Was the MST-13 timer fragment planted in the wreckage of Pan Am 103?

[Rolfe]

Imagine, just for a moment, that you are a terrorist. Your one aim in life is to cause a transatlantic flight from London to New York to fall out of the sky. You're not a suicide bomber though, so getting on the plane yourself is out. How would you set about it?

By the way, it's winter. Just before Christmas.

Suppose you have a neato electronic timer, that can be set for any time you like from 1 minute to 999 hours. And you have a bomb disguised as a radio-casette player, and a suitcase of clothes to put it in.

Do you decide to introduce the unaccompanied bomb into the system in Malta, on an Air Malta flight to Frankfurt, there to negotiate the baggage system to get itself on to a Pan Am flight to Heathrow, where it will be unloaded again and transferred to the actual transatlantic flight?

And then do you set the timer to so short a time that if anything delays the timetable for only an hour, the bomb will almost certainly go off on the ground somewhere?

Terrorists are not stupid, why would anyone decide on a plan like this?

First, the bag is going to have to get through not one airport security system but three, each one with its own x-ray surveillance, and each one liable to pull an apparently suspicious or even unaccompanied bag out for closer examination. And second, the bag is going to have to manage not to get lost - probably not so hard on a single leg, but with two changes of plane, what are the chances? And third, not just one but three flights are going to have to be up to time and running on schedule - in late December, in northern Europe.

And the one thing you might do to hedge against delays, which is to set the timer so that the explosion happens perhaps half an hour before the flight is scheduled to reach Newfoundland, so that even if it's two or three hours late it'll already be over the ocean - you choose not to do. You set the timer for only one hour into the on-time flight.

And yet that's what we're led to believe was the cunning plan that brought down Pam Am 103 over Lockerbie in 1988.

In fact nothing much went wrong with the plan, if that's what it was. The flight was delayed, but only by 25 minutes. The crash happened over southern Scotland, rather than the Outer Hebrides or maybe Ireland. But does it make any sense to devise a plan with so many opportunities for it to fall flat on its face?

Note that this argument is the same irrespective of the identity of the terrorists. Palestinians, Libyans, Al Qaida, IRA, doesn't matter. Why would you choose to send your carefully-placed bomb on such a chancy journey?

Of course, there have been allegations that the bomb could have got on board in Frankfurt, or at Heathrow. This makes better sense, especially the latter. Only one flight to worry about catching. Only one set of security surveillance systems to negotiate. Much less chance of the luggage doing what luggage does only too often - go astray.

So maybe that's what happened. Maybe it really was smuggled on at Heathrow. So, does the problem go away?

Not really.

You still have that cool elecronic timer. You can set it for any time you like up to nearly six weeks in advance. It's still December in northern Europe. And by the way, it's the rush hour. Planes are not exactly guaranteed to take off on time, even if the luggage has been loaded on schedule.

So you set it to go off only an hour after the scheduled take-off time. In a flight that should last nearly eight hours.

Really?

That's why the presence of the MST-13 timer in association with the Lockerbie bombing makes no sense at all. It doesn't matter whether you're talking about some daft scheme to get the thing through the continental airport baggage system on three different flights, or a direct up-load at Heathrow. It makes no sense to set such a versatile timer to such a short fuse, under these circumstances, no matter who you are or where the bomb began its journey.

Consider in contrast the original assumption for why the crash happened so early.

In October of 1988 a Palestinian terrorist cell was busted in Frankfurt. Four improvised explosive devices were seized, all constructed from Toshiba radio-casette players, and apparently intended for attacks on airliners. For reasons that might be interesting later on if this turns into a LIHOP, the ringleaders (including the bomb maker) were released after only a few days. It was known or suspected that a fifth bomb existed that had not been seized.

The seized devices didn't have your spiffy electronic timers. They had things called "ice-cube" timers, much less sophisticated in that they had a pre-set time in them that the operator couldn't vary. They were however sophisticated in a different way. They incorporated aneroid barometers, so that they would be safe indefinitely at sea level but would start to tick if the atmospheric pressure fell below 950mB. These things were deadly if smuggled on to airliners, and it didn't matter when the plane actually took off, the explosion would happen at the pre-determined time into the flight. The devices seized at Frankfurt were set to explode between 35 and 45 minutes after takeoff.

Maid of the Seas blew up 38 minutes after taking off from Heathrow.

The suitcase and the clothes and the radio-casette bomb and its triggering device were scattered all over Dumfriesshire and points east. It was something of a miracle that fragments of anything so close to the explosion were recovered, but they were. Enough to identify the make and style of the suitcase, and the model of radio-casette player, and trace the origin of the clothes. It was even determined where exactly in the hold the suitcase had been when it exploded.

Then, at some time in 1989, or possibly 1990, a small fragment of a MST-13 timer was allegedly identified in the debris collected.

The confusions surrounding that tiny fragment of debris are legion. The label of the original collection bag was altered, by an unknown party. The notes relating to its examination in England appear to have been falsified, appearing on an extra page interpolated into a loose-leaf folder, with subsequent pages re-numbered to compensate. Oh yes, and the "scientist" doing the examination was the same guy as was responsible for the false conviction of the Maguire Seven.

Then things get even murkier. Was the circuit board green or was it brown? Was it hand-made or machine-made? Was there solder on the terminals showing it had been connected to a bomb, or not? Was the fragment shown to the manufacturer at the trial the same item as the fragment allegedly found embedded in a shirt collar at the crash site? Was the manufacturer playing silly buggers in the witness box (and if so, why?), or was he genuinely confused by mysterious changes that had taken place in the fragment? Is it even possible for an object of that nature to have survived at all, so close to that amount of Semtex going up?

Why did the shopkeeper swear two affidavits saying that he hadn't sold a shirt to the purchaser of the other clothes, and then suddenly change his mind and declare that he had sold him a shirt of the right make in a later statement?

This seems to be the nub of the CT surrounding Lockerbie, once you've got past the point of realising that Megrahi was quite obviously framed by the prosecution, who were being fed information from the US investigators into the case. Re-examining the evidence brings you smack against the MST-13 timer every time. Nobody who had such a timer would have taken the risk of setting it to explode only an hour into an eight-hour flight.

And yet a fragment of such a timer was allegedly found in the wreckage. This then became the "breakthrough find", that diverted the investigation away from the Palestinian/Syrian/Iranian line of enquiry, and switched to implicate Libya.

Is the suggestion that the timer fragment was planted in order to obfuscate the investigation and eventually lead on to the indictment of Libya for the crime entirely fanciful?

Why not leave the thermite and the holographic planes for a bit and look at this one?

Paul Foot's 2001 Private Eye investigation is a good place to start - Flight from Justice (https://secure2.subscribeonline.co.uk/PEYE/digital_downloads.cfm). It's behind a £5 paywall, but worth the money.

There are a number of documentary films covering the issues, all taking rather different lines. And none of them are made by Dylan Avery.
The Maltese Double Cross (http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=7160854996287567609#) (2hrs 30min, and actually quite hard to follow despite having won a film festival prize)
Lockerbie and the CIA (http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=7160854996287567609#docid=-4640563516094155366) (Aspect ratio problem, but interesting and watchable)
The Conspirady Files: Lockerbie (http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=7160854996287567609#docid=-327765978162851498) (This BBC production seems a bit too trusting of the Official Version in one or two places.)
Flight into Darkness Part 1 (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-229293821216432833&ei=faSlSpPJKMzN-AbNmMjqBA&q#)
Flight into Darkness Part 2 (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7154791995080231857&ei=M96vSpn5L9ef-Abjm6nJBQ#)
The Lockerbie Cover-up (http://www.livevideo.com/video/Vendetta/EAFEDCF7FC5C4FAB83F5C72A2D1011E4/al-jazeera-the-lockerbie-co.aspx) (shortened version of "Flight into Darkness", but with extra material at the end)

And for a lot more information and links, the best source is probably the web site of the official UN observer at the trial of the "Lockerbie Bomber" in 2000-2001.
Dr. Hans Kochler (http://i-p-o.org/lockerbie_observer_mission.htm)

The senior academic lawyer who was responsible for getting the trial at Camp Zeist organised has a blog on the subject with a collection of relevant articles.
Professor Robert Black (http://lockerbiecase.blogspot.com/2007_07_01_archive.html)

Megrahi was framed. That seems indisputable. However, was this simply over-enthusiastic investigators cavalierly pinning the crime on someone who happened to be handy due to pressure to "get a conviction"? Or is it more sinister than that?

Rolfe.

[TriskettheKid]

Can you connect the dots, please, because I'm not seeing it.

[dudalb]

Methinks someone has become obssesed with a case.

[GlennB]

Methinks someone has become obssesed with a case.

It happens, and sometimes it results in a guilty verdict being justifiably overturned. Many times, in fact.
Sheer pressure of logic can work.

[Rolfe]

Can you connect the dots, please, because I'm not seeing it.


Oh dear, sorry. I thought I was being clear.

It makes no sense at all to set a timer with a range of about 6 weeks to go off only 1 hour into an 8-hour flight. Even if you don't want the plane to drop into the Atlantic and so render the evidence unrecoverable, the risk that the plane might be delayed by an hour or so, leading to the device detonating relatively harmlessly on the ground, is simply not worth taking. Not when you have the means to set the timer for, say, six hours into the flight.

And yet, a tiny fragment of just such a timer was allegedly found on the ground after the crash of Pan Am 103.

The provenance of the fragment is extremely peculiar, involving alteration of evidence records, a witness changing his sworn testimony, and forensic "scientists" with very dubious pedigrees. It has been suggested, alleged and downright asserted that the fragment was planted, probably by the CIA. Is this a tenable position?

Rolfe.

[Rolfe]

Methinks someone has become obssesed with a case.


And this is a problem because?

If this forum can rake over thermate and thermite and holographic planes and flyovers and whether mobile phones can connect from airliners in flight and all the rest of the 9/11 stuff, I can't think of a better place to figure out what might or might not be plausible as regards an earlier, similar atrocity.

If you're not interested, don't read the thread.

Rolfe.

[Caustic Logic]

Great, this is the "movie version." At the moment I'm too busy to dig in, but I'm seeing a mammoth OP and a need for point-by-point progress. I hope other members will read it if not comment. I'm not sure what to ask about first... I'll be back.

Oh, and I lean towards "something more sinister," but I'm open to where this goes.

[Stellafane]

Oh dear, sorry. I thought I was being clear.

Actually, I thought Triskett was being ironic -- you couldn't possibly have connected the dots any more clearly.

It makes no sense at all to set a timer with a range of about 6 weeks to go off only 1 hour into an 8-hour flight. Even if you don't want the plane to drop into the Atlantic and so render the evidence unrecoverable, the risk that the plane might be delayed by an hour or so, leading to the device detonating relatively harmlessly on the ground, is simply not worth taking. Not when you have the means to set the timer for, say, six hours into the flight.

I have to say, this is an exceedingly interesting and valid point. Pure timing doesn't seem to make sense given the vagaries of air travel. Something triggered by air pressure is far more reliable.


And yet, a tiny fragment of just such a timer was allegedly found on the ground after the crash of Pan Am 103.

The provenance of the fragment is extremely peculiar, involving alteration of evidence records, a witness changing his sworn testimony, and forensic "scientists" with very dubious pedigrees. It has been suggested, alleged and downright asserted that the fragment was planted, probably by the CIA. Is this a tenable position?

Tenable, yes. Compelling, perhaps. But why attribute this to the CIA, couldn't it have been just about anyone? And although planting evidence is an absolute wrong, and it calls into question the legality of the trial, how much does it call into question al-Megrahi's actual guilt? Was this tiny fragment the only thing connecting him to the bombing? (I'm afraid I'm not well versed on the exact particulars of the case, so I really don't know.)

[ktesibios]

Rolfe, I don't know about most of the questions you pose, but one thing that I do know: whether a PC board was machine-soldered or hand-soldered would be instantly apparent to any knowledgeable techie. In fact, if you show me a PC board which has not yet been stuffed and soldered, I could tell you at a glance if it was intended to be machine-soldered or not.

[Caustic Logic]

Tenable, yes. Compelling, perhaps. But why attribute this to the CIA, couldn't it have been just about anyone?

A good question to start with. The CIA is supposed to have pressured witnesses too. I'm curious what we know pointing to specific parties like CIA. Aside from the evidence that it was planted by someone and thus not good evidence.

And although planting evidence is an absolute wrong, and it calls into question the legality of the trial, how much does it call into question al-Megrahi's actual guilt? Was this tiny fragment the only thing connecting him to the bombing? (I'm afraid I'm not well versed on the exact particulars of the case, so I really don't know.)

But this is a better point yet vis-a-vis this discussion. Where does the circuit board fit in with the other evidence? From what I gather, it's one of three main pieces, the others being Giaka's testimony that was tossed out as bogus (thus the accomplice let off), and the shopkeeper's testimony (which never matched al Megrahi anyway). There are probably other bits of evidence of lesser importance, but none of greater. Rolfe will be baack by now I'm sure anyway...

[Rolfe]

Rolfe, I don't know about most of the questions you pose, but one thing that I do know: whether a PC board was machine-soldered or hand-soldered would be instantly apparent to any knowledgeable techie. In fact, if you show me a PC board which has not yet been stuffed and soldered, I could tell you at a glance if it was intended to be machine-soldered or not.


I have to confess, I don't entirely follow that part of the evidence. I note the court threw out Bollier's evidence as unreliable, and Bollier does indeed seem to be a slippery customer. However, I'm not clear what reason he had to lie at the trial, unless of course it was just the prospect of that damn $4 million reward offered to anyone who provided evidence to convict Megrahi and/or Fhimah. And I have recently read an article (http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/ludwig090507.htm) which implies that Bollier was simply completely thrown by the fact that the fragment was different every time he was shown it.

That one's quite a long way down the rabbit hole though, and I have some difficulty swallowing it.

But look at the piece Robert Black blogged about today (http://lockerbiecase.blogspot.com/2009_09_01_archive.html).

For example, consider the case of the Lockerbie bomber. One piece of "evidence" that was used to convict Megrahi was a piece of circuit board from a device that allegedly contained the Semtex that exploded the airliner. None of the people, who have very firm beliefs in Megrahi’s and Libya’s guilt and in the offense of the Scottish authorities in releasing Megrahi on allegedly humanitarian grounds, know that circuit boards of those days have very low combustion temperatures and go up in flames easily. Semtex produces very high temperatures. There would be nothing whatsoever left of a device that contained Semtex. It is obvious to an expert that the piece of circuit board was planted after the event.


Here's the full original article (http://vdare.com/roberts/090914_propaganda.htm), dated yesterday. Is this a valid point?

Rolfe.

[Caustic Logic]

Methinks someone has become obssesed with a case.

And I just had to say something on this. It seems someone is displaying a pointed interest to not learn more. I'm willing to bet you don't even know enough about this case to know what's actually wrong about it. I do thank you for piping up to make this attitude visible and present in this thread. Beyond that, you could help by digging in and bringing any debunks you can find. Let's check this stuff out. Passive willful ignorance is not compatible with skepticism. :thumbsup:

[Caustic Logic]

that damn $4 million reward offered to anyone who provided evidence to convict Megrahi and/or Fhimah.

Yeah, imagine if Randi quadrupled the prize and all the applicants had to do was not contradict themselves too bad. And it's testing ad libbing abilities, not psychic. Giaka didn't make the cut, tho I think he got paid anyway, as much hush money as anything, but it looks like two other finalists scored.

Honestly, I'm talking out my ass and don't know the details of this part. So maybe the science of the board should be the main focus - all evidence and descriptions available. We don't have any photos or sketches, do we? I'm not much good there either but others here might be...

[Rolfe]

I note Ktesibios said something quite pertinent about this early in the previous thread (just showing you were way ahead of me).

One thing that has always struck me as odd about this case is the idea of a national secret service designing a bomb around a timer that's a special order which, if identified, will lead directly and inescapably back to them.

