On This Day — The United Airlines Flight 811 Disaster (February 24 1989) — Do you believe in extraordinary coincidences? [UPDATE — Answer from MEBO Edwin Bollier]

“Chance favors only the prepared mind.”

Louis Pasteur

“Luck plays a part in nine-ball. But for some players, luck itself is an art.”

The color of Money (1986)

February 24 2022 — On February 24 1989, United Airlines Flight 811 experienced a failure of the cargo door shortly after leaving Honolulu. Nine passengers were blown out due to decompression. Nevertheless, the captain returned the Boeing 747 back to Honolulu Airport. Do you believe in extraordinary coincidences? Follow us on Twitter: @INTEL_TODAY

RELATED POST : Lockerbie — FAA investigating Boeing 787 manufacturing flaws. Coincidence? [UPDATE VIII : DOWNFALL: The Case Against Boeing | Netflix]

RELATED POST: On This Day — 1,000 Boeing 747 Jumbo Plane Produced (September 10 1993) [Update : Why I ruled out the Lockerbie bomb theory]

RELATED POST: On This Day — Kalitta Air Boeing 747 Breaks Up at Take off from Brussels Airport (May 25 2008)

RELATED POST: On this Day — At Long Last, FBI Admits No Evidence of Foul Play in 1996 TWA 800 Crash (November 18 1997)

United Airlines Flight 811 — N4713U after the cargo door tore off in flight, causing an explosive decompression and ejecting nine people from the plane. (February 24 1989)

UPDATE (February 24 2022) — Answer from MEBO Edwin Bollier

Edwin Bollier is the founder and owner of the Swiss company MEBO that manufactured the MST-13 timers delivered to Libya.

A fragment of such timer established the link between Lockerbie and Libyan Security Services. [Intel Today has long argued that the fragment — known as PT/35(b) — is actually a fabrication. PT/35(b) looks like part of a MST-13 timer, but the material is different in several ways.]

At the end of this post, I asked Bollier if he could confirm a story that had been reported to me. Here is his answer.

“Answer to Intel today: Yes, I was visited around 1991/92, by a person – I think from Texas – who explained to me that Pan Am 103 did not crash because an explosive device, but as the result of a mechanical failure in the connection (assembly) of the aircraft fuselage and cockpit. I will provide as soon as possible his name and address and I will send to Intel Today all the information I got from this person at that time. Best, Edwin Bollier — MEBO Ltd”

What do you think?

END of UPDATE

“According to a source, a former Boeing employee contacted Edwin Bollier and told him that he had seen some memos that reveal the truth about the crash of Pan Am 103. That person claimed that Boeing was fully aware that the disaster had not been caused by a bomb.”

Intel Today — February 24 2022

This morning, I posted a story about Lockebie and the infamous GOLFER. My conclusion reads:

The lies of the GOLFER were a terrible distraction for the SCCRC officers. As a result, they became convinced that there was no credibility to the allegation that evidence had been fabricated.

And thus, they ignored the irrefutable scientific evidence that PT/35(b) — the key piece of evidence linking Libya to Lockerbie — is a forgery.

RELATED POST: One Year Ago — Unmasking The GOLFER. Who was Lockerbie Deep Throat?

A few hours later, Edwin Bollier — founder and owner of MEBO, the Swiss company that produced the infamous timer MST-13 — posted the following comment on INTEL TODAY Facebook page:

“Even if it were true that, as claimed, an explosive device built into a Toshiba radio recorder Type RT-SF16 caused a hole of about 70% of a square metre in the aircraft fuselage at Station 700, Container Item No. 14 L, the Boeing 747 would not have crashed. The fact that the cockpit is visibly broken off from the fuselage confirms that a mechanical flaw between the fuselage and the cockpit caused Pan Am 103 to crash.”

This comment is rather interesting and I would like to tell you a few facts…

Two nearly identical planes

On December 21 1988, Pan Am 103 disintegrated over Lockerbie. This 747 was one of the very first manufactured by Boeing and the plane was delivered to Pan Am in February 1970.

On February 24 1989, United Airlines Flight 811 encountered failure in cargo door shortly after leaving Honolulu. This 747 was delivered to United Airlines in November 1970.

Is Bollier’s statement correct?

Absolutely. A 747 is supposed to survive such a hole in the fuselage and the story of Flight 811 is a case in point. There are plenty of other examples, some even more dramatic…

Pan Am 103 and the No-Bomb Theory

As I have explained, there is ZERO evidence of a bomb having caused the tragedy of Pan Am 103. I have summarized all my research on this subject in a single graphic.

RELATED POST: Lockerbie — Why I ruled out the bomb theory [Technical Analysis of the Debris Lines]

I have concluded that Pan Am Flight 103 disintegrated in flight over Lockerbie (December 21 1988) because of a massive structural failure due to well-known issues of metal fatigue in section 41 and 42 of the Boeing 747 (Series 100 & 200), not because of an explosive device. 

No sound of an explosion is recorded. Only the sound of the break-up of the plane is recorded at a time perfectly consistent with the first (southern) debris line. Many seconds BEFORE the break-up of Pan Am 103, an unexplained Radar Return (black square) was recorded by TWO radar stations. And you can guess where it may have landed.

Of course, some people refuse to accept the No-Bomb theory because it implies the following:

1 — The report of the crash is incorrect.

2 — The spooks invented an act of terrorism while they knew it was an accident.

3 — Boeing blamed others for its own crime.

4 — The FAA never grounded the plane and thus acted irresponsibly.

Allow me to reply…

According to the National Transportation Safety Board [NTSB], the failure of the cargo door of United Airlines Flight 811 could only have happened because of a human error. Boeing also blamed United Airlines.

However… A few months later, the cargo door was recovered. And there was clear and irrefutable evidence that no human error had caused the tragedy. This issue had been caused by a design flaw and was thus a threat to every single 747. The FAA never grounded the 747s.

Yesterday, I posted a story about the 737 MAX. As I explained, a report that came out after the first crash indicates that the FAA and Boeing were aware that this aircraft had a likelihood of crashing 15 times over the course of its life.

And yet, Boeing was focused on blaming the pilots, despite knowing the truth. And the FAA lagged behind the rest of the world in grounding the 737 Max even after the Ethiopia crash.

Finally, the story of TWA 800 demonstrates that the spooks are perfectly willing to portray an accident as an act of terrorism….

One last thing…

Take a look at this comment from the NTSB report about the United Airlines Flight 811 disaster.

Obviously, in the aftermath of the Pan Am 103 disaster, aviation experts were quite worry about the front cargo door.

Just one question to Herr Bollier

According to a source, a former Boeing employee contacted Edwin Bollier and told him that he had seen some memos that reveal the truth about the crash of Pan Am 103.

That person claimed that Boeing was fully aware that the disaster had not been caused by a bomb.

So, my question is this. Could Bollier confirm the story? Can he tell us more about the information the Boeing insider claimed he had seen?

REFERENCES

United Airlines Flight 811 — Wikipedia

=

On This Day — The United Airlines Flight 811 Disaster (February 24 1989) — Do you believe in extraordinary coincidences? [UPDATE — Answer from MEBO Edwin Bollier]

This entry was posted in Lockerbie and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

1 Response to On This Day — The United Airlines Flight 811 Disaster (February 24 1989) — Do you believe in extraordinary coincidences? [UPDATE — Answer from MEBO Edwin Bollier]

  1. The spooks are willing to invent a story? Specify – I hope you don’t mean British ones! Because we know full well who took charge in that investigation!
    Bollier’s testimony was pivotal to that case and should have shut the case against Megrahi down!

    “It’s not about the journey itself but the destination…”

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s