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

Date:         16 Apr 97 01:55:58 
From:         Tom Atkinson <tom@tyco.net.au>
Organization: high degree thereof, thanks to Linux
References:   1
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, ...

Tell us how; we're very interested.

> 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.

You have a vivid imagination.  Your website talks of 300 knot air
"rushing into" the aircraft, causing the breakup.  Anybody with a
reasonable knowledge of aerodynamics knows that a hole in the side of an
aircraft, pressurised or not, will cause a suction effect, where the air
inside is sucked out.  It is the same principle that causes a wing to
generate lift.

As for the "crumpling of the nose...", you obviously have little
knowledge of aircraft structure failure modes.

> 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.

How does the cargo door theory fit in with the fact that, according to
the NTSB, the explosion originated INSIDE the centre fuel tank?

> And that's where you come in to request that the taxpayers get a proper
> investigation into reasonable, happened before, mechanical cause for an
> airplane crash, the cargo door. We will be told the full story if you
> press for a worthy line of investigation into the number one category of
> scheduled airlines crashes, mechanical fault generally and in this
> specific instance, cargo door fault.

"Mechanical fault" is NOT the number one category of crashes.  At the
moment, CFIT (controlled flight into terrain) is on top.

>   Is the story worth it? Well, it does involve Canada, France, Britain,
> USA, Libya, India, Ireland, and New Zealand; literally billions of
> dollars, thousands of lives, or I should say, 838 dead plus bereaved
> families, and the future of commercial aviation in America. Literally, I
> exaggerate not.

I suggest that you ARE exaggerating.  If the cargo door was at fault,
the investigators would have noticed by now.  I suggest that you post to
alt.conspiracies.twa800 in future.

tom@tyco.net.au