That's a dumb move just on G.P.; when you consider that designing a timer that's more than accurate enough for the application, from parts available off the shelf from ordinary electronics distributors, would be trivial for anyone with an associate-degree level of training, it becomes indescribably stupid.


The MST-13 timer was, as you say, some sort of special order. Traceable.

Not a huge problem if you plan on the evidence all ending up in the middle of the Atlantic. And you have a three or four hour window which will allow you to achieve exactly that. All you have to do is set the timer to detonate at the time the flight ought to be about half an hour east of Newfoundland.

So you set it to detonate only one hour after takeoff, when the plane would barely have cleared Scotland (or Ireland), in the rather unlikely event of its actually taking off on time.

:confused:

Rolfe.

[Rolfe]

There are pictures. Put MST-13 Lockerbie into Google images.

Though I have to say, it's the timing of the various events between January 1989 and June 1990 (outbreak of the First Gulf War) that is intriguing me, as related by Paul Foot.

I seriously advise giving the Eye its fiver.

Rolfe.

[Toke]

I know little of this case, but it does sound odd to rely on a timer alone.
Combining a timer with a pressure sensor would be much more reliable.

[Metullus]

My first thought is that I would have definitely chosen to check the bomb through at Malta over either Frankfurt or Heathrow for a couple of reasons: at the time airport security at the Malta was far more porous than at the other airports and it would be far easier to make myself scarce after checking the bag (My logic here is based upon my personal experience - I flew in and out of all of those places many times in the early 1980s.) At the same time I could put a lot of time and geography between me and the scene of the crime in the interval between my placement of the bomb and its expected detonation.

The decision to plant the bomb in Malta with my ultimate target sortieing from Heathrow many hours later drives my choice of detonating devices - it must be able of detonating reliably many hours hence.

Not knowing how the MST-13 was set I do not know how easily it could be miss-set. It is possible that the timer was miss-set in Malta and was intended to detonate much later.

FWIW the Malta and detonator selections do not, at first blush, bother me.

[Rolfe]

The thing is, the evidence given is absolutely in contradiction to that. Luqa airport was the most secure of the three involved, with the least possibility of a suspect case having gone on. In contrast, there was very concrete evidence of a breach in security at Heathrow, and the possibility of a stray bag from Damascus or Warsaw getting on at Frankfurt.

ETA: Here's an excerpt from the actual judgement at Camp Zeist dealing with this issue. Starts at paragraph 38.

Luqa airport had a relatively elaborate security system. All items of baggage checked in were entered into the airport computer as well as being noted on the passenger's ticket. After the baggage had passed the sniffer check, it was placed on a trolley in the baggage area to wait until the flight was ready for loading

When the flight was ready, the baggage was taken out and loaded, and the head loader was required to count the items placed on board. The ramp dispatcher, the airport official on the tarmac responsible for the departure of the flight, was in touch by radiotelephone with the load control office. The load control had access to the computer and after the flight was closed would notify the ramp dispatcher of the number of items checked in. The ramp dispatcher would also be told by the head loader how many items had been loaded and if there was a discrepancy would take steps to resolve it.

In addition to the baggage reconciliation procedure, there was a triple count of the number of passengers boarding a departing flight, that is there was a count of the boarding cards, a count by immigration officers of the number of immigration cards handed in, and a head count by the crew.

The records relating to KM180 on 21 December 1988 show no discrepancy in respect of baggage. The flight log (production 930) shows that fifty-five items of baggage were loaded, corresponding to fifty-five on the load plan.

On the face of them, these arrangements seem to make it extremely difficult for an unaccompanied and unidentified bag to be shipped on a flight out of Luqa.

If therefore the unaccompanied bag was launched from Luqa, the method by which that was done is not established, and the Crown accepted that they could not point to any specific route by which the primary suitcase could have been loaded.

The absence of any explanation of the method by which the primary suitcase might have been placed on board KM180 is a major difficulty for the Crown case.


After a British TV company broadcast a documentary showing someone putting a bag on board at Luqa then sloping off, Air Malta sued for libel and won, convincing that court that such a course of events was impossible.

Rolfe.

[theprestige]

Your one aim in life is to cause a transatlantic flight from London to New York to fall out of the sky.

Rolfe, why is this assumed to be my one aim in life? Why wouldn't I settle for an 80% chance of crashing the plane, a 10% chance of detonating the bomb in the plane while it was delayed at the gate or on the taxiway, a 7% chance of detonating the bomb in the baggage-handling machinery, and a 3% chance of having the bomb be discovered by security personnel and safely disposed of?

I mean, I'm a terrorist, right? I'm not obsessed with knocking airplanes out of the sky, like an arsonist who can't live without fire. I'm obsessed with causing terror, with disrupting the complacency of the drones and sheeple of a society I despise. Any attack that stands a good chance of doing that is suitable.

Taking down a plane in flight is ideal, but there are several less-spectacular outcomes that would still be satisfactory trade-offs between maximal damage and maximal avoidance of capture.

Your entire argument hinges on the assumption that the means and the end are blatantly unsuited to each other. I don't see where you justify that assumption in any meaningful way.

[Rolfe]

You say yourself, blasting a plane out of the sky would be ideal. And as for your motives, you're either acting under orders from Gadaffi to exact revenge on the US for the bombings of Tripoli and Benghazi in which his infant adopted daughter was killed, or you're being paid $10 million by Iran specifically to knock out a US airliner in flight as revenge for the shooting down of the Iran Air airbus by the Vincennes. Absolutely nothing to do with drones or sheeple or despising a society.

Why would you "settle for" a chance of not knocking out a US airliner, but instead maybe causing a non-fatal explosion in a baggage hall in London? When all you have to do is set the timer to go off at midnight GMT instead of 7pm?

Rolfe.

[ktesibios]

But look at the piece Robert Black blogged about today (http://lockerbiecase.blogspot.com/2009_09_01_archive.html).

For example, consider the case of the Lockerbie bomber. One piece of "evidence" that was used to convict Megrahi was a piece of circuit board from a device that allegedly contained the Semtex that exploded the airliner. None of the people, who have very firm beliefs in Megrahi’s and Libya’s guilt and in the offense of the Scottish authorities in releasing Megrahi on allegedly humanitarian grounds, know that circuit boards of those days have very low combustion temperatures and go up in flames easily. Semtex produces very high temperatures. There would be nothing whatsoever left of a device that contained Semtex. It is obvious to an expert that the piece of circuit board was planted after the event.Here's the full original article (http://vdare.com/roberts/090914_propaganda.htm), dated yesterday. Is this a valid point?

Rolfe.

To me this smells an awful lot like troofers claiming that Satam Al-Suqami's passport should have been incinerated in the crash of AA11. First, he neglects the question of how long the board would have been exposed to high temperature from the detonation of the bomb, how good the heat transfer would have been and what temperature the PCB material would actually have reached.

Second, his claim that 80s-vintage PCBs "go up in flames easily" is specious. Flammability standards for plastics used in electronic equipment, e.g. UL 94, have been around longer than that.

My own experience is that I have encountered epoxy-glass PCBs which have been subjected to sustained high temperatures by components mounted on them which burned out and were charred to the point that I had to pronounce them unrepairable because the epoxy had become so carbonized that the board substrate was no longer nonconductive- with no flaming or sustained combustion. I have also encountered 70s-vintage PCBs made of paper-reinforced phenolic (cheap consumer-grade material) where the copper traces had been vaporized by fault currents, with no burning or other damage to the substrate- because it happened too quickly to transfer sufficient heat to the substrate to damage it.

While I don't qualify as an expert, neither is Roberts, and I have many thousands more man-hours spent observing the results of electronic combustion than he has.

Rather interesting to see a white-supremacist Web site like vdare openly pushing 9-11 troofer woo. Not surprising, but somewhat interesting.

[Rolfe]

I have to admit, I only read the paragraph Black quoted in his blog, then linked to the original as an afterthought. I didn't even notice the source as such.

This is a lot of the problem. Like so much CT discussion, you have to sift out quite a bit of accretion of spurious claims and suggestions to find the genuine issues. For example, I suspect Ludwig de Braeckeleer is quite a way down the rabbit hole, but that doesn't mean all of his alleged facts are spurious. Hard to tell where the paranoia takes over though.

In fact, I just realised Tam Dalyell has come right out in print with a LIHOP accusation. That is Tam Dalyell MP, former Father of the House, chairman of parliamentary committees on the affair. Hans Kochler, Robert Black, Tam Dalyell - are they all completely barking?

Rolfe.

[Metullus]

The thing is, the evidence given is absolutely in contradiction to that. Luqa airport was the most secure of the three involved, with the least possibility of a suspect case having gone on. In contrast, there was very concrete evidence of a breach in security at Heathrow, and the possibility of a stray bag from Damascus or Warsaw getting on at Frankfurt.

ETA: Here's an excerpt from the actual judgement at Camp Zeist dealing with this issue. Starts at paragraph 38.




After a British TV company broadcast a documentary showing someone putting a bag on board at Luqa then sloping off, Air Malta sued for libel and won, convincing that court that such a course of events was impossible.

Rolfe.My experience was a few years earlier; this is perhaps why it was not at all in accord with what you describe. In one instance I disembarked at the port and was on a flight to Rome no more than thirty minutes later, my carry on bag never having been inspected, either entering the country or leaving.

In fact, it is the ease with which I could have taken anything that would fit in my carry on bag off of my barge and onto the plane that largely informed my opinion. My risk of exposure prior to boarding the aircraft could be conceivably reduced to mere minutes in Malta (the explosives being in country no more than 40 minutes of so).

[geni]

I have to admit, I only read the paragraph Black quoted in his blog, then linked to the original as an afterthought. I didn't even notice the source as such.

This is a lot of the problem. Like so much CT discussion, you have to sift out quite a bit of accretion of spurious claims and suggestions to find the genuine issues. For example, I suspect Ludwig de Braeckeleer is quite a way down the rabbit hole, but that doesn't mean all of his alleged facts are spurious. Hard to tell where the paranoia takes over though.

In fact, I just realised Tam Dalyell has come right out in print with a LIHOP accusation. That is Tam Dalyell MP, former Father of the House, chairman of parliamentary committees on the affair. Hans Kochler, Robert Black, Tam Dalyell - are they all completely barking?

Rolfe.

Tam Dalyell has been kinda drifting off the rails since Iraq.

The timeing doesn't mean much. Too easy for it to have been a mistake or just lack of thinking things through.

It's survival would be unremarkable. Short of atomic weaponry it's fairly common to find things that were near the explosion that survived.

Getting through the security? These things happen no matter how good your system is.

The weak documentation trail and the amount of weigh the case placed on it are more problematical.

[Rolfe]

My experience was a few years earlier; this is perhaps why it was not at all in accord with what you describe. In one instance I disembarked at the port and was on a flight to Rome no more than thirty minutes later, my carry on bag never having been inspected, either entering the country or leaving.

In fact, it is the ease with which I could have taken anything that would fit in my carry on bag off of my barge and onto the plane that largely informed my opinion. My risk of exposure prior to boarding the aircraft could be conceivably reduced to mere minutes in Malta (the explosives being in country no more than 40 minutes of so).


But how would your carry-on bag get into the interline system? The Official Version requires the bag to have tags on it that will take it through the baggage system unaccompanied from KM180 onto PA103A at Frankfurt, then from that on to PA103 itself at Heathrow.

It appears that not only was there no evidence of an unaccompanied bag at Luqa, there was positive evidence that there was no unaccompanied bag at Luqa.

In contrast, the system at Frankfurt was relatively chaotic, with one particular luggage tray (contents unknown) going on to PA103A from an uncertain feeder flight. It theoretically might have come from Luqa (except for the pesky evidence that nothing of the sort came in on KA180), but it could have come from any one of a number of other flights including Damascus and Warsaw.

And to cap that one, a Heathrow baggage handler gave evidence of two pieces of luggage having mysteriously appeared in the actual baggage container involved, before PA013A landed, and one of these pieces was - a brown Samsonite hardshell. And then again, there was a breakin into that very area of Heathrow airport the previous evening, sawn-off padlock logged in the incidents file.

But leaving that aside, given the vagaries of airline timekeeping, and luggage getting lost, why choose a route with two changes of planne and three security systems to negotiate.

But more important, even if you did that, why set that timer for 7pm?

Rolfe.

[Caustic Logic]

I'm detecting a trend here. The logic of Rolfe's leading point (ie first up) about the logic of the trigger mechanism, is either flawed or not entirely clear to everyone and we're getting hung up on it. I can't say what makes most sense, Obviously it wasn't the best design for this instance as it was doomed to either blow up over or dangerously near land, which means the evidence will be more available to track you down.

but Rolfe pointed out that this bomb behaved just like the PFLP bombs, in detonating so many minutes after reaching a set altitude. I'd like to see some more info on where we know this from. This should have made the bomb origin pretty clear, but then this other timer showed up...

And the question here is was that planted. I think also covering the direct evidence for that is most helpful. Like where was it found, when, how was it handled as evidence, etc. I'll be back on this tonight with some quote boxes and links if they aren't there already.

Great thread so far, maximum input per views! It's going somewhere.

Oh and Rolf, sorry, could you also clarify the evidence field against Megrahi and where this fits in? Was my three-point breakdown about right?

[Rolfe]

Tam Dalyell has been kinda drifting off the rails since Iraq.


I'm not exactly banking on him. It's just that there's an awful lot of smoke here, and he's not the only one.

The timeing doesn't mean much. Too easy for it to have been a mistake or just lack of thinking things through.


Duh? You really think so? O.... K.... :oldroll:

It's survival would be unremarkable. Short of atomic weaponry it's fairly common to find things that were near the explosion that survived.


Yes, I think we're coming to that conclusion. I didn't really think otherwise until I saw that piece from yesterday, and I didn't realise it was from a source that was also wittering on about thermite residues.

Getting through the security? These things happen no matter how good your system is.


Well, yes. Obviously. However, would you rather have your case x-rayed once or three times, under these circumstances?

The weak documentation trail and the amount of weigh the case placed on it are more problematical.


The positively surreal documentation trail. And once you realise that Gauci never did identify Megrahi, the entire weight of the case seems to rest on it.

Rolfe.

[geni]

Duh? You really think so? O.... K.... :oldroll:

Terroists don't have the best of records (the IRA's better results were due to a lot of years of experence). Intelligance agencies don't exactly have a great record either. A poor choice of timer settings is within what could be expected.


Well, yes. Obviously. However, would you rather have your case x-rayed once or three times, under these circumstances?


Depends what I could get acess to. If I'm an intelligence agent who wants to stay close to my support network points of acess may be limited.

The security is of interest since it makes the attack rather difficult but not the point where it is unreasonable to expect an intelligance agent/terrorist to try it.

People choseing less than ideal approaches is pretty common in the case of terrorism. If you look at the better documented campains (the french resistence say) you tend to run into situations where the terrorists make what appear to be really stupid mistakes.

[Rolfe]

Hmmm. Case against Megrahi.

Giaka first named him, as far as I can see, and came out with other stuff that was quite obviously invented - not necessarily for the $4 million reward, but because he was already in the USA on a CIA witness protection programme he'd got on by lying about his importance and contacts, and he knew he was in danger of being dropped if he didn't deliver some useful intelligence.

He was in Malta quite openly on 7th December, and while all the rational evidence pointed to the clothes having been bought from Gauci on 23rd November, it was just possible to torture the facts to suggest the sale might have been on 7th December.

Gauci originally identified Abu Talb as the purchaser, while the authorities were still pursuing the PFLP-GC line, and persistently stated that the purchaser was over 50 and over 6 feet tall. (Megrahi was 36 and 5 feet 8 inches.) Nevertheless he managed to say that Megrahi "looked quite like" the purchaser, which was as far as it went. He was unable to pick Megrahi out in court.

Megrahi was in Malta travelling on a "coded" passport (security services undercover sort of thing, rather than an illegal false passport) on 21st December, so if there had been any possibility of a rogue suitcase on KM180 (which there really wasn't), he might have been able to put it there.

