Proof Number One:
Example 3: No evidence of internal explosive force capable of rupturing and destroying the fuselage
Basic Presumptions: 1) In an internal explosion capable of rupturing the airframe integrity, the skin of the aircraft should exhibit a kind of outward pocketing where in close proximity to the explosive force. That is, similar to the mailbox effect described in Example One, above, the skin should be stressed outward against the rivet lines of the vertical and horizontal skeleton of the aircraft, forming a series of 'pocket-like' deformations; 2) An absence of any such pocketing is evidence that some other force caused the destruction of the airframe.
Pocketing is a common trait of explosive damage, according to previous NTSB tests and findings in actual crashes involving bombs and other internal explosions, and according to Boeing engineers and former official crash investigators aiding this author. Yet NTSB does not talk about pocketing at all. Why? Because pocketing evidence was contrary to CWS failure.
In image R102, below, taken from outside of the airplane, note the green area, which is the main fuselage skin normally concealed beneath the wing faring (the entire wing is missing, here), and the white and red painted sections above -- all of which show no signs of pocketing deformations (or sooting) whatsoever. The outward deformation of rips and holes indicate items left the aircraft with force and velocity, but the argument is that the force behind this did not originate from inside the aircraft, but from something passing through it. This image is cropped, here, so that you do not yet see the right-hand side, and the CWT (CWS) label and arrow have been added.
NTSB Image R102 - Right Side Red Zone Looking Aft
Summary: The absence of skin pocketing does not support structural failure by internal explosive force.
Proof Conclusion: The CWS did not explode as an initiating event. Some other force destructed the aircraft.
END PROOF ONE: NEXT PROOF
RETURN TO INTRODUCTION