Posted on 11/08/2002 10:50:42 PM PST by JohnFiorentino
How about the 25 knot speedboat that Mr. James Kallstrom "morphed" into a "helicopter"! Like, um, why did he do that?
s; For the same reason you 'morphed' the ship into a speedboat probably. The radar couldn't even pick up the 110 foot Adak cutter. How do you expect it to pick up a Cigar? Or is that cigarette? At least you didn't call it a surfaced sub like many. The claim is it was a destroyer fleeing the scene of the crime at flank (30-32 knots) on orders of LANTFLT or higher. That puts the start of the coverup at about 2-3 minutes following shootdown. Perhaps Osmodeus can give us a timeline to the hundredth of a second.
I think I have something on that. I'll look:
"That's how it happened. Someone screwed the pooch big-time at Raytheon and mispackaged a functional 400 Section with fully functional Mark 104 motor as inert. It got mated up to the rest of the missile, stuck in a blue can and shipped to us as a GMTR. It had all the rest of the GMTR hardware, and when it got the usual startup test signals it read back "yup, I'm an inert training weapon, it's safe, give me a full diagnostic including a launch signal..." Automated sequence, takes less than a second from start to finish.
"The CO was on the horn ASAP, of course, to tell LANTFLT what had happened and find out just what the hell we were meant to do. The first order was to get over there and look for survivors, scramble the helo, see if anyone lived through it. We're turning into the wind to get the helo off and hauling it onto the fantail when that gets countermanded and we're given a course out of there at flank speed. I didn't hear who issued that order but it had to be LANTFLT or higher, it was a couple of minutes after we turned to start rescue ops.
"Nobody liked that. But, what the hell could we do? The CO had his orders and he followed them and we were just passengers. We made flank for the best part of two hours, then slowed down and started just cutting circles at twelve knots."
Do you believe that sh*t? I do.
Loose lips sink ships. Better make that sink navy coverups. Thanks to Osmodeus I speak HTML now. Notice? Well, just in black and white so far, but we all have to start somewhere. He's a nice person really. I just don't understand his 'timeline.' I don't think he's a shill for Lee Kriendler, but if he is, Kriendler is really getting ripped off! LOL PS I'd print the whole sailors' story but I'm only authorized to print snippets at a time. Perhaps things will change in a few years. The tip of the iceberg is better'n nothin - but boring. I'm sorry.
If I had an army of lawyers at my disposal, I think I'd fight admitting that my proven design just blew up, especially when witnesses saw a missile going up and flaming airplane parts falling back down. Unless someone made it worth my while and gave me something I wanted.
Liar.
I have - and on MANY occasions.
Boeing 747 Hull Ruptures in Flight.
"Forward cargo doors are opening inadvertently in flight in high time Boeing 747s, causing death and destruction, AI 182, PA 103, UAL 811, and TWA 800. Full documentation for claim is on URL: http://www.corazon.com/crashcontentspagelinks.html "
First Boeing 747
Forward Cargo Door, main equipment center, number three engine, right wing fillet all seen clearly
Inside.
Forward cargo door seen closed
Comment: These pictures of all models of Boeing 747 show the relationships among forward cargo door, the number three engine, the nose, the main equipment compartment, passenger seating, and large tail.
Boeing 747
Passenger aircraft, 1968
Development:
First Model 747 prototype was completed on September 30, 1968. It made its first flight on February 9, 1969.
Modifications:
Model 747-100 - first production version, seating for 500, first flight January 22, 1970
Model 747-100B - CF6-45A2 engines, first flight June 21, 1979
Model 747-200B - increased payload capacity, first flight November 18, 1974, entered service March 1975
Model 747-200C - convertible passenger/cargo version, first flight March 23, 1973, entered service December 5, 1973
Model 747-200F - cargo version with opening nose (similar to C-5 or An-124), first flight November 30, 1971, entered service April 19, 1972
Model 747-300 - extended upper deck, first flight January 1983
Model 747-400 - increased range, passenger capacity, first flight April 29, 1988
Model 747-SP - smaller, long-range version with seating for 400 and range of 11000 km
Model 747-SR - short-range version of Model 747-100
VC-25A - Air Force One special transport based on Model 747-200B, first flight September 6, 1990
Service:
With American Airlines, Continental Airlines, United Airlines, Pan American, Federal Express, TWA, Northwest Airlines.