Oh yes, and he did have dealings with MeBo, quite a lot of dealings with MeBo. Never proved to have had an MST-13 timer in his possession, but he did have dealings with the company.

You see how everything comes down to that fragment?

Rolfe.

[Rolfe]

People choseing less than ideal approaches is pretty common in the case of terrorism. If you look at the better documented campains (the french resistence say) you tend to run into situations where the terrorists make what appear to be really stupid mistakes.


So setting the timer for 7pm instead of midnight was just a "stupid mistake", that just so happened to detonate the bomb pretty much to the minute that a barometric device with an ice-cube timer would have detonated following the delayed take-off.

Coincidences happen, but that's a biggie.

Of course, if the fragment is genuine, then some sort of explanation along these lines must be the case. However, this is what I'm trying to figure.

I'm going to have another read at the Private Eye report, because it's the best of the lot as far as it goes, and I take back every word I said about barnacles on that. Given the confusing and contradictory accounts available elsewhere that one is a model of clarity that never seems to go beyond what can actually be supported. The only thing is, it's 8 years old and events and priorities have moved on.

I don't want to bilk the Eye by mirroring the report outside their pay-wall, come on, it's only a fiver. Oh, and their short 2007 follow-up piece on the timer issue (http://i-p-o.org/Private_Eye-Lockerbie-Oct2007.jpg) has actually escaped, nothing to do with me, so look at that too.

Rolfe.

[rwguinn]

...

Well, yes. Obviously. However, would you rather have your case x-rayed once or three times, under these circumstances?




The positively surreal documentation trail. And once you realise that Gauci never did identify Megrahi, the entire weight of the case seems to rest on it.

Rolfe.

Rolfe:
If the bags were being transferred, within the airport itself--never leaving airline custody--would they have been x-rayed at each transfer point?
I really don't think they would do that back then.
But I could be wrong.

[Rolfe]

It's in the evidence. Yes, I was surprised too, but apparently that was SOP. As Megrahi (or indeed anyone planning such an attack) would certainly have known.

Rolfe.

[rwguinn]

It's in the evidence. Yes, I was surprised too, but apparently that was SOP. As Megrahi (or indeed anyone planning such an attack) would certainly have known.

Rolfe.
I stand corrected.
It is strange that that would happen (or, to be accurate, that it was SOP), but then, stranger things go on...

[TriskettheKid]

I wasn't being ironic.

I honestly don't see the connection here.


I mean, didn't Libya apologize? Were they in on it?

[Metullus]

But how would your carry-on bag get into the interline system? The Official Version requires the bag to have tags on it that will take it through the baggage system unaccompanied from KM180 onto PA103A at Frankfurt, then from that on to PA103 itself at Heathrow.

It appears that not only was there no evidence of an unaccompanied bag at Luqa, there was positive evidence that there was no unaccompanied bag at Luqa.

In contrast, the system at Frankfurt was relatively chaotic, with one particular luggage tray (contents unknown) going on to PA103A from an uncertain feeder flight. It theoretically might have come from Luqa (except for the pesky evidence that nothing of the sort came in on KA180), but it could have come from any one of a number of other flights including Damascus and Warsaw.

And to cap that one, a Heathrow baggage handler gave evidence of two pieces of luggage having mysteriously appeared in the actual baggage container involved, before PA013A landed, and one of these pieces was - a brown Samsonite hardshell. And then again, there was a breakin into that very area of Heathrow airport the previous evening, sawn-off padlock logged in the incidents file.

But leaving that aside, given the vagaries of airline timekeeping, and luggage getting lost, why choose a route with two changes of planne and three security systems to negotiate.

But more important, even if you did that, why set that timer for 7pm?

Rolfe.I was not suggesting that my carry on would somehow get in the baggage interline system. I was only commenting that in my experience the security in Malta was piss-poor; I was only suggesting that judging from the fact that I was able to disembark from a marine vessel at the port unchecked, that I could travel to the airport and board an international commercial flight after what can be generously described as a cursory glance at my passport and a somewhat more detailed review of my ticket, and that I could carry on to that flight a large leather bag (roughly 24" x 10" x 10") that was never inspected by any authority whatever since arriving in Guinea Bissau 4 months prior, all in the space of 30 minutes plus or minus, it is not unreasonable to extrapolate that security overall is less than optimal.

Not, I submit, an unreasonable observation I think.

As to the choice of Malta over the other cities: I have a keen sense of self-preservation. I can easily see how someone with my experience of these airports and port facilities might decide that whatever the operational disadvantages the indirect attack might well give me a much better chance of getting away unscathed and unidentified. If I was able to get the bag onto the plane I could well be clear of not only the airport but also the country on an anonymous marine vessel before the plane had even cleared the runway. I would also quite like the idea that getting the device into the country and to the airport would entail little risk and less difficulty - I could build the damn thing in the machine room of my barge or boat with little fear of attention from security forces and I could carry it off the boat and directly to the airport with little fear of discovery in a very short period of time. Much safer, in my experience, than doing so in Frankfurt or Heathrow.

This is all I am saying.

[uk_dave]

Terrorists are not stupid, why would anyone decide on a plan like this?



Whoooa! They aint necessarily clever either.

If there's one thing we should take from debating with 'truthers' it is that what we perceive as common sense doesn't necessarily apply in the real world and we should be careful about the assumptions we make on the back of it.

Does blowing the plane out of the sky over the ocean really provide the best result for a terrorist?

Plane lost in mysterious circumstances, hardly any wreckage found, possible mechanical fault etc etc

Or plane blown out of sky over dry land with lots of evidence that it was a bomb wot dun it?

Perhaps the perp shot his wad too early and messed up setting the timer?

Perhaps....maybe.... and so forth.

:)

[Ambrosia]

MST-13 timer is made by MEBO a Swiss company.

Furthermore, Mr. Edwin Bollier, head of the Zurich-based company MEBO, today confirmed vis-à-vis Dr. Koechler that during a visit to the headquarters of the American FBI in Washington DC at the beginning of 1991 he was offered an amount of up to USD 4 million plus a new identity (name) in the United States if he would testify in court that the timer fragment that was allegedly found on the crash site around Lockerbie stemmed from a MST-13 timer that his company had delivered to Libya.

[ link (http://i-p-o.org/IPO-nr-Lockerbie-5Oct07.htm) - BBC interview from Oct 2007 with Dr. Hans Koechler

this document (http://www.mebocom-defilee.ch/ceocities/ebo1999repo.htm) which is apparently a summary of MEBOs official position/analysis of the recovered fragment, makes interesting reading.

in Spring of 1998 MEBO received from a third party a video-recorded interview with FBI forensic expert in the Lockerbie case, Tom Thurman. In this video Thurman is showing exactly the same photograph, explaining that he knew on June 15, 1990 that this fragment was part of a MST-13 MEBO timer that allegedly triggered the Lockerbie bomb. .... FBI forensic expert T.Thurman demonstrates in his video that the alleged Lockerbie-fragment is part of a handmade MST-13 timer circuit-board! Clearly visible markings show the hand-soldered tracks, sawed curvings, etc. An independent British forensic expert: Mr. Owen Lewis, declares in 1999 in two seperate TV airings: "Despatches" by channel 4, and "60 Minutes" by CBS the quite obviously visible differences between the hand-made and the industrially produced circuit-boards of these MST-13 timers.

E.Meister and E.Bollier can today clearly declare that the MEBO-MST-13 timers delivered to Libya were fitted with green-clored[sic], machine-printed circuit-boards. Therefore we also know that the MST-13 timer fragment that was allegedly discovered in Lockerbie can not be from a MEBO MST-13 timer that was sold to Libya.

Just a reminder: thephotograph no.4 that was first shown to E.Meister and E.Bollier clearly shows a carbonated, hand-made segment from a brown-laquered circuit-board: (T.Thurmans fragment of July, 1990)!

Then we have Ulrich Lumpert Ulrich Lumpert, formerly an electronics engineer with Mebo AG, Zurich, has signed an affidavit admitting he committed perjury before the Scottish Court in the Netherlands.

In his affidavit he states that he stole a handmade sample of an "MST-13 Timer PC-board" from Mebo in Zurich and handed it over, on June 22 1989, to an "official person investigating the Lockerbie case."

He further states that the fragment of the timer, cut into two pieces for "supposedly forensic reasons," which was presented in court stemmed from the same piece.

He further states that when he became aware that this piece was used for an "intentional politically motivated criminal undertaking" he decided, out of fear for his life, to keep silent on the matter. [ link (http://www.heraldscotland.com/probe-into-lockerbie-timer-claims-1.864604) ]


Thomas Thurman, the FBI agent who identifies the fragment in the first place, who appears in the Maltese double cross, was criticised in this report (http://www.nacdl.org/TESTIFY/test0017.htm) and in this report (http://www.usdoj.gov/oig/special/9704a/) both from 1997, for altering evidence.

In Gideon Levys film "Lockerbie Revisited" interviews with lab personnell reveal that the MST-13 fragment itself was never tested for explosives residue. link (http://www.vpro.nl/programma/tegenlicht/afleveringen/41867169/media/41892895/?bw=bb&player=wmp&media=41892895&refernr=&hostname=www&portalid=programmasites&x=42&y=12#) Dutch language but most of the interviews are in english.

[Caustic Logic]

I didn't really think otherwise until I saw that piece from yesterday, and I didn't realise it was from a source that was also wittering on about thermite residues.

Paul Craig Roberts is a conservative former Reagan admin economist anti-neocon guy. Otherwise all I know is he's expressed some Truther beliefs, but not near as stupidly as most GOP defectors (orders of magnitude saner than Morgan Reynolds). I'd consider him potentially correct on some things, but not reliable or trustworthy. The science of a chip's destructibility might be worth studying up on, but absent that, I'm inclined to leave the question probably irrelevant and look at other aspects.

[Caustic Logic]

I wasn't being ironic.

I honestly don't see the connection here.


I mean, didn't Libya apologize? Were they in on it?

Yes, they did apologize and pay massive damages as if responsible. Apparently this was also a political move. They've always asserted al Megrahi's innocence, but vaguely "took responsibility" anyway and paid up, largely to end UN sanctions put in place to force them to do so. They also disbanded their nuclear program and renounced any remaining terrorist links or moral support. They did all these things in the period following al Megrahi's final conviction and first failed appeal(s), and September 11. It seems whatever they were or weren't guilty of they were determined to show they were a responsible state and not part of that axis thing. I think it was a wise investment that is now paying off. The record may be revised too to show they semi-atoned for a sin they didn't commit. I'm still learning even the basics, but it's definitely an unusual story...

[Caustic Logic]

It's bad form I know, but given my schedule, I'm going to have to do a few posts in a row.

So I found some images of the fragment and of an intact MST-13 circuit board. Both are shown in exhibit-like old photo context, at this site (http://english.ohmynews.com/articleview/article_view.asp?menu=c10400&no=385213&rel_no=1). apparently the real deal, photographed by FBI's agent Thurman. The site's analysis noted how the fragment's shape doesn't match the model.
photo comparison (http://image.ohmynews.com/down/images/1/todd_385213_1[674788].jpg)
On first blush they don't seem to exactly match, but I put them into Photoshop to compare. The black outline here is a "find edges" filter applied to the intact model. The fragment was then stretched (kept in scale) under it until the "1" matched up. I also rotated it about 1 degree. You'll note the whole thing matches, with a slight overall warp. So we're dealing with a properly-scaled forgery or the real thing. (the "smart blur" is mine too. It destroys nothing but the offset dot matrix).
http://i133.photobucket.com/albums/q62/chainsawmoth/MST-13_comp_1.jpg

Not that that was an issue, just a side-note. So this is the the exact style of a Mebo-made MST-13 board. It looks kind of blue-gray to me, but is that an overall tint issue? It does seem that way. The fragment was said to be brown, compared to green if from Mebo via Libya, re: the sources I'm seeing here. Okay. Got it. .. yeah. hit submit.

It was reportedly found at the scene in January 1989. These details next...

[Caustic Logic]

MST-13 timer is made by MEBO a Swiss company.
Furthermore, Mr. Edwin Bollier, head of the Zurich-based company MEBO, today confirmed vis-à-vis Dr. Koechler that during a visit to the headquarters of the American FBI in Washington DC at the beginning of 1991 he was offered an amount of up to USD 4 million plus a new identity (name) in the United States if he would testify in court that the timer fragment that was allegedly found on the crash site around Lockerbie stemmed from a MST-13 timer that his company had delivered to Libya.

This is bad. Why do you need to pay someone just to show up and tell the truth? Or is he simply in on this vast disinfo conspiracy?
this document (http://www.mebocom-defilee.ch/ceocities/ebo1999repo.htm) which is apparently a summary of MEBOs official position/analysis of the recovered fragment, makes interesting reading.
Indeed, the company itself, to believe the mebocom (not mebo.com) link says
The MEBO Inc. Partners E. Meister and E. Bollier did confirm to the forensic experts from the FBI and the Scottish police that such MST-13 timers had actually been delivered to Libya; (see official police-protocols from 1990).

Meister and Bolier had "smartly" been coached into depositing such a statement by simply being asked to identify the alleged fragment from a slightly blurred photograph. Shock and stress from being named kind of an accessory to this tragedy prevented E. Bollier and E. Meister from insisting first to actually view the alleged fragment, prior to making clear identification!

They don't seem happy with the investigation. ?? But we're talking about planting here, not forgery. It seems to be a fit style-wise.

Then we have Ulrich Lumpert
Ulrich Lumpert, formerly an electronics engineer with Mebo AG, Zurich, has signed an affidavit admitting he committed perjury before the Scottish Court in the Netherlands.

... stole a handmade sample of an "MST-13 Timer PC-board" ... handed it over ... to an "official person investigating the Lockerbie case." ... cut into two pieces ... presented in court [ link (http://www.heraldscotland.com/probe-into-lockerbie-timer-claims-1.864604) ]

Whoah! That is very different from flying out of the plane on detonation. I did notice strange horizontal and vertical cut marks on the recovered sample, like sloppy razor work. That's too obvious tho, isn't it? GFaked photo! Disinfo! What I want to know is what commie conspiracy is paying all these people to create this insane Libya-is-innocent CT?

Thomas Thurman, the FBI agent who identifies the fragment in the first place, who appears in the Maltese double cross, was criticised in this report (http://www.nacdl.org/TESTIFY/test0017.htm) and in this report (http://www.usdoj.gov/oig/special/9704a/) both from 1997, for altering evidence.

Interesting. Primarily he was cited for mishandling evidence in the OKC bombing case, and at least two other cases. This pieces of work on 103 doesn't seem to play in there. If all he did was identify it, with the comparison to a Mebo board, then he did fine in this case. But there is more to it, I'm sure.

In Gideon Levys film "Lockerbie Revisited" interviews with lab personnell reveal that the MST-13 fragment itself was never tested for explosives residue. link (http://www.vpro.nl/programma/tegenlicht/afleveringen/41867169/media/41892895/?bw=bb&player=wmp&media=41892895&refernr=&hostname=www&portalid=programmasites&x=42&y=12#) Dutch language but most of the interviews are in english.

Hmmm... more disinfo people. You'll note they're all European, kinda shady... ;)

Great post, mate!

[Rolfe]

The provenance and chain of custody of the fragment are quite interesting.

It seems to be very unclear exactly who found it and where and when. If you watch The Maltese Double Cross, you'll notice that the film states the fragment survived in the open, in Kielder Forest in Northumberland, through two winters. There's a long sequence walking through the forest with a search worker explaining how stuff caught in the high canopy couldn't be recovered but they tried to get the stuff in the undergrowth, and then some severe winter storms brought more stuff down which could be recovered.

This would imply it was found no earlier than the spring of 1990, which is in complete contradiction to most of the rest of the evidence, and I assumed it was sloppy reporting on the part of that production. However, the provenance is confused enough that it's worth bearing this very early version in mind (the film was released in 1994).

