Pentagon...
Airbus A380 (Not a boing and this is much bigger aircraft but tells you and gives you an idea of what is inside a plane)
Boing 747 Seating
First Boeing 747
Forward Cargo Door, main equipment center, number three engine, right wing fillet all seen clearly
Inside.
Forward cargo door seen closed
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 passengers
The 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.
