Re: It's not a coincidence cargo door fits evidence

Date:         16 Apr 97 01:55:58 
From:         "Carl Peters, M.D." <cpeters@i1.net>
Organization: Internet 1st, Inc
References:   1
Next article
View raw article
  or MIME structure

barry@corazon.com wrote:

> So right,  I understand, how can a guy in a converted garage with a
> personal computer and phone line figure something out that has eluded the
> professional aviation investigating teams of four countries who have spent
> years and millions of dollars? Easy, actually, but for our discussion
> let's say he can't. But the guy, who has 40 years of flying experience,
> available time because he is financially independent, desire because he
> was survivor of a flaming, night, fatal jet airplane crash, access because
> he has the internet, and most important, wisdom because of hindsight of
> twelve years of successive accidents; the guy, me, can convince/persuade
> you that the cargo door is a worthy line of investigation for the crash
> cause of TWA 800. That's all, a worthy line of investigation; after all,
> they have checked out natural gas bubbles, missiles, bombs, space debris,
> and fires. Asking NTSB to check out a known killer of nine who was near
> the scene of the crime and left first after the crime was committed is
> not... is not...weird. To not investigate cargo door  is strange.

It is amazing how you have more knowledge than hundreds of investigators
schooled in many disciplines, and without the benefit of examining the
evidence. Narcissism at its best.

> It's not a coincidence that:
>
> The cargo door theory explains the steak because the event happened when
> the plane was in the correct sun angle and time for the fuselage to
> reflect sun to observers on the ground. At any other 23 hours and 30
> minutes of the day, it could not be said the streak was door because the
> sun angle would be wrong or non existent. But, at 8:31PM on July 17th near
> NYC the sun angle was perfect for door to reflect sunlight as it spun
> away. It's no coincidence; it's cause and effect.

A light streak is specific for nothing other than a reflective surface.
Furthermore, a spinning object will reflect light in a pulsatile manner,
not a constant streak as described by witnesses. No cause and effect.

> The cargo door theory explains the mysterious radar blip because the
> spinning metal cargo door with fuselage skin attached would reflect
> primary radar at that distance, just like it did with the DC-10 cargo door
> and the UAL 811 cargo door departures. The two blips on the radar plot
> without transponder display are a P-3 and the cargo door. It's no
> coincidence; it's cause and effect.

A radar blip is not specific - any debris of enough size from the aircraft
can cause the same return. As before, not a shred of evidence here, but then
again, you know more than the civilian and military radar specialists in the
investigation. No cause and effect.

> The cargo door theory explains the sudden loud sound on the CVR because
> when the door departs an explosive decompression occurs which causes a
> very loud sound, just like it did on UAL 811 according to the passengers
> who survived. It's no coincidence; it's cause and effect.

Decompression and noise will come from the fuselage breakup regardless of
cause. Again, not a shred of specifity towards a cargo door 'signature'.
No cause and effect.

> The cargo door theory explains the abrupt power cut because the power to
> the FDR and transponder was cut when the nose was severed by the 300 knot
> CAS force crumpling the nose into the absent cargo door hole. It's no
> coincidence; it's cause and effect.

The fuselage broke up, power was cut. All the theories fit here. Again, not
a shred of specifity. No cause and effect.

> The cargo door theory explains the missing bodies because the passengers
> are sucked out the hole caused by the departing cargo door and attached
> fuselage skin and into the number three engine leaving parts of human
> remains inside, just like UAL 811. It's no coincidence; it's cause and
> effect.

Were human remains found in engine #3? Cargo door parts? News to me. Even
so, the evidence of a door failure is where when the whole fuselage is
breaking up? No cause and effect.

> The cargo door theory explains why number three engine catches fire and
> lands separately from the other three engines because baggage from the
> cargo hold is ejected into number three engine which becomes Fodded,
> catches fire, vibrates, fuse bolts shear as designed, and engine falls
> away on fire before other three engines are involved. It's no coincidence;
> it's cause and effect.

Wait. So you are privy to info stating that baggage debris was found in the
#3 engine, along with humans and cargo door parts? And this proves a failure?
Baggage can't enter during the initial breakup? Has to be the door, huh?
No cause and effect in a drug free world.

> The cargo door theory explains the fireball when baggage from the cargo
> hold is ejected into number three engine which becomes Fodded, catches
> fire, vibrates, fuse bolts shear as designed, and engine falls away on
> fire into disintegrating wing, fuel vapor and air, igniting fireball. It's
> no coincidence; it's cause and effect.

Again, you state cause and effect - you list a possible sequence of events,
yet not a bit of evidence from your investigation. And you call this 'cause
and effect'? In psychiatry, it is known as 'flight of ideas'.

> The cargo door theory explains why the aft cargo door is found intact and
> the forward door in pieces because the forward door opens up, out, and
> away, striking fuselage and breaking into pieces, just like UAL 811. It's
> no coincidence; it's cause and effect.

Since the fuselage fractured in many places during the breakup, and parts
were falling off, explain to the newsgroup how this proves the cargo door
started the sequence. What evidence? Again, no cause and effect.

> The cargo door theory explains the debris pattern which shows forward
> cargo hold material ejected first, then detached nose falling in dense
> area, and rest of fuselage and wing and tail falling in scattered area
> miles later. It's no coincidence; it's cause and effect.

This is tiresome. Again, what evidence points to the cargo door as causing
this pattern? Any fuse breakup where the fore fuselage breaks up first
will do the same thing. Such as in Lockerbie. No cause and effect.

> The cargo door theory explains it all because it is what happened; the
> other theories just fit a few of the important evidence clues and don't
> work for the others.(snip)
>John Barry Smith

And this is where it all comes together and sheds light on the author's
credibility. He states "it is what happened" - the ego working over substance.
What the author implies is that he has more insight and knowledge of this
accident without studying the wreckage, without needing metallurgical
study, without aircraft investigation training, without radar training,
without many years of training to become a pathologist trained in seeking
clues from autopsies, without formal systems training on the 747-100, without
interviewing the witnesses, controllers, and other people related to the
crash directly, without investigating the victim's families, businesses,
acquaintences, affiliations, finances, etc., without studying Boeing files
on precedent cases, without knowledge of explosives and fuels, and on and on.
To hell with thousands working on this case, and their long hours. To hell
with their emotions when having to identify the victims, and look the
families in the eye and tell them 'sorry, but we're still looking'. To hell
with their years of experience dedicated specifically to aircrash
investigation.

Instead of the long hours of dedicated work by thousands, wouldn't they
be happier sitting in their garage plugged into the internet and writing
conspiracy crap? Even if the cargo door is a culprit, Mr. Smith has
proven nothing, is in no position to prove anything, and instead has
exhibited arrogance in addition to severely insulting thousands tied
to this case.

Carl Peters, M.D.
Captain, USAF