According to de Braeckeleer (http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/ludwig090507.htm) (whose wider thesis I don't necessarily accept, by the way)

There have been different accounts concerning the discovery of the timer fragment. A police source close to the investigation reported that it had been discovered by lovers. Some have said that it was picked up by a man walking his dog. Others have claimed that it was found by a policeman "combing the ground on his hands and knees."

At the trial, the third explanation became official. "On 13 January 1989, DC Gilchrist and DC McColm were engaged together in line searches in an area near Newcastleton. A piece of charred material was found by them which was given the police number PI/995 and which subsequently became label 168."


Paul Foot (whose factual accuracy appears to be impeccable) doesn't go into so much detail. He says

The fragment had a strange history. It was first found in the neck of a shirt collected from the luggage off the stricken plane. The material found in the shirt was first marked "cloth, charred", but this had been overwritten by a Scottish policeman with the word "debris". The policeman who found it, DC Gilchrist, was never able to give a credible explanation for this alteration.


De Braeckeleer elaborates a bit more.

The officer had initially labelled the bag 'cloth (charred)' but had later overwritten the word 'cloth' with 'debris'.

The bag contained pieces of a shirt collar and fragments of materials said to have been extracted from it, including the tiny piece of circuit board identified as coming from an MST-13 timer made by the Swiss firm MeBo.

"The original inscription on the label, which we are satisfied, was written by DC Gilchrist, was "Cloth (charred)". The word 'cloth' has been overwritten by the word 'debris'. There was no satisfactory explanation as to why this was done."

The judges said in their judgment that Gilchrist's evidence had been "at worst evasive and at best confusing".


It's been said that this standard of "chain of custody" is uniquely poor among the Lockerbie evidence. Well, I should hope so. Relabelling exhibits like that is a strict no-no, and the policeman's evasiveness is extremely peculiar. I should hope this was an isolated instance. But it's helluva funny that it's this one single absolutely pivotal piece of evidence that was affected.

It goes on, but I'll do that in a new post.

Rolfe.

[Ambrosia]

This is bad. Why do you need to pay someone just to show up and tell the truth? Or is he simply in on this vast disinfo conspiracy?

He reportedly declined the offer. Though there was a $4million bounty to do with the case, and it's alleged that Gauci the shop owner was paid $2million
, documents pertaining to this were requested by the defense in an October 2007 hearing prior to Megrahis 2nd appeal.

I am not calling anyone disinfo here, nor positing a vast conspiracy.

According to his own admission Bollier, who has a history of working with Libya, was more interested in the $200million offered to him by Ghadaffi for getting Megrahi freed. See the BBC Conspiracy Files program where he is interviewed for more.

*if* that's true, it calls into question much of the information collated by mebo regarding the whole timer fragment, there's bundles of it at the link I posted earlier, as well as transcripts of Bolliers original report to Scottish police on the fragment.

It cetainly makes the picture more complicated, and harder to investigate.

[Ambrosia]

Ludwig De Braeckeleer is nothing if not prolific. Having authored some 200 articles (http://english.ohmynews.com/english/eng_article_diff.asp?menu=A11100&writer_id=ludwig&writer_name=&serial_name=&page=1), mostly to do with the Lockerbie case, for OhmyNews International. OMNI being a South Korean online newspaper.

this quote is startling...

In an interview conducted on May 16, Abolhassan Bani-Sadr, the former president of the Islamic Republic of Iran, told me that Tehran, not Libya, had ordered the bombing of Pan Am 103 ... in the immediate aftermath of the Lockerbie tragedy, Mohtashami-Pur, the then minister of the interior, acknowledged in an interview that he had contracted Ahmad Jibril, the leader of a Palestinian organization, to bomb an American airliner. The interview was scheduled for publication the following day. Hours before distribution, the newspaper was shutdown.

[ link (http://english.ohmynews.com/articleview/article_view.asp?menu=c10400&no=382662&rel_no=1) ]

Other investigoogling throws up this PDF (http://www.shirleymckie.com/documents/Lumpertaffidavit_000.pdf). apparently a reproduction of the Lumpert affidavit along with Kochlers response, as well as an article by Marcello Mega in a Scottish newspaper that interviews former a police chief who admits to fabricating evidence re: the MST-13 fragment.

[ANTPogo]

Do you decide to introduce the unaccompanied bomb into the system in Malta, on an Air Malta flight to Frankfurt, there to negotiate the baggage system to get itself on to a Pan Am flight to Heathrow, where it will be unloaded again and transferred to the actual transatlantic flight?

And then do you set the timer to so short a time that if anything delays the timetable for only an hour, the bomb will almost certainly go off on the ground somewhere?

Terrorists are not stupid, why would anyone decide on a plan like this?

First, the bag is going to have to get through not one airport security system but three, each one with its own x-ray surveillance, and each one liable to pull an apparently suspicious or even unaccompanied bag out for closer examination. And second, the bag is going to have to manage not to get lost - probably not so hard on a single leg, but with two changes of plane, what are the chances? And third, not just one but three flights are going to have to be up to time and running on schedule - in late December, in northern Europe.

And the one thing you might do to hedge against delays, which is to set the timer so that the explosion happens perhaps half an hour before the flight is scheduled to reach Newfoundland, so that even if it's two or three hours late it'll already be over the ocean - you choose not to do. You set the timer for only one hour into the on-time flight.

And yet that's what we're led to believe was the cunning plan that brought down Pam Am 103 over Lockerbie in 1988.

In fact nothing much went wrong with the plan, if that's what it was. The flight was delayed, but only by 25 minutes. The crash happened over southern Scotland, rather than the Outer Hebrides or maybe Ireland. But does it make any sense to devise a plan with so many opportunities for it to fall flat on its face?

Note that this argument is the same irrespective of the identity of the terrorists. Palestinians, Libyans, Al Qaida, IRA, doesn't matter. Why would you choose to send your carefully-placed bomb on such a chancy journey?

All of these arguments from incredulity are irrelevant, because it happened before. All of it.

In 1985, Sikh extremists attempted to destroy two Air India flights. They purchased tickets in Canada for the Canadian airline Canadian Pacific Airlines with a later transfer to separate Air India flights. The terrorists then checked bags containing bombs for the Canadian Pacific flights, asking that the bags be interlined to the Air India flights. The terrorists themselves did not board the planes.

The bags were duly transferred once the Canadian flights reached their destinations, one in Toronto to Air India Flight 181 (which made an additional stop in Montreal to have a "podded" engine added, a standard airline method of transporting unused aircraft engines to maintenance hubs) which then proceeded to London as Air India Flight 182, and the other in Tokyo to Air India Flight 301.

Air India Flight 182's bomb detonated when the airline was above the Atlantic, destroying the aircraft and killing all aboard. Air India Flight 301's bomb exploded an hour earlier, on the ground at Narita Airport as it was being transferred from the Canadian plane to the Indian plane, killing two baggage handlers and injuring four. The plotters had intended both bombs to go off simultaneously while the Air India planes were in flight, but due to a misreading of how departure and arrival times in various time zones were listed, the timer of the Air India Flight 301 bomb was mis-set, and so detonated early while the plane was still on the ground.

In other words, four years before Lockerbie, a terrorist group did exactly what you find so suspiciously unbelievable in the Pan Am Flight 103 case - send unaccompanied bags with explosives through multiple baggage-check points because of multiple aircraft transfers (on entirely separate airlines, even), and set the timer in a way that flight delays or misread schedules could cause the bomb to detonate when it wasn't planned to.

[Rolfe]

[Sorry, this leads on from my last post, pls temporarily skip intervening items.]

The routine for examining debris picked up on the ground seems to have been to send the stuff to RAERDE in Kent for forensic examination, and the piece of cloth with the fragment would be sent there because of the charring, which suggested it had been in close proximity to the expolsion.

This is where the next glitch in the chain of custody comes in. Dr. Thomas Hayes was the scientist who examined it. He was the man who gave the forensic evidence that falsely convicted the Maguire Seven, and he has had a number of cases overturned on appeal. Overall, his record suggests someone over-keen to find "smoking-gun" evidence and not too particular about how he does it (I can look for the links to this later if necessary). On the face of it, he found the fragment in the cloth of the shirt in May of 1989.

He described the fragment in notes in a loose-leaf folder, with hand-numbered pages. The page in question was numbered 51. However, there were five subsequent pages in the folder, originally numbered 51 to 55, which had been re-numbered as 52 to 56. The clear implication was that the page describing the fragment had been added at a later date, and the subsequent pages renumbered to correspond. Dr. Hayes was unable to explain the renumbering in court. The fragment's notes were dated, and the date appeared to match (not hard, that), but it has been suggested that the number assigned to the fragment in the examination record indicates a much later date of examination. (The judges decided that since the date was consistent, the rest of the confusion was irrelevant.)

Nothing more seems to have happened at this juncture. However in September 1989 another employee at RAERDE, Allen Fereday, wrote to the Scottish police asking them to look at a photograph of this fragment. Oddly, the photo was a polaroid, and Fereday apologised for not having had a proper picture taken by a staff photographer, explaining that the polaroid was "the best I can do in such a short time".

Huh? The fragment was allegedly found in May and it's now September. What sort of a backlog do the RAERDE photographers have, for goodness sake?

Fereday, by the way, has been repeatedly criticised as having no scientific qualifications, and was flagged up as someone who should not be giving expert forensic evidence.

I think the implication here is that September 1989 is the earliest point where there is reasonably definite evidence of the timer fragment existing in the system. Which does knock out the version presented by The Maltese Double Cross, but I still think that's fairly emblematic of the confusion that existed.

I'm taking my next section from Paul Foot's account, as I said, it seems the most factual and based on evidence given at the trial. There seems to have then been a long and fruitless search for the manufacturer of the circuit board, carried out by DCI Williamson of the Scottish police. While it's clear that the May entry in Hayes's notes could well have been retrospective, I have seen no suggestion that Williamson is bent, or was not in possession of, at the very least, a picture of something that looked plausibly like the fragment exhibited as evidence. So Sepember 1989 seems to be the date to look at from this account.

Williamson was unsuccessful in identifying the provenance of the circuit board, and sent it to the USA. In June 1990 Tom Thurman identified it as resembling another timer the US authorities had laid their hands on from elsewhere. However, it seems as if even then they didn't know exactly what it was, and it took more trips to look at more fragments from further timers before they finally identified MeBo as the manufacturer.

It was certainly the identification of the circuit board that began the Libya connection. The first press reports naming Libya as being implicated (rather than the PFLP-GC, Syria and Iran) appeared in September 1990, apparently because the fragment resembled timers known or discovered to have been sold to Libya.

That seems to be when the Lockerbie investigation turned to Giaka, who had been feeding the CIA scraps of irrelevant and inaccurate information about Libya since August 1988, including Megrahi and Fhimah whom he believed were Libyan intelligence agents. This led in February 1991 to Gauci being shown Megrahi's picture and asked if this was the man who bought the clothes.

This latter part actually sounds quite genuine to me. Would someone arrange for the fragment to be planted in the evidence in September 1989 (backdating its discovery to May of that year), and then be content to sit and wait for a full year while various PC Plods ran round in circles with it? This is the narrative that could persuade me the item wasn't planted - if only there weren't so many strange happenings surrounding the thing.

But as they say, hold it! Dere r moar confusions.

Rolfe.

[Rolfe]

In other words, four years before Lockerbie, a terrorist group did exactly what you find so suspiciously unbelievable in the Pan Am Flight 103 case - send unaccompanied bags with explosives through multiple baggage-check points because of multiple aircraft transfers (on entirely separate airlines, even), and set the timer in a way that flight delays or misread schedules could cause the bomb to detonate when it wasn't planned to.


Thanks for the info about the disappearing Air India flight - I remember it happening, but not the details.

Perhaps I laid out the OP in a misleading manner. The starting point for the "plant" hypothesis isn't argument from incredulity, and I possibly put too much emphasis on that aspect. The real oddity isn't the multiple transfers alleged to have been planned. It's the time of the detonation of the bomb.

If you're going to do everything that was alleged, especially if you're relying on three separate flights and two baggage transfers four days before Christmas, why would you set the timer for 7pm rather than midnight? If everything goes perfectly, 7pm will see the plane just clearing Scotland or Ireland. Any delay of more than an hour, and it won't even be airborne. In contrast, setting the timer for midnight (at a rough guess) will get you an explosion over the Atlantic whether the plane is on time or several hours late.

Of course, if that was the sum total of the problem, even given the extraordinary coincidence with respect to the settings of the ice-cube timers, Geni's point that someone just miscalculated would probably explain it.

However, put that together with the huge questions over the provenance of the timer fragment, and it starts to look a lot more interesting.

Rolfe.

[geni]

I wasn't being ironic.

I honestly don't see the connection here.


I mean, didn't Libya apologize? Were they in on it?

Libya wants to be allowed back into the international community. If that involves handing over a few people, makeing the odd apology and spending a few billion (they've pumped enough into the AU in the past) they will do it.

[Rolfe]

You know, this habit of presenting stuff as video rather than text can be annoying. One of the films about the Lockerbie affair has a segment of an interview with Said Gadaffi in which he freely explains that the "apology" was simply playing with words and the whole thing was done in order to get the sanctions lifted. I wish I had a bit of text to quote. As it is, I can't even remember which film.

Rolfe.

[Toke]

You know, this habit of presenting stuff as video rather than text can be annoying. One of the films about the Lockerbie affair has a segment of an interview with Said Gadaffi in which he freely explains that the "apology" was simply playing with words and the whole thing was done in order to get the sanctions lifted. I wish I had a bit of text to quote. As it is, I can't even remember which film.

Rolfe.

If that is the case he got serious payback with those Bulgarian? nurses.

[TriskettheKid]

Libya wants to be allowed back into the international community. If that involves handing over a few people, makeing the odd apology and spending a few billion (they've pumped enough into the AU in the past) they will do it.

As far as I was aware, hadn't Libya also accepted responsibility for other terrorist acts associated with Libya?

Could someone please walk me through this? I honestly am not seeing the big picture.

[Ambrosia]

You know, this habit of presenting stuff as video rather than text can be annoying. One of the films about the Lockerbie affair has a segment of an interview with Said Gadaffi

BBC Conspiracy Files.

There's a transcript of that interview here (http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2008/08_august/29/gaddafi_interview.pdf).

INTERVIEWER does Libya accept responsibility for the
attack on Lockerbie?
INTERVIEWEE
Well yes we wrote a letter to the Security Council saying
that we are responsible for the acts of our employees or
people. But it doesn't mean that we did it in fact.
INTERVIEWER
So to be very clear on this what you're saying is that you
accept responsibility, but you're not admitting that you
did it?
INTERVIEWEE
Of course.

[Rolfe]

As far as I was aware, hadn't Libya also accepted responsibility for other terrorist acts associated with Libya?

Could someone please walk me through this? I honestly am not seeing the big picture.


It's a very big picture, and it has at least two subjects that it's unclear why they should be on the same canvas (I'm talking about the drug smuggling that was apparently going on on the plane, and the CIA operatives, and the missing body and the VIPs who were pulled off the plane at the last minute, let's not go there just yet).

Here's the simple version.

In the spring of 1988, the USS Vincennes operating in the Persian Gulf with a very trigger-happy captain, shot down a scheduled airline flight full of pilgrims on their way to Mecca in mistake for an attacking fighter plane. They were edgy, because they were in Iranian waters illegally, although this was initially denied. The passenger plane was an Iranian Airbus. Initially the USA blamed the Airbus, and no apology was ever offered. Instead, the captain of the Vincennes was given a medal. (And by the way, both US vessels in the area promptly sailed away, leaving the crew of the HMS York, which was also nearby and had in fact originally been blamed for the incident, to spend the next two weeks fishing body parts out of the Persian Gulf.)

The Ayatollah promptly vowed to have his revenge, declaring that US airliners would rain from the skies as a result. He offered a fee of $10 million to any group which would carry out the revenge on Iran's behalf.

Enter the People's Front for the Liberation of Palestine General Command, a terrorist organisation based in Syria but operating a cell in Frankfurt. That cell included Ahmed Jibril, a mastermind, Marwan Khreesat, a bomb-maker, and Abu Talb, a henchman. The German police raided that cell in September of 1988, took them into custody and seized four assembled bombs made of Toshiba radio-cassette players clearly intended to be used against aircraft.

The reason they were obviously intended to hit aircraft is that they were triggered by "ice-cube" timers attached to aneroid barometers, which would be inert indefinitely at sea level, but would explode 35 to 45 minutes after taking off in an aircraft.

For reasons I'm not yet clear about but which may turn out to be very important, several members of the cell including Khreesat were released again almost immmediately. In spite of the fact that there was strong evidence of the existence of a fifth device that had not been recovered.

On 21st December the Pan Am clipper Maid of the Seas fell out of the sky above Lockerbie, en route for the USA. 38 minutes after taking off from Heathrow. A few days later, about $11 million was deposited in a Warsaw bank account controlled by the PFLP-GC, from an Iranian source.

A lot of evidence was recovered from the crash scene, and the police were initially hot in pursuit of the PFLP-GC. From January to March 1989 the press was full of it, anticipating imminent arrests. The shopkeeper who sold the clothes packed round the bomb in the suitcase, Tony Gauci of Mary's House in Sliema, Malta, identified Abu Talb as the purchaser. However, things seemed to go quiet for a while, and although stories about Palestinian involvement were still coming out, official sources seemed to have zipped their lips.

In 1990, Middle Eastern politics underwent a sea change, as Saddam Hussein started to over-step the bounds of his US masters, and prepared to invade Kuwait. By this version of the story, Syria and Iran had to be neutralised as back-door threats and it was no longer politic to pursue action against them. The dogs had to be called off.

However, there was still a crashed airliner and 270 dead people. Maybe an explanation is still needed. And maybe this can be used for more foreign policy advancement. There had been passing references to Libya early in the enquiry, but these were really irrelevant. However, after the MST-13 fragment was identified, Libya entered the frame. A batch of these timers had been sold to Libya on some sort of special order. And there were foreign policy reasons for isolating Libya at that point, including the fact that Gadaffi had been arming the IRA for years.

It was a plausible theory. Forget the Vincennes and the Airbus. In 1986, the US carried out a series of bombing raids on Tripoli and Benghazi, in which Gadaffi's infant adopted daughter was killed. It was believed the raids were an attempt to kill Gadaffi himself. Also good reason for revenge to be attempted.

A case was put together against two Libyans who were assumed to be intelligence operatives, based almost entirely on the testimony of Majid Giaka, the only double agent the USA had in Libya. He named Megrahi and Fhimah, and told more stories that were probably invention - including that Fhimah kept explosives in the drawer of his office desk at Luqa airport, and a tale about seeing Megrahi carrying a brown Samsonite suitcase at an airport (it was known that the bomb had been in a brown Samsonite suitcase).

Beyond that, Gauci was asked to re-assess his identification of the purchaser of the clothes, and (allegedly with the prospect of a $2 million reward plus other inducements) managed to say that Megrahi was sort of quite like the purchaser, and a day was found which, while not the overwhelmingly probable day the purchase took place (when Megrahi was nowhere near Malta), was a possible date when Megrahi was in the vicinity.

Also, Megrahi was in Malta again on 21st December, the day of the crash, which was quite good because one theory was that the suitcase had been put on board in Luqa. And he was travelling on that occasion on a coded intelligence services passport, not his normal one.

Also, Megrahi had close business dealings with MeBo, the firmthat sold the timer fragment.

Thus a case was built against Megrahi and Fhimah, and the case against Abu Talb and the PFLP-GC cell was abandoned. Iran didn't come in against the US in the Gulf War. Instead, sanctions were set up against Libya which was refusing to extradite Megrahi and Fhimah. In the course of this, arms supply to the IRA was completely cut off.

There was a standoff for ten years. We were all told that Fhimah and Megrahi were definitely guilty, and the evidence was overwhelming. But of course there could be no trial with no accused. Then in 2000 Nelson Mandela persuaded Gadaffi to agree to a deal. Extradite the accused, and pay damages to the victims' families, and have the sanctions removed and start moving back into the family of civilised nations. Gadaffi agreed, wanting western companies to develop Libyan oil, and not wanting to be the next Saddam Hussein.

Hence the trial at Camp Zeist, at which all the evidence linking Fhimah to the incident completely evaporated, and he was acquitted. The court however decided that Gauci's second identification of Megrahi could be believed (even though he couldn't pick him out in court), and that the bomb went on at Luqa even though the Luqa records were as tight as a duck's arse and there was no way an extra suitcase went on there. That was enough to convict Megrahi.

However, Gauci's identification of Megrahi was tentative at best, and the overwhelming weight of the evidence was that he wasn't the purchaser. Also, the court simply asserted that the case must have gone on at Luqa (because Megrahi was there that day?) even though the records showed it couldn't have. Strike those two points, and there's nothing but the MeBo timer fragment to link Libya to the incident.

Enquiring minds want to know whether the pursuit of the Libyans was done in good faith, and the appalling fit-up at Camp Zeist was simply due to the age-old problem of law enforcement really really believing it has the right guy and just sexing up the evidence in the interests of justice. Or on the other hand, was there political pressure linked to the incipient Gulf War to turn away from Syria and Iran as possible culprits, and pin it on a more politically convenient patsy.

The timer fragment is at the centre of all this. Its presence argues against PFLP-GC involvement, because their devices had ice-cube timers, although they could conceivably have acquired a timer from the Stazi. Libya did buy 20 of the things. And Megrahi was associated with MeBo.

If the fragment is real, then that has to be factored into any explanation of the incident, including the incongruous time of the explosion. If on the other hand it was planted, as many people suspect or believe, that's a whole other can of worms.

Sorry, but that really is the short version.

Rolfe.

[Rolfe]

BBC Conspiracy Files.

There's a transcript of that interview here (http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2008/08_august/29/gaddafi_interview.pdf).


Oh thank you, that's perfect. Though I have to say, Said Gadaffi in person is quite something.

So here we have the actual apology.

Libya has facilitated the bringing to justice of the two suspects charged with the bombing of Pan Am 103, and accepts responsibility for the actions of its officials.


Said agrees that this was word play, and it obviously is. There's no admisison of guilt. Not if you don't believe your officials did anything.

Rolfe.

[TriskettheKid]

Yeah, still not getting it.

Are you telling me this whole thing was a setup of Libya because of their support of the IRA?

This whole thing was done in order to hide the real culprits so that Libya could be sanctioned?

[Toke]

Stranger things have happenden in politics.

[geni]

Yeah, still not getting it.

Are you telling me this whole thing was a setup of Libya because of their support of the IRA?

This whole thing was done in order to hide the real culprits so that Libya could be sanctioned?

Libya was kinda unpopular at that point and an easy target. Could have been as simple as the need to blame someone when the other leads weren't working out.

[TriskettheKid]

Libya was kinda unpopular at that point and an easy target. Could have been as simple as the need to blame someone when the other leads weren't working out.

Ok....so who decided to blame Libya? The Brits or the Americans?

And why did the other go along?

It was all because Libya was an easy target?

I'm sorry I'm not getting this, but I'm having a hard time understanding how and why such a ruse was set up so quickly. I mean, the fragment was found, unless what I've read is completely wrong, a few weeks after the bombing, in January of 1989.

That seems awfully fast to reach the conclusion that leads weren't panning out, and that Libya was to be blamed.

[Rolfe]

The fragment doesn't appear for sure until September 1989.

I still think it's a bit early, and the sequence of events between then and June 1990 when it resurfaces in Thurman's hands is unclear.

However, it's more complicated in any case. In mid-March 1989, less than three months after the crash but even so an awful lot had already been figured out as regards the Palestinian group, it is reliably alleged that Thatcher and Bush made some agreement to "low-key" the whole affair. The investigation didn't stop, and Libya wasn't fingered until September 1990, but calls for a public enquiry were blocked at Prime Ministerial level from that date, and parliamentarians appear to have been smothered on the subject.

This part is not clear, but it seems as if there was some political motive for not going hell-for-leather against the PFLP-GC and Iran as early as March 1989.

Rolfe.

[Ambrosia]

Ok....so who decided to blame Libya? The Brits or the Americans?

And why did the other go along?

Those are good questions. short of new whistleblowers coming forward or leaked documents or something there'll probably never be enough evidence to answer either of them.
I'm sorry I'm not getting this, but I'm having a hard time understanding how and why such a ruse was set up so quickly. I mean, the fragment was found, unless what I've read is completely wrong, a few weeks after the bombing, in January of 1989.

Depending on who you believe a shirt is found in January 89. Inside this shirt is the tiny MST-13 MeBo fragment of circuit board, which is itself not found within the shirt until some unknown time later.

13 Jan 89 a fragment of circuit board is found from a Toshiba Cassette recorder determined to have been what the bomb was in. They figure out that it's from a Toshiba casette radio in April 1989.

It's not until June 1990 that the MST-13 fragment is IDed as being that.

The CIA seize an MST-13 type timer from Libya in Summer/Autumn 1990

In September 1990 interviews with MeBo Zurich link Libya to MST-13 timers.

August 2 1990 Saddam invades Kuwait.

[TriskettheKid]

Those are good questions. short of new whistleblowers coming forward or leaked documents or something there'll probably never be enough evidence to answer either of them.

So...it's speculation.

Depending on who you believe a shirt is found in January 89. Inside this shirt is the tiny MST-13 MeBo fragment of circuit board, which is itself not found within the shirt until some unknown time later.

May. From what I can tell, when the evidence was finally examined in May, they found the circuit.

The speculation is that it was planted, yes? This just brings us back to the questions I asked earlier:

Who planted it? And how did they get others to go along? And how did they know where to plant it?

I mean, why plant it in the shirt? Why not have a piece found on it's own? Or embedded in a piece of the suitcase?

13 Jan 89 a fragment of circuit board is found from a Toshiba Cassette recorder determined to have been what the bomb was in. They figure out that it's from a Toshiba casette radio in April 1989.

It's not until June 1990 that the MST-13 fragment is IDed as being that.

The CIA seize an MST-13 type timer from Libya in Summer/Autumn 1990

In September 1990 interviews with MeBo Zurich link Libya to MST-13 timers.

Ok, and?

August 2 1990 Saddam invades Kuwait.

What does that have to do with anything?

[Rolfe]

I've come across more material relating to the saga of the fragment.

I don't know how far to credit de Braeckeleer. I think his assertion that the bomb was placed outside the baggage container is a bridge too far. However, he seems to have pulled together a lot of stuff about the timer fragment, much of which is corroborated by other sources.

http://english.ohmynews.com/articleview/article_view.asp?menu=c10400&no=385213&rel_no=1

This seems to me to assert that the fragment was created in June 1989 in order to be introduced into the Pan Am wreckage. It's the first time I've heard of Inspector Fluckiger, which just shows how much of the trial evidence there is to assimmilate. I'm not quite sure where this part is going or why, but it all fits with Paul Foot's account - perhaps not surprisingly because de Braeckeleer seems to be basing a lot of his account on the same material, that is the Camp Zeist evidence.

Anyway, the above link has a lot of very clear photos showing the discrepancies de Braeckeleer is reporting Ullpert as having identified.

More photos can be found on the site MeBo has put up about it all.

http://www.lockerbie.ch/

This is weird stuff, all hysterical English, big bold bright fonts, and hyperbole. I have little idea what is going on there. It's half way to the Time Cube. Nevertheless, it has pictures.

Rolfe.

[Rolfe]

So...it's speculation.


Uh, yes. That's what we're doing.

May. From what I can tell, when the evidence was finally examined in May, they found the circuit.


You entirely discount the interpolated page 51 then? You're absolutely sure the fragment was really logged in May?

The speculation is that it was planted, yes? This just brings us back to the questions I asked earlier:

Who planted it? And how did they get others to go along? And how did they know where to plant it?

I mean, why plant it in the shirt? Why not have a piece found on it's own? Or embedded in a piece of the suitcase?


Don't know. You seem to be up to speed with the rest of us. If you don't think there's anything odd about the story, anything that doesn't quite fit, then fine.

Ok, and?


Well, are you quite happy with the official version? Interpolated pages and altered labels and discrepancies in statements and all?

What does that have to do with anything?


Possibly, everything. Unless you just want to accept the Official Version without question.

Rolfe.

[TriskettheKid]

I've come across more material relating to the saga of the fragment.

I don't know how far to credit de Braeckeleer. I think his assertion that the bomb was placed outside the baggage container is a bridge too far. However, he seems to have pulled together a lot of stuff about the timer fragment, much of which is corroborated by other sources.

http://english.ohmynews.com/articleview/article_view.asp?menu=c10400&no=385213&rel_no=1

This seems to me to assert that the fragment was created in June 1989 in order to be introduced into the Pan Am wreckage. It's the first time I've heard of Inspector Fluckiger, which just shows how much of the trial evidence there is to assimmilate. I'm not quite sure where this part is going or why, but it all fits with Paul Foot's account - perhaps not surprisingly because de Braeckeleer seems to be basing a lot of his account on the same material, that is the Camp Zeist evidence.

Anyway, the above link has a lot of very clear photos showing the discrepancies de Braeckeleer is reporting Ullpert as having identified.

More photos can be found on the site MeBo has put up about it all.

http://www.lockerbie.ch/

This is weird stuff, all hysterical English, big bold bright fonts, and hyperbole. I have little idea what is going on there. It's half way to the Time Cube. Nevertheless, it has pictures.

Rolfe.


Please tell me you have a better source than that article.

I mean, did you at the end of the article? They have this:

The author encourages the readers to sign the Petition to Release Megrahi. Ludwig De Braeckeleer has a Ph.D. in Nuclear Sciences. Ludwig teaches physics and International Humanitarian Law. Ludwig can be reached at: dr.ludwig@hotmail.com

So, he's got a doctorate in Nuclear science, and teaches physics and International Humanitarian Law?

And the best you've got is a hotmail address?

Just how much of his background makes him a qualified forensic scientist?

[Caustic Logic]

Yeah, still not getting it.

Are you telling me this whole thing was a setup of Libya because of their support of the IRA?

This whole thing was done in order to hide the real culprits so that Libya could be sanctioned?

The prevailing theory is re Iran and Iraq, whose war had just ended. Iran was set to be implicated in the bombing but for some reason they were de-blamed, perhaps to get their support or non-interference for the coming conflict with Iraq. The scope of the investigation didn't shift for a while - 1989 or 90. Al Megrahi and Fhimah weren't officially names as suspects until late 1991. The one was sentenced in January 2001. Thus the whole time of the blame Libya phase was roughly the same time Iraq was being targetted. The phase may be ending now. Check the timeline there. Some belated blame for Iran may be coming available soon.

Now exact positive reasons why Libya would be a good scapegoat I don't know, other than past behavior, or future potential if not put under leverage and sanctions. AFAIK Libya is guilty of everything else they're accused of, like the disco bombing in Germany, shooting a lady cop, what have you. But in this case, the big one, it's really looking like politics.

He reportedly declined the offer. Though there was a $4million bounty to do with the case, and it's alleged that Gauci the shop owner was paid $2million
Idiot! Millions just to show up and tell the truth and he turns it down?

I am not calling anyone disinfo here, nor positing a vast conspiracy.
Oh I know, it was a sarcastic spin on an imagined denialist stance. When you see one person say al Megrahi was blamed you suspect they're naive or paranoid or anti-British. But when almost everyone who knows anything but has little vested interest comes out saying it, you need to get silly to deny.

According to his own admission Bollier, who has a history of working with Libya, was more interested in the $200million offered to him by Ghadaffi for getting Megrahi freed. See the BBC Conspiracy Files program where he is interviewed for more.

Oh. Scratch above point then. Cheapskates. This in fact casts a pall over his subsequent musings. It's possible to be motivated by money and truth of course, but...

*if* that's true, it calls into question much of the information collated by mebo regarding the whole timer fragment, there's bundles of it at the link I posted earlier, as well as transcripts of Bolliers original report to Scottish police on the fragment.
They do behave strangely for a company.

It cetainly makes the picture more complicated, and harder to investigate.
Yah, and my sarcastic point has more forward meaning than I anticipated. Hmmm... This includes doubt on Lumpert, right?

[Rolfe]

Please tell me you have a better source than that article.

I mean, did you at the end of the article? They have this:

So, he's got a doctorate in Nuclear science, and teaches physics and International Humanitarian Law?

And the best you've got is a hotmail address?

Just how much of his background makes him a qualified forensic scientist?


It's possible you may have lost the will to live before you reached the end of my OP. I would recommend Foot, Kochler and Black. In addition, Kochler's home page is a link-mine.

Paul Foot's 2001 Private Eye investigation is a good place to start - Flight from Justice (https://secure2.subscribeonline.co.uk/PEYE/digital_downloads.cfm). It's behind a £5 paywall, but worth the money.

There are a number of documentary films covering the issues, all taking rather different lines. And none of them are made by Dylan Avery.
The Maltese Double Cross (http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=7160854996287567609#) (2hrs 30min, and actually quite hard to follow despite having won a film festival prize)
Lockerbie and the CIA (http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=7160854996287567609#docid=-4640563516094155366) (Aspect ratio problem, but interesting and watchable)
The Conspirady Files: Lockerbie (http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=7160854996287567609#docid=-327765978162851498) (This BBC production seems a bit too trusting of the Official Version in one or two places.)
Flight into Darkness Part 1 (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-229293821216432833&ei=faSlSpPJKMzN-AbNmMjqBA&q#)
Flight into Darkness Part 2 (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7154791995080231857&ei=M96vSpn5L9ef-Abjm6nJBQ#)
The Lockerbie Cover-up (http://www.livevideo.com/video/Vendetta/EAFEDCF7FC5C4FAB83F5C72A2D1011E4/al-jazeera-the-lockerbie-co.aspx) (shortened version of "Flight into Darkness", but with extra material at the end)

And for a lot more information and links, the best source is probably the web site of the official UN observer at the trial of the "Lockerbie Bomber" in 2000-2001.
Dr. Hans Kochler (http://i-p-o.org/lockerbie_observer_mission.htm)

The senior academic lawyer who was responsible for getting the trial at Camp Zeist organised has a blog on the subject with a collection of relevant articles.
Professor Robert Black (http://lockerbiecase.blogspot.com/2007_07_01_archive.html)


I had assumed you would realise these were the sources I was putting most emphasis on, not a couple of questionable-but-interesting pages I only ran across a couple of hours ago, which I mainly linked to because of their high-quality photos of the timer fragment.

Rolfe.

[Ambrosia]

May. From what I can tell, when the evidence was finally examined in May, they found the circuit.

Depending on what source you believe yes. 12th May 1989


The speculation is that it was planted, yes? This just brings us back to the questions I asked earlier:

Who planted it? And how did they get others to go along? And how did they know where to plant it?

I mean, why plant it in the shirt? Why not have a piece found on it's own? Or embedded in a piece of the suitcase?


Does it matter where they planted it?

According to Black (http://209.85.229.132/search?q=cache:QPwjpWMQrK8J:lockerbiecase.blogspot .com/2009/06/megrahi-prosecutor-i-would-not-have-let.html+when+mst-13+found&cd=8&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk&client=firefox-a) The original trial heard the fragment was found in a piece of recovered clothing in a wood 25 miles from Lockerbie, six months after the bombing in December 1988.

Robert Black was at the trial, he ought to know.

Then again according to the official verdict it was found in a storage facility after being picked up in January and not looked at by forensic scientists until May 12th 1989. Though the official verdict does talk about "overwritten labels" and that "DC Gilchrist’s attempts to explain it [mislabelling] were at worst evasive and at best confusing" [ source (http://www.pixunlimited.co.uk/guardian/pdf/0131lockerbieverdict.pdf) - official verdict PDF ]

Or according to Ulrich Lumpert it was stolen by him from MeBo and handed to a person investigating the "Lockerbie Case"

I confirm today on 18th July 2007 that I stole the third hand manufactured MST13 Timer PCBoard consisting of 8 layers of fiberglass
from MEBO Ltd. and gave it without permission on 22nd June 1989 to a person officially investigated in the "Lockerbie case". [ source (http://www.shirleymckie.com/documents/Lumpertaffidavit_000.pdf) ]


Ok, and?


You posted that you'd read the MST-13 was found in Jan 89 - it wasn't, it was found later than that, I was outlining timeline of it's discovery as per the official verdict.


What does that have to do with anything?

Thats the political sea change Rolfe mentionned.

Could have notihng to do with it at all, but thats the Genesis of the CT along with the authorities "hot pursuit" of the Iranians, before dropping them completely after Libya comes up.

[Caustic Logic]

You posted that you'd read the MST-13 was found in Jan 89 - it wasn't, it was found later than that, I was outlining timeline of it's discovery as per the official verdict.

That was me, speaking ahead of my knowledge. It was however based on this (http://www.mebocom-defilee.ch/2008/995/995-1.png) (and closer (http://www.mebocom-defilee.ch/2008/995/995-2.png)). ?? 1 89. What does that mean? When the shirt was discovered, I suppose. Link to page (Mebocom) (http://www.mebocom-defilee.ch/2009/657.html).

Thats the political sea change Rolfe mentionned.

Could have notihng to do with it at all, but thats the Genesis of the CT along with the authorities "hot pursuit" of the Iranians, before dropping them completely after Libya comes up.

For the record there are other possibilities, and perhaps two or more main reasons. I won't speculate in detail, but maybe there was even some problem with the original case helping them decide on the awkward course-change. Hard to say.

[Rolfe]

Do you think Black made a typo? Six months for six weeks? Six weeks would be consistent with the January 1989 date which became official at the trial I think.

In 1994, The Maltese Double Cross made a big deal about the fragment not being discovered until the spring of 1990, in the Kielder Forest.

There seems to have been quite a bit of confusion about how and when the fragment was retreived. I'm not maintaining that The Maltese Double Cross is right, but it does demonstrate that the January 1989 version was a relatively late addition to the narrative.

I'm trying to relate this timeline to the political one.

Until March 1989, it was all go on the Iranian connection. But in mid-March, the silencer and the brakes went on. For some reason, over a year before there seems to have been any question of implicating Libya, Thatcher and Bush decided to play down the whole thing, and prevent a public inquiry.

Nobody is very sure of the reason for this. Jack Anderson, who reported the telephone conversation in which this was agreed, thought it was "because they could not do anything to avenge themselves and the Lockerbie relatives on Iran." This sounds very weak to me, and to Paul Foot also, because he suggested that "the Lockerbie bombing had exposed a gaping hole in their intelligence services which would, if the matter was fully aired, be proved to have been incompetent to stop a murderous plot they knew about."

I suspect the latter is more likely. There are so many reports of prior warnings of this one. The Helsinki warning seems genuinely to have been a hoax, but there's more to it than that. The entire Iran-Syria-PFLP-GC operation was discovered so quickly, the question arises, why wasn't it busted before a plane crashed.

Oh wait, it was. By the German police, in September 1988.

But then they let them go again. Almost at once. Allegedly after Khreesat had made a phone call to someone. That's Khreesat, who was a double agent, and said he was making dummy bombs. Except one of the "dummy" bombs killed a German bomb disposal operative. And maybe Khreesat was a triple agent.

I've only read fragments of this, but I've a feeling it's related to the damping down of the pursuit, the emerging desire not to get to the bottom of the story. Even if it doesn't turn into a species of LIHOP, in which Khreesat was released because the security forces couldn't afford to have their contacts revealed, even if that did risk a successful attack. And of course this one can go right on to suggest that through the capture and release of Khreesat, the security forces knew what was planned, and even which plane was being targeted.

Which could tie in with the VIPs being pulled off the plane at the last moment. It's another rabbit hole, but it's worth a glance.

It was a full year before it began to be clear that Saddam Hussein was going to invade Kuwait, and the middle eastern allegiances had to be rearranged to accommodate Desert Storm. The March 1989 backpedalling really doesn't seem to have anything to do with blaming Libya.

The fragment seems surely to have been present in the system in September 1989. de Braeckeleer implies a date in June for the acquisition of the timer the planted fragment was derived from. Even though the logging of the fragment at RAERDE in May seems to have been retrospectively inserted, the idea of planting the timer seems to me to be implicit in the timeline in the summer of 1989. Even though nobody seems to have thought of blaming Libya until September 1990.

This is the part of the story that seems to me to support the Official Verson best. Yes, my hunch says that timer is an anomlaly, but the sequence of discovery in September that there was something interesting there, running around until June 1990 trying to identify it, then in June 1990 realising that it seemed to be a part of a timer board like one the CIA already had from another source, then looking for the manufacturer and finding MeBo in November, seems plausible.

In the middle of that, it became clear that wherever the source, Libya was the country these timers were connected to. Which is when attention turned to that country, and the CIA started asking Giaka to make some stuff up provide intelligence.

That actually rings reasonably true. Except that a lot of people think it was a lot more complicated than that, even just based on the evidence at the trial. And then we have Bollier's semi-coherent rantings, which are either total invention, or suggest something totally other was going on, if only one could figure out what his purple prose is trying to say.

Rolfe.

[TriskettheKid]

Does it matter where they planted it?

Yes. Very much so.

According to Black (http://209.85.229.132/search?q=cache:QPwjpWMQrK8J:lockerbiecase.blogspot .com/2009/06/megrahi-prosecutor-i-would-not-have-let.html+when+mst-13+found&cd=8&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk&client=firefox-a)

Robert Black was at the trial, he ought to know.

Then again according to the official verdict it was found in a storage facility after being picked up in January and not looked at by forensic scientists until May 12th 1989. Though the official verdict does talk about "overwritten labels" and that "DC Gilchrist’s attempts to explain it [mislabelling] were at worst evasive and at best confusing" [ source (http://www.pixunlimited.co.uk/guardian/pdf/0131lockerbieverdict.pdf) - official verdict PDF ]



There is nothing inconsistent with that timing.

Bombing took place in December, 1988. Shirt was found about 1 month later, January 1989. And then the piece was found in May, 1989, which would have been about 5-6 months after the bombing.

The two arguments you presented above are not contradictory.


Or according to Ulrich Lumpert it was stolen by him from MeBo and handed to a person investigating the "Lockerbie Case"

[ source (http://www.shirleymckie.com/documents/Lumpertaffidavit_000.pdf) ]



You posted that you'd read the MST-13 was found in Jan 89 - it wasn't, it was found later than that, I was outlining timeline of it's discovery as per the official verdict.

Which would have been 1 month AFTER it was found in the shirt.

Of course, if we go with your version, you'd have to explain all the backtracking (I'd be interested to know who lied, and for how much).

Thats the political sea change Rolfe mentionned.

Could have notihng to do with it at all, but thats the Genesis of the CT along with the authorities "hot pursuit" of the Iranians, before dropping them completely after Libya comes up.

So they wanted Iran, before going after Libya....

Because Libya was an easy target due to political messes?

How does this not seem convoluted to anyone else?

[Tippit]

Oh dear, sorry. I thought I was being clear.

It makes no sense at all to set a timer with a range of about 6 weeks to go off only 1 hour into an 8-hour flight. Even if you don't want the plane to drop into the Atlantic and so render the evidence unrecoverable, the risk that the plane might be delayed by an hour or so, leading to the device detonating relatively harmlessly on the ground, is simply not worth taking. Not when you have the means to set the timer for, say, six hours into the flight.

And yet, a tiny fragment of just such a timer was allegedly found on the ground after the crash of Pan Am 103.

The provenance of the fragment is extremely peculiar, involving alteration of evidence records, a witness changing his sworn testimony, and forensic "scientists" with very dubious pedigrees. It has been suggested, alleged and downright asserted that the fragment was planted, probably by the CIA. Is this a tenable position?

Rolfe.

What would the CIA's motive have been, and what was the political outcome of the attack?

I can understand your point that the timer went off earlier than necessary, failing to incorporate the risk of flight delays. Are you speculating that the plane was destroyed some other way, and this timer was planted? If so how, and why would the CIA plant such a timer when it would introduce this very dilemma?

Isn't it possible that the timer detonated a bomb, and it was simply set to a sub-optimal time to detonate? If this was the case, it was mission accomplished anyway.

[Ambrosia]

If the official line on the fragment is correct it was discovered May 12th 1989 in evidence originally collected January 1989.

If Lumperts correct it wasn't around until 22nd June 1989.

Both of those dates offer plenty of leeway for it to surface as part of the evidence in September 1989.

The odd evasion by Gilchrist noted by the trial verdict, the renumbering of pages & mislabelling of the evidence fits Lumperts claim, but whats so important about May 89?
Is it detailed anywhere on what date such cataloging stopped being done on debris from 103?
Was the Grey shirt and all it contained one of the last pieces of debris known to have been examined that was in close proximity to the bomb?
If the renumbering was an honest mistake, why the confusing/evasive explanation?
What motive does Lumpert have to perjure himself at the original trial? If he didn't then why admit to it in 2007?

Leaving that aside for a moment.




There are other "odd" coincidences about this fragment.

Thurman claims to have identified the MST fragment June 1990.

19th Sep Flight UTA 772 a DC-10 explodes in middair thanks to a bomb on board.

According to Pierre Péan (see Blacks blog here (http://lockerbiecase.blogspot.com/2009/01/pan-am-103-and-uta-772.html), and the comments) the only *physical* evidence linking the eventually convicted in absentia 6 Libyans (for which the Libyan Govt has paid compensation and "admitted responsibility") to the bombing was... a fragment of a circuit board identified as coming from the controlling device used to detonate the bomb ... identified by Thurman.

Anyway if you look at the link in Blacks blog entry it gets to a piece about MST timers.

According to David Leppard the key exhibit in the Lockerbie case (a fragment of MST-13 timer) was recovered by Allen Feraday of RARDE on the 18th June 1989 melted into the remains of a suitcase belonging to passenger Karen Noonan which had been positioned directly on top of the bomb bag. ( 26 ) Leppard refers to a memo written by Detective Inspector Williamson dated the 19th December 1989 entitled “Items of Interest at RARDE – Circuit Board” outlining this discovery by Feraday in June from “part of severely explosive-damaged American Tourister.”

The memo continued that “a description of the item together with a photograph were supplied to the Productions/Property team to search for any similar material.”(27) On the 14th September 1989 Allen Feraday visited Dexstar in Lockerbie, where exhibits were stored, to examine a number of items of circuitry, none of which was a match. ( 28 ).


This is quite at odds with the version of events presented at Camp Zeist ... the footnotes all refer to "David Leppard On the Trail of Terror" pp 207.

David Leppard is the journalist that Paul Foot writes about who was on the Sunday Times Investigative team, who wrote a series of articles in 89 "based on information pieced together by Western intelligence sources"

Lepppards book "shows how the bombing was planned at a secret meeting at the head quarters of the Libyan intelligence agency. Based on Scottish police and FBI files and interviews with over 100 of the key witnesses..." it's published July 1991 - but is at huge odds over the MST-13 fragments origin with the evidence presented at the trial.

Outside of Leppards book I can't find any other sources that back up his version of the origin of the MST-13 fragment.

[Ambrosia]

Yes. Very much so.

why?


There is nothing inconsistent with that timing.

Bombing took place in December, 1988. Shirt was found about 1 month later, January 1989. And then the piece was found in May, 1989, which would have been about 5-6 months after the bombing.


No there isn't. I am not suggesting there is.


Which would have been 1 month AFTER it was found in the shirt.


Yes. so.... One of those accounts (or both) must be incorrect.


Of course, if we go with your version, you'd have to explain all the backtracking (I'd be interested to know who lied, and for how much).


? I don't *have* a version. I am just pointing out that there are conflicting versions.


So they wanted Iran, before going after Libya....

Because Libya was an easy target due to political messes?


As I understand it, America had long wanted to go after Libya, were much more likely to get compensation eventually from Libya than Iran, and that potentially Iran was completely off the table given recent political events (i.e. declaring war on Iraq)

[Caustic Logic]

One of those accounts (or both) must be incorrect.
According to Black
Quote:
The original trial heard the fragment was found in a piece of recovered clothing in a wood 25 miles from Lockerbie, six months after the bombing in December 1988.
Robert Black was at the trial, he ought to know.

Then again according to the official verdict it was found in a storage facility after being picked up in January and not looked at by forensic scientists until May 12th 1989. Though the official verdict does talk about "overwritten labels" and that "DC Gilchrist’s attempts to explain it [mislabelling] were at worst evasive and at best confusing" [ source - official verdict PDF ]

So, Black's recollection was it was discovered 6 moths after the bombing in the shirt fragement "in a wood 25 miles from Lockerbie." The wording imples it was found there at that time. Wording can be imprecise.

The other version says the cloth/hidden chip were found in January, the chip discovered in mid-May, 4.5 (or rounded to five) months after the bombing. So the irreconcilable discrepancy is one month and some wording? These both might well be describing the same sequence, in my opinion.

Or according to Ulrich Lumpert it was stolen by him from MeBo and handed to a person investigating the "Lockerbie Case"
What motive does Lumpert have to perjure himself at the original trial? If he didn't then why admit to it in 2007?

Leaving that aside for a moment.

In one version he really didn't lie or cover anything up in the trial, but did falsely say so in 2007 with his chopped up board story. Perhaps he's getting even a good portion of Ghadaffi's $200 million under the table. That whole company is strange, from what I've seen, behaving like either some kind of agents, or a group collectively pissed-off at getting caught up in a fraudulent case like this, and so taking an unusual activist stance. I think it's best to leave Lumpert's and Mebo's word as much as possible aside for now, but it's so cool to have this in the discussion now to have on the back burner. Thanks!

So they wanted Iran, before going after Libya....

Because Libya was an easy target due to political messes?

How does this not seem convoluted to anyone else?

I don't think anyone would deny the political intrigue involved here is unusual. There could be many reasons/motives that we can't do more now than guess at. Though an educated guess is better than nothing, it's not going to satisfy anyone's hunger for proof or rock-solid motive analysis...
And just sticking to the facts on the ground, as we're doing here, there is plenty room for confusion and uncertainty, and speculation is all that can fill the gaps.

However, at the bare minimum, we have an absolutely solid case for "reasonable doubt" that should suffice to overturn the conviction or spur a new investigation on a whole new track. At the most we're looking at something more serious - counter-actions against those who framed al Megrahi, new blame on Iran and new sanctions or who knows what in that direction...

At any rate, if you want to be ahead of any possible curve, pay attention to this story.

[Caustic Logic]

Or according to Ulrich Lumpert it was stolen by him from MeBo and handed to a person investigating the "Lockerbie Case"

[QUOTE]Quote:
I confirm today on 18th July 2007 that I stole the third hand manufactured MST13 Timer PCBoard consisting of 8 layers of fiberglass
from MEBO Ltd. and gave it without permission on 22nd June 1989 to a person officially investigated in the "Lockerbie case".
[ source (http://www.shirleymckie.com/documents/Lumpertaffidavit_000.pdf) ]

Emphasis mine. What's up with that? Bad wording again? The difference is huge.

[Caustic Logic]

Holy crud, typed this hours ago but never submitted.

All of these arguments from incredulity are irrelevant, because it happened before. All of it.
<snip>
In other words, four years before Lockerbie, a terrorist group did exactly what you find so suspiciously unbelievable in the Pan Am Flight 103 case - send unaccompanied bags with explosives through multiple baggage-check points because of multiple aircraft transfers (on entirely separate airlines, even), and set the timer in a way that flight delays or misread schedules could cause the bomb to detonate when it wasn't planned to.

You should check the "all of it" part. I agree that this 'unlikely' scenario is entirely possible, weird things happen, and I'm no expert. And this is a good counter-point, like others above. But one thing here is this alleged timed bomb happened to blow up 38 minutes after leaving Heathrow, while (coincidentally?) the PFLP bombs recently IDd were designed to blow up 35-45 minutes after takeoff. Consistent with one of these planted at Heathrow, OR a badly-timed time bomb earlier. I'm willing to call it undecided there.

[Travis]

I don't get it, why go through all this trouble to exonerate Al-Megrahi without also going through the trouble to make sure that it was "evil" American agents who themselves put the bomb on the plane (presumably before going somewhere to kill puppies for sport)? If you're going to create a thread just to piss off Americans don't half ass it, make sure you have President H.W. Bush himself giving the order to bomb the plane then laughing maniacally while thunder claps in the background.

Sorry if I sound grouchy but your slanted take on the USS Vincennes shootdown reveals a bias here.

[Ambrosia]

What's up with that? Bad wording again? The difference is huge.

It's a translation error, I should have added a [sic] to my post.

If you read the PDF I linked to, that that quote is sourced from, in Document 3 you read:

On 4 August 2007 Dr. Hans Koechler received ... a copy of the German original of an Affidavit, dated 18 July 2007 and signed by Mr. Ulrich Lumpert ...

In a statement released today, Dr. Hans Koechler, ...
highlighted basic aspects and questions of this new revelation that appear to be of relevance not only in connection with the upcoming second appeal of the convicted Libyan national, but also for new prosecutorial action ex officio by the Scottish authorities.

In his affidavit Mr. Lumpert implicitly admits having committed perjury as witness No. 550 before the Scottish Court in the Netherlands. He states (Par. 2) that he has stolen a handmade (by him) sample of an “MST13
Timer PCboard” from MEBO company in Zurich and handed it over, on 22 June 1989 (!), to an “official person investigating the Lockerbie case.”

He further states (in Par. 5) that the fragment of the MST13 timer, cut into two pieces for “supposedly forensic reasons,” which was presented in Court as vital part of evidence, stemmed from the piece which he had stolen and handed over to an investigator in 1989.

[Rolfe]

I don't get it, why go through all this trouble to exonerate Al-Megrahi without also going through the trouble to make sure that it was "evil" American agents who themselves put the bomb on the plane (presumably before going somewhere to kill puppies for sport)? If you're going to create a thread just to piss off Americans don't half ass it, make sure you have President H.W. Bush himself giving the order to bomb the plane then laughing maniacally while thunder claps in the background.

Sorry if I sound grouchy but your slanted take on the USS Vincennes shootdown reveals a bias here.


Could I point out the title of the thread? Was the MST-13 timer planted in the wreckage? This isn't about exonerating Megrahi, or providing exact details of motive, means and opportunity for everyone involved as regards everything done. It's about trying to figure out whether the claims that the timer fragment was planted are credible.

Bear in mind that this incident is at the very least, one third the size of 9/11. In fact it's really bigger than that. Although there was only one plane involved, that flight is surrounded by far more mystery and anomaly than any of the 9/11 flights.

You've not just got multiple threads on 9/11, you've got a whole damn sub-furum. You would need a dozen threads on PA103 at the very least, to start covering all the aspects to the incident. If we start dragging every point into every thread, it'll flounder.

We've got the mysterious release of Khreesat. We've got the VIPs pulled off PA103 shortly before takeoff. We've got the US officials appearing within three hours of the crash, searching the wreckage and apparently interfering with the evidence. We've got the suitcase full of drugs. We've got the missing body. We've got the red tarpaulin and the helicopter.

We've got the anomalous time of the explosion. We've got the anomalies in the evidence trail of the timer fragment. We've got people claiming that the timer fragment was manipulated. We've got the pressurising and bribery of witnesses. We've got the prosecution relying on evidence from someone they knew was a liar, and concealing this knowledge from the defence.

We've got the anomalous behaviour of Megrahi's defence team, both in parts of the trial and the first appeal. We've got a bunch of judges bringing in a guilty verdict on the basis of evidence that was quite clearly unsound. After acquitting the co-defendant, who in the original indictment was essential to the operation as postulated.

And that's before we even start down the rabbit hole of the more fanciful suggestions, such as the explosion not taking place in the baggage container, or the entire slalom shirt being a fabrication, or the suggestion that it was Giaka who bought the clothes from Gauci....

Now we could have threads on every one of these points. But I can't cope with all of them simultaneously, so if anyone wants to discuss one or more of them now, then start a thread on it.

I picked the timer fragment, because that seems to be the key anomaly. I can see reasons for suspecting it could have been planted, but I can also see reasons for thinking it's perfectly genuine. If it's genuine, then the theorising has to accommodate its existence. If it was planted, then the affair is altogether stranger. Who had motive, means and opportunity to do that? Was Williamson involved?

Although it's de Braeckeleer and Bollier who are making the most fuss about the fragment, and they're not quite the full shilling on the subject, a number of perfectly reputable commentators also believe the item was a plant. So I think it's worth looking at that aspect in detail. Is there any sense in what de Braeckeleer and Bollier are saying? Do these pictures, which I never saw before yesterday, show what they allege they show?

I tried to outline the wider suspicions to explain why it was worth examining the fragment. Maybe that was a mistake. So could we maybe concentrate on the actual fragment, rather than peripheral matters, in this thread?

Oh, and by the way, I'm just repeating all the news commentary I've read and seen about the Vincennes. Oh, that and the accounts of one of the people I work with very closely, who was on the HMS York and saw the whole thing.

Rolfe.

[Caustic Logic]

Hmmm... We all have our biases. I'm sure Rolfe's no different, right?

Travis, forumside biases aside, do you feel there's been any reasonable doubt cast on the court's conviction? If not, let's not get sidetracked too much and focus on the thread's issue mostly. What can you say about the provenance of this timer fragment? How can we know it was actually found at the scene and put there by the explosion?

Ambrosia: Thanks, I presumed as much, after scanning the document. It was just such an interesting goof.

Rolfe, I was getting the tl;dr shut-down with your post at first - does your computer have a terseness filter you can switch on? lol. But then I got the point, that being, with a million confusing tangential things we could go off on, we should stick to the main issue of this thread.

this incident is at the very least, one third the size of 9/11. In fact it's really bigger than that.
See, we could go sooo far off track with a Hulk/Superman debate on something like this. It's a big case, as everyone should know. What matters are things like
We've got the anomalous time of the explosion. We've got the anomalies in the evidence trail of the timer fragment. We've got people claiming that the timer fragment was manipulated. We've got the pressurising and bribery of witnesses.

So far 'official story supporters' have made some 'maybe' and 'there's no proof' and 'mistakes happen' cases, mostly about the logic of using a timer. Valid, but Little relevant detail, just general opinions.

That's a nudge, folks, use it. Specific claims are being made... debunk!

I tried to outline the wider suspicions to explain why it was worth examining the fragment. Maybe that was a mistake. So could we maybe concentrate on the actual fragment, rather than peripheral matters, in this thread?

We can get hung up on so many aspects, but it IS important for those who don't already know to understand this is worth looking at. This case, at the least, is not some no-brainer. Mysteries exist, and this one chip is about half the evidence the case is built on. That evidence has details, and those are troubling, if you look close.

ETA Rolfe, have you put down your Vicennes case elsewhere? If not maybe something that would be cool to look at both sides, some day. Not here now tho. Alright, soldierin on.

[ANTPogo]

Holy crud, typed this hours ago but never submitted.



You should check the "all of it" part. I agree that this 'unlikely' scenario is entirely possible, weird things happen, and I'm no expert. And this is a good counter-point, like others above. But one thing here is this alleged timed bomb happened to blow up 38 minutes after leaving Heathrow, while (coincidentally?) the PFLP bombs recently IDd were designed to blow up 35-45 minutes after takeoff. Consistent with one of these planted at Heathrow, OR a badly-timed time bomb earlier. I'm willing to call it undecided there.

Well, I was simply addressing the "this is suspicious because no self-respecting terrorist would ever do something like that" part of Rolfe's post by pointing out that terrorists have done something like that in the past.

If there's other evidence (like the consistency with the timing of other PFLP bombs), then that's what should be the source of suspicion, not incredulity that terrorists would ever do something as dumb as mis-set a timer or send bags containing bombs through multiple airport checkpoints, because, again, all of that actually happened before Lockerbie.

[Rolfe]

Yes, there's a lot of evidence. I was just trying to set the scene, really. If the timer fragment is genuine, its existence has to be factored in to any theory about what happened. If, on the other hand, it was planted, as many people believe, then WTF???

We know that the authorities weren't playing this one straight. The situation surrounding Giaka demonstrates that. However, it could be anything from a genuine belief in the defendants' guilt leading to "sexing up" of the evidence, to a cover-up of a MIHOP. I think the latter is in the realms of paranoid fantasy, but I'm intrigued as to where on the spectrum the highest probability lies.

Rolfe.

[Ambrosia]

The "Official story" about MST-13 can be disputed. At the original trial it is claimed that it was found in a grey shirt in January 1989 by DC Gilchrist and another officer DC McColm.

When Gilchrist bags the shirt he labels it "charred cloth" at some time later he, or some unknown person, overwrites the word "debris" on the bag, it's not noticed that there is debris within the cloth until it's examined later in May of 1989. the official verdict of the trial says in regard to this:

On 13 January 1989 DC Gilchrist and DC McColm were engaged together in
line searches in an area near Newcastleton. A piece of charred material was found by
them which was given the police number PI/995 and which subsequently became
label 168. The original inscription on the label, which we are satisfied was written by
DC Gilchrist, was “Cloth (charred)”. The word ‘cloth’ has been overwritten by the
word ‘debris’. There was no satisfactory explanation as to why this was done, and
DC Gilchrist’s attempts to explain it were at worst evasive and at best confusing. We
are, however, satisfied that this item was indeed found in the area described, and DC
McColm who corroborated DC Gilchrist on the finding of the item was not crossexamined
about the detail of the finding of this item. This item was logged into the
property store at Dextar on 17 January 1989. It was suggested by the defence that
there was some sinister connotation both in the alteration of the original label and in
the delay between the finding of the item and its being logged in to Dextar. As we
have indicated, there does not appear to be any particular reason for the alteration of
the label, but we are satisfied that there was no sinister reason for it and that it was not
tampered with by the finders. As far as the late logging is concerned, at that period
there was a vast amount of debris being recovered, and the log shows that many other
items were only logged in some days after they had been picked up. Again therefore
we see no sinister connotation in this. Because it was a piece of charred material, it
was sent for forensic examination.

In May of 1989 the charred shirt is examined by Thomas Hayes of RARDE in May of 1989. His notes as a forensic examiner are in a loose leaf file, and the report on this shirt and it's contents is numbered 51. Pages 52-56 of his file are renumbered and were originally numbered by Hayes as 51-55.

September 1989 Allen Fereday sends DCI Williamson a polaroid picture of the fragment, asking for help in identifying it, explaining this picture is the best he can do in the short time. SOP would have been to photograph the shirt and the fragment when it was examined. SOP is also to make a seperate drawing of the fragment at time of examination and renumber the fragment as a seperate piece of evidence, this was not done either. SOP is to test the fragment for traces of explosive, also not done.