Data for Model 747-100B
Crew: 3
Wingspan: 59.6 m
Length: 70.5 m
Height: 19.3 m
Wing area: 511.0 sq. m
Empty weight: 238820 kg
Takeoff weight: 322050 kg
Engines: 4xPratt & Whitney JT9D-7, 193.5 kN of thrust each
Max. speed: 1024 km/h
Cruise speed: 963 km/h
Landing speed: 260 km/h
Climb rate: 10.2 m/s
Cruise ceiling: 13715 m
Takeoff roll: 2896 m
Landing roll: 1875 m
Range: 9580 km
Payload: 452 passengersThe open minds ask these questions in any order:
1. How and why does forward cargo door open in flight?
2. How does open door in flight cause nose to come off for AI 182, PA 103, and TWA 800?
3. Why did nose of UAL 811 stay on?
4. AI 182 and PA 103 not a bomb?
5. TWA 800 not center tank as initial event?
6. Explosive decompression enough to tear nose off?
7. Is there a conspiracy to keep cargo door explanation quiet?Let me answer those basic questions briefly:
1. I don't know about AI 182, PA 103, or TWA 800, but UAL 811 door open cause was electrical short to door motor to unlatch position which overrode safety locking sectors and failed switch and door unlatched and opened.PA 103 and UAL 811 had total forward cargo door openings while AI 182 and TWA 800 had rupture at aft midspan latch with bottom eight latches holding tight. Door openings were probably a result of aging aircraft, out of rig door, chafed aging faulty poly-x wiring, weakened Section 41 area, design weakness of no locking sectors for midspan latches, AAR 92/02, page 12, (Encl 26) and only one latch per eight feet of vertical door. AI 182, PA 103, and TWA 800 had similar circumstances.
2. Cargo door opens and huge ten by thirty foot hole appears in nose, structural members of door and frame are missing, floor beams are fractured, bent, and broken, aircraft direction is askew, flight control surfaces affected, engines damaged, and 300 knots, more than the fastest hurricane or force five tornado on earth, hits damaged area and tears nose off within three to five seconds.
3. Nose of UAL 811 may have stayed on because pilot said he had just come off autopilot and did not fight plane as it gyrated, or plane was younger than others, or the time from door opening to tearing off was 1.5 seconds and allowed the pressurization to be relieved somewhat and six less feet of width of hole was torn off. Cargo door inadvertently opened on the ground during UAL preflight in 1991 and no damage was done. Cargo door opened in flight two inches on PA 125 in 1987 and stayed attached to fuselage and only damage was cost of fuel dumped. Cargo door opened in flight for UAL 811 in 1989 and nine died when door tore off. Cargo door explanation for AI 182, PA 103, and TWA 800 has door opening inflight, tearing off, and then nose tearing off leading to three similar accident wreckage patterns, debris fields and total destruction. Door openings have different consequences depending on altitude, speed and mode of flight.
4. Yes, not a bomb for AI 182 and PA 103 as initial event. Evidence refutes bomb explanation and is in government accident reports which careful analysis will reveal and documented on www.corazon.com. Those accident investigators did not have the benefit of hindsight, the internet, or several subsequent similar accidents to compare and draw different conclusions.
5. Center tank exploded yes, but after door ruptured/opened, hole appeared in nose, nose torn off in wind, fuselage falling with disintegrating fuel tanks and ignited by fodded and on fire engine number 3 or 4 at 7500 feet thereby explaining the Chairman's question, "Why so few bodies burned?" The answer is they were not there to be burned. The nose came off with the passengers inside cabin and descended to ocean alone. The center tank exploded into nothingness not the passenger compartment.
6. Explosive decompression is enough to rupture pressurized hull at weak spot, one latch for eight feet of door, in a weak area, Section 41, but not enough to tear nose off. The ultimate destructive force is the 300 knots of slipstream, more powerful than any wind on earth. If cargo door popped in balloon, the large hole would appear but the nose would stay on. In a tornado, nose comes off within three to five seconds.
7. There is no conspiracy, no plot, no coverup by anyone involved with the cargo door explanation:
a. No conspiracy of Sikh terrorists named Singh to put a bomb on AI 182; the door ruptured in flight.
b. No conspiracy of Libyan terrorists or whoever to put a bomb on PA 103; the door ruptured in flight.
c. No conspiracy to detonate a bomb on UAL 811 as the passengers thought, as the crew thought and told the tower who told the Coast Guard and crash crews on the ground as they prepared for a wounded 747 coming in after a bomb blast; the door ruptured in flight.
d. No conspiracy to put a bomb on TWA 800, no conspiracy of terrorists to shoot a missile, no coverup by US Navy to hide accidental shootdown, no coverup by Boeing, NTSB, FAA, TWA who know the cargo door is the problem and are hiding that knowledge; the door ruptured in flight.
There is no conspiracy or cover up or plot but it is understandable for the public and others to believe that explanation: Cargo door cause is subtle.
