two main areas, forward and aft sections of aircraft |
Yes |
Yes |
No |
Yes |
|
Initial official opinion of probable cause as bomb explosion. |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
|
Initial official determination modified from bomb explosion |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
|
AI 182 | PA103 | UAL 811 | TWA 800 | China Airlines Flight 611 | |
Structural failure considered for probable cause |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Inadvertently opened forward cargo door considered for probable cause |
Yes |
No |
Yes |
Yes |
|
Official probable cause as bomb explosion |
Yes |
Yes |
No |
No |
|
Official probable cause as 'improvised explosive device' |
No |
Yes |
No |
No |
|
Official probable cause as explosion by unstated cause |
Yes |
No |
No |
No |
|
Official probable cause as explosion in center fuel tank with unknown ignition source | No | No | No | Yes | |
Official probable cause as improper latching of forward cargo door | No | No | Yes | No | |
Official probable cause as switch /wiring inadvertently opening forward cargo door |
No |
No |
Yes |
No |
|
Significant Direct and Tangible Evidence Obtained for Four B747 Breakups in Flight |
AI 182 |
PA103 |
UAL 811 |
TWA 800 |
China Airlines Flight 611 |
Contents Cargo Door Website
Page 2 Details on Accidents
barry@corazon.com Email author here.
It continues to be self evident that many more facts will be necessary before any of the theories can be evaluated.