The official verdict in referring to Hayes reads as follows:

There was also found embedded a fragment of
green coloured circuit board. The next reference to that last fragment occurs in a
memorandum sent by Mr Feraday to CI Williamson on 15 September 1989 enclosing
a Polaroid photograph of it and asking for assistance in trying to identify it. Again the

defence sought to cast doubt on the provenance of this fragment of circuit board, for
three reasons. In the first place, Dr Hayes’ note of his examination was numbered as
page 51. The subsequent pages had originally been numbered 51 to 55, but these
numbers had been overwritten to read 52 to 56. The suggestion was put to Dr Hayes
that the original pages 51 to 55 had been renumbered, the original page 56 had been
removed, and that thus space was made for the insertion of a new page 51. Dr Hayes’
explanation was that originally his notes had not been paginated at all. When he came
to prepare his report based on his original notes, he put his notes into more or less
chronological order and added page numbers at the top. He assumed that he had
inadvertently numbered two consecutive pages as page 51, and after numbering a few
more pages had noticed his error and had overwritten with the correct numbers.
Pagination was of no materiality, because each item that was examined had the date
of examination incorporated into the notes. The second reason for doubt was said to
be that in most cases when a fragment of something like a circuit board was found in
a piece of clothing, Dr Hayes’ practice was to make a drawing of that fragment and
give it a separate reference number. There was no drawing of this fragment on page
51, and the designation of the fragment as PT/35(b) was not done until a later date.
Finally it was said that it was inexplicable that if this fragment had been found in May
1989 and presumably photographed at the time, his colleague Mr Feraday should be
sending a memorandum in September 1989 enclosing a Polaroid photograph as being
“the best I can do in such a short time”. Dr Hayes could not explain this, and
suggested that the person to ask about it would be the author of the memorandum, Mr
Feraday, but this was not done. While it is unfortunate that this particular item which
turned out to be of major significance to this enquiry despite its miniscule size may
not initially have been given the same meticulous treatment as most other items, we
are nevertheless satisfied that the fragment was extracted by Dr Hayes in May l989
from the remnant of the Slalom shirt found by DC Gilchrist and DC McColm.

This MST timer fragment is the single most important piece of evidence in the entire trial.

Why is Feraday never called to explain his memo, and the questions that arise from it about the chain of custody of this vital evidence.

The SCCRC in a report that's voluminous, and still kept secret for the most part, which took 4 years to compile, finds that questions about the fragments authenticity and whether or not it was planted are unfounded.

Underlying those submissions was the allegation that evidence
of the timer fragment had been fabricated in order to implicate Libya in
the bombing. The Commission undertook extensive enquiries in this
area but found nothing to support that allegation or to undermine the
trial court’s conclusions in respect of the fragment.

So far this tends to cement the "Official Story" as being correct, and that breaches of SOP and other issues are simply the result of sloppy work.

Enter Ulrich Lumpert.

His affidavit made one month after the release of the SCCRC report both undermines the conclusions regarding the fragment of the trial and the SCCRC report, but offers a plausible alternative version of the origin of this fragment. It also calls into question the actions of Hayes, Feraday and Gilchrist.

There is also evidence presented in the film "Maltese double cross" where a volunteer searcher, involved with the crash scene recovery, states that he was asked by police at a later date to sign bags of evidence that he had not seen before, to the effect that he or his team had found that evidence during their search, which casts a little doubt on the veracity of Gilchrist and McColms statements regarding what they found.

[Caustic Logic]

Daaang. And that's what happens when you look close. Who can look closer yet and find the debunk?

[Rolfe]

I was aware of the SCCRC's statement that they had found no indication that evidence had been fabricated. I hadn't quite realised they'd specifically said it was the timer fragment they were talking about, but it was obviously part of it.

Robert Black is very condemnatory of this part of the report. Why, he asks, does the SCCRC find it necessary or appropriate to pre-emptively exonerate the investigating authorities on this matter? He thinks it's inappropriate and improper.

At the risk of sounding like a troofer, I don't trust the SCCRC as far as I could throw it on this matter. Sure, admit evidence that Gauci's identification was unsound, that's not hugely embarrassing to anyone at this stage. And without Gauci's identification, the case against Megrahi probably falls on appeal. I wonder if this might have been politically acceptable at this stage in the game, so long as the spotlight isn't shone on the areas that are more embarrassing than the discrepancies in Gauci's evidence. But digging further? That's a different kettle of fish.

My radio alarm is tuned to Radio Scotland, and for a few weeks a year or two ago, every single bloody morning it seems I was waking up to someone pontificating about the ultra-top-secret document Megrahi's defence team wanted to have released as evidence. The court ordered its release, and the Westminster government promptly slapped a public interest immunity certificate on it. The stated reason was that publishing the document would be damaging to Britain's relations with a friendly power.

It got sillier and sillier, and last time I tried to find a web article describing the machinations, I failed to get anything specific. However, Megrahi described the ruling (which his team were challenging) in his post-release interview (http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/megrahi-i-believe-in-destiny-but-i-wanted-to-die-at-home-1.825148). His account is exactly as I remember from the radio coverage at the time.

He is also deeply critical of the Court of Session proceedings, where a special advocate was appointed to represent him because of the confidential nature of many pieces of evidence.

"I met the special advocate just one time and when I met him he said he doesn’t know anything about the documents and he said that he is not entitled to get in touch with me once he does know about it. Where is the justice in that? He is meant to represent my interests yet he cannot talk to me about a piece of crucial evidence. It could be of benefit to me and to the case, but they just say it is top secret and I am not entitled to see it or to see him again."


Yup, that's right. Neither Megrahi nor his lawyers were to be allowed to see the document(s). A "special advocate" was appointed by the court (Megrahi could not choose this person) who would look at the documents on his behalf. After he had seen them, he was forbidden from having any more contact with either Megrahi or his defence team, so that he couldn't possibly divulge anything about the contents. How he was supposed to argue Megrahi's case in court on this basis, I have literally no idea.

The "friendly power" remark was widely believed to be code for "the USA will be very very pissed-off if we make these documents public". The subject of the documents, which I had no clue about at the time, seems to be assumed to be the provenance of the timer fragment.

Some people, including but not necessarily limited to the US authorities, are prepared to fight tooth and nail to keep aspects of the Lockerbie investigation secret, even after more than 20 years. The UK government are certainly complicit in this, and I wouldn't be at all surprised if the Scottish legal establishment is as well. This isn't troofer paranoia, it's simple fact.

The question is, why? Early on, it was put like this.

I was discussing with the Lockerbie relatives whether we couldn’t have some form of public inquiry which would have meant, because the security services were involved, inevitably a certain amount of suspicion – and I wondered whether I couldn’t get a High Court judge to look into the security aspects privately and report to me.

If I could get the relatives to agree with that, if I got that done, that would satisfy them. Because when you get into the Lockerbie business – how did we find out certain information, how did we know this, how did we know that? – you would have had to recall not only our own intelligence sources but information we were recovering from overseas. Therefore that had to be a closed area.


This suggests it's about protecting sources. This is a legitimate concern, but surely one which becomes somewhat less compelling more than 20 years later, with the international scene transformed several times over in that time.

Private Eye had a rather different take on the secrecy.

Just as likely was the fear in both their minds [Thatcher and Reagan] that the Lockerbie bombing had exposed a gaping hole in their intelligence services which would, if the matter was fully aired, be proved to have been incompetent to stop a murderous plot they knew about.


Rather than simply protecting sources, this suggestion is that the security operation was so incompetent that it would be unacceptably embarrassing to have this made public. This is certainly a better reason for continuing to hold secrecy even in the face of court orders, 20 years later.

However, how far does it go? Is it just about concealing incompetence, possibly incompetence so serious that a known bomb-maker was released for operational reasons, and promptly went right on with his original plans to blow up an airliner?

Or is there evidence that the cover-up went further than that, beyond pressurising and bribing witnesses and presenting a known liar in the witness box, even beyond removing evidence from the crash scene (which seems very likely to have happened), to actual fabrication of evidence?

If that was the case, as I said, I would not trust the SCCRC one inch to expose the truth, given the obvious anxiety in very high places to have certain aspects of this affair kept very quiet indeed.

Rolfe.

[Rolfe]

I was discussing with the Lockerbie relatives whether we couldn’t have some form of public inquiry which would have meant, because the security services were involved, inevitably a certain amount of suspicion – and I wondered whether I couldn’t get a High Court judge to look into the security aspects privately and report to me.

If I could get the relatives to agree with that, if I got that done, that would satisfy them. Because when you get into the Lockerbie business – how did we find out certain information, how did we know this, how did we know that? – you would have had to recall not only our own intelligence sources but information we were recovering from overseas. Therefore that had to be a closed area.


You know, what's this all about? Although that quote is from 1994, Parkinson is talking about events that happened in September 1989. Following the smackdown of Paul Channon in March, when his gung-ho "we've got the bastards" went suddenly into reverse on Thatcher's orders, Parkinson (his successor) had to back-track on a promise of an inquiry into the affair, in September.

We lose track of the timeline of all this, but I think it's important. As early as nine months after the disaster, well before anyone is talking about Libya (in fact just about the time Feraday is sending his polaroid to Williamson, well before Thurman identifies it as part of an MST-13 timer), the affair is being swept under the carpet because of security concerns.

They're not covering up the framing of Libya at this stage - they haven't actually framed Libya at that point. So what the hell is so sensitive? The details of the investigation and handling of the Frankfurt PFLP-GC cell, which possibly allowed Khreesat to go free unjustifiably, to bomb an airliner? Or whatever it was in the wreckage that had the US authorities with personnel on the ground allegedly interfering with the evidence as early as three or four hours after the crash?

Rolfe.

[Ambrosia]

We lose track of the timeline of all this, but I think it's important. As early as nine months after the disaster... the affair is being swept under the carpet because of security concerns.

They're not covering up the framing of Libya at this stage - they haven't actually framed Libya at that point. So what the hell is so sensitive?

Hostages?

Specifically hostages taken by "Islamic Jihad" in Beruit circa late 80's. In late 89 Terry Anderson and Terry Waite were both hostages, and they'd just hanged Col William Higgins. Perhaps the pursuit of the PFLP-GC was "low-keyed" because of this ongoing hostage crisis and various shady deals that were bing done to try to effect their release. Perhaps threats of more direct action that would risk the lives of many more US/UK citizens in that area if they continued "hot-pursuit" of PFLP. Perhaps somehow Vincennes or even Iran-Contra is tied in here as well.

The Iran Iraq war has just finished and the "West" have been pretty much on "Iraqs side" or it would certainly have been made out that way to Iranians via Iranian media.

Salman Rushdie?

In February 1989 Khomeini declares a fatwah against him , Iran is in uproar over The Satanic Verses.

Maybe several things combined, perhaps there is no big single reason for keeping quiet.

[Ambrosia]

The history of the PFLP-GC makes interesting reading.

"Profiles in terror:the guide to Middle East terrorist organizations" Aaron Mannes (2004) pp 324 [ linky (http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=lJwIhKrx0FAC&pg=PA324&lpg=PA324&dq=pflp-gc+hostage&source=bl&ots=s1Wb9tMuII&sig=F9Mvvgx7R62QT7hIEfHlbqzlXeI&hl=en&ei=fzyzSqifHs2g4gbomMh8&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4#v=onepage&q=pflp-gc%20hostage&f=false) ]

"Encyclopedia of modern worldwide extremists and extremist groups" Stephen Atkins (2004) pp160 [ linky (http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=b8k4rEPvq_8C&pg=PA160&lpg=PA160&dq=jibril+syrian+army&source=bl&ots=2J6bajh4TG&sig=M0RU6KIO5E21N36BtBWTPBRsJNQ&hl=en&ei=yFCzSsedNceO4gae4u18&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2#v=onepage&q=jibril%20syrian%20army&f=false) ]

1956 Ahmed Jibril joins the Syrian army rises to Captain in the Engineers, and trains as a demolitions expert. 58 he's expelled from the army for "radical politics" 1959 moves to Cairo and forms the PLF (Palestine Liberation Front) 1961 he returns to Syria and re-enters the army. '67 the PLF joins the PFLP (Popular Front for Liberation of Palestine) In '68 Jibril splits from the PFLP when it's leader George Habash falls out with Syria. He forms the PFLP-GC that year.

1970 he bombs his first 2 planes both on the same day (21st Feb) SwissAir SR330. (he uses a barometric triggered bomb in the cargo hold.) and Austrian Airlines SE-210 Caravelle which returns safely to Frankfurt despite having a 3x2ft hole blown in it's fuselage at 14000ft. In May of 1970 he really makes the headlines with the Israeli schoolbus bombing.

During Israels 1982 war PFLP-GC captures 3 Israeli soilders, and for their return to Israel he negotiates the release of over 1000 Palestinian terrorists among them Sheikh Ahmed Yassin (leader of Hamas)

in 83 Jibril supports a Syrian backed rebellion against Arrafat. Around this time Jibril announces the PFLP-GC will once more stage international terrorist attacks.

Interestingly in 1987 up pops an actual bona fide link from Libya to PA103, albeit somewhat flimsy.

In '87 under pressure from the international community Syria reduces support for terrorism the PFLP-GC relocates, according to Aaron Mannes to Libya fighting on Libyas behalf in Chad. Also forges a partnership with Hezbollah in 1987.

in 89 Libya under pressure itself to reduce support for terrorism, but not yet even thought about in connection to PA103 throws the PFLP-GC out and they go back to Damascus.

We also know that the PFLP-GC had an underground base in Lebanon near Al Maniyah 20km south of Beruit. On 8th December 1988 2 weeks before the bombing of 103 the Sayaret Golani (Israeli Special Forces) along with IDF forces raided it using their classified weapon (exploding Rottweilers) one objective being to assassinate Jibril. Known as "Operation Blue and Brown"

[Rolfe]

What would the CIA's motive have been, and what was the political outcome of the attack?


As to who might have planted the fragment (if it was planted), I don't know. However, CIA involvement in all this started three or four hours after the crash, with operatives flown up from London combing the ground looking for something. As the search and investigation continued, the Scottish police were shadowed by CIA (and/or FBI? I'm never very sure which is what with these agencies). The CIA was controlling the investigation and the prosecution. It had its own lawyers in the court at Camp Zeist, advising the prosecution lawyers.

It was the CIA that was running Giaka as an agent, even though they knew he was only a car mechanic and had little if any Libyan security information. It was the CIA that was pressurising Giaka to provide "information" about Megrahi and Fhimah, information it presented to the Court as fact, while concealing the evidence that he was making it all up for personal gain.

So I can see why the default assumption is that, if evidence was fabricated, it was the CIA that was doing that. The cover-up has always been traceable to the USA protecting its interests in some way.

However, it's inevitable that Scottish (and some English) authorities were complicit in this. Exactly what the relationship was, I couldn't say, but it's quite clear that both US and UK governments were are determined to keep certain aspects of the affair under wraps.

Why? Take your pick. It could be about the political inadvisability of getting into a scrum with Iran, especially in the run-up to Desert Storm. It could be about something the CIA agents on the plane were carrying or undertaking. It could be related to the quantities of drugs that were allegedly found in the recovered luggage. (There's a complicated CT involving the substitution of a drug courier's suitcase with the bomb, which links these last two points.) It could be about covering up either incompetence or lethal miscalculation in the handling of the PFLP-GC cell in Frankfurt. It could even be related to influencing the South African peace process, bearing in mind that Pik Botha and some colleagues were pulled off that flight at the last minute, but another South African negotiator was on the flight.

I have no idea. The first suggestion is the popular one. The thing about a cover-up is, you don't know what's being covered up. My point is that the question of whether the timer fragment was genuine or planted makes a great deal of difference when trying to decide just what is being covered up.

[....] make sure that it was "evil" American agents who themselves put the bomb on the plane (presumably before going somewhere to kill puppies for sport)? If you're going to create a thread just to piss off Americans don't half ass it, make sure you have President H.W. Bush himself giving the order to bomb the plane then laughing maniacally while thunder claps in the background.


I'm creating a thread to examine certain aspects of the cover-up surrounding the PA 103 bombing. This cover-up has been going on for 20 years, and while it's far from clear what the hell is going on, and there are numerous pet theories, it's extremely well documented. I was surprised, two years ago, to find nothing about it in the forum. If you want to dismiss a ton of suspicious occurrences on the grounds that America can do no wrong, then feel free to go away.

While I think it's quite clear that the USA and specifically the CIA have been the driving force behind the whole thing, they haven't been short of help. The UK government has co-operated to the full. The Scottish police force is not above suspicion. And the Scottish criminal justice system staged a kangaroo court show trial in Holland in which a man was convliced of murder on evidence I wouldn't hand out a parking ticket on.

If you think this is all horse-feathers because it may show up the US government in a poor light, then I'm astonished by your naive trust in your government. All the more so when I read so many assertions (from Americans) in other threads that the US government is so incompetent and corrupt that