1. The explosive decompression of door rupture mimics a bomb with noise and blast effects.
2. The events happen years apart in different jurisdictions with different airlines.
3. Explosive decompression of door rupture leaves no direct evidence such as soot, only noise on CVR tape.
4. The cargo door manufacturer and operator are large and highly respected companies.
5. Explosive decompression causes secondary diversionary effects such as fireball from center tank explosion and relatively mild blast in cargo compartment of incendiary device.
6. A door opening and slipstream are considered trivial things by the public who thinks of a car trunk opening at highway speed not understanding high internal force of pressurization, large size of cargo door, and destructive force of 320 miles per hour on weakened structure.
7. Cargo door explanation assumes responsibility for rupture by manufacturer, operator, government, while bomb or missile can be blamed elsewhere.
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 (Forward Cargo Door) |
PA103 (Forward Cargo Door) |
UAL 811 (Forward Cargo Door) |
TWA 800 (Forward Cargo Door) |
China Airlines Flight 611 (Aft Cargo Door) |
Boeing 747 | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
Early model -100 or -200 | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
Overpressure relief door(s) in forward cargo door open/jammed | Maybe | Yes | Yes | Yes | Missing in Aft Cargo Door |
Sudden airframe breakup in flight (partial or total) | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
Breakup occurs amidships | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | No, aft of wing. |
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 | Unknown |
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 | In or near aft cargo door |
Initial event starts with sudden sound | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
Initial event sound is loud | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | No |
Initial event sound is audible to humans | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
Initial event followed immediately by abrupt power cut to data recorder | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | No, FDR cut first, then CVR power |
Initial event sound matched to explosion of bomb sound | No | 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 | Yes, Rapid Decompression |
Torn off skin on fuselage above forward cargo door area | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes for aft door |
Unusual paint smears on and above forward cargo door | Maybe | Maybe | Yes | Yes | Unknown |
Evidence of explosion in forward cargo compartment | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Unknown in aft |
Foreign object damage to engine or cowling of engine number three | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Unknown |
Fire/soot in engine number three |
Maybe |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Unknown |
Foreign object damage to engine or cowling of engine number four |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Unknown |
Right wing leading edge damaged in flight | Yes | Maybe | Yes | Maybe | Unknown |
Vertical stabilizer damaged in flight | Yes | Yes | Yes | Maybe | Yes |
AI 182 | PA103 | UAL 811 | TWA 800 | China Airlines Flight 611 | |
Right horizontal stabilizer damaged in flight |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Unknown |
More severe inflight damage on starboard side than port side |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Unknown |
Port side relatively undamaged by inflight debris |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Unknown |
Vertical fuselage tear lines just aft or forward of the forward cargo door |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes for aft cargo door |
Fracture/tear/rupture at a midspan latch of forward cargo door |
Maybe |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Unknown |
Midspan latching status of forward cargo door reported as latched |
No |
No |
No |
No |
Unknown |
Airworthiness Directive 88-12-04 implemented (stronger lock sectors) |
No |
No |
No |
Yes |
Unknown |
Outwardly peeled skin on upper forward fuselage |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Unknown |
Rectangular shape of shattered area around forward cargo door |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Unknown |
Forward cargo door fractured in two longitudinally |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Maybe |
Yes for aft cargo door |
Status of aft cargo door as intact and latched | Yes | Yes | Yes | Maybe | No |
AI 182 | PA103 | UAL 811 | TWA 800 | China Airlines Flight 611 | |
Passengers suffered decompression type injuries | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Unknown |
At least nine missing and never recovered passenger bodies | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
Wreckage debris field in two main areas, forward and aft sections of aircraft |
Yes |
Yes |
No |
Yes |
Yes |
Initial official opinion of probable cause as bomb explosion. |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
No and considered |
Initial official determination modified from bomb explosion |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
No |
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 |
Yes for aft cargo door |
Official probable cause as bomb explosion |
Yes |
Yes |
No |
No |
Unknown |
Official probable cause as 'improvised explosive device' |
No |
Yes |
No |
No |
Unknown |
Official probable cause as explosion by unstated cause |
Yes |
No |
No |
No |
Unknown |
Official probable cause as explosion in center fuel tank with unknown ignition source | No | No | No | Yes | Unknown |
Official probable cause as improper latching of forward cargo door | No | No | Yes | No | Unknown |
Official probable cause as switch /wiring inadvertently opening forward cargo door |
No |
No |
Yes |
No |
Unknown |
Significant Direct and Tangible Evidence Obtained for Four B747 Breakups in Flight |
AI 182 |
PA103 |
UAL 811 |
TWA 800 |
China Airlines Flight 611 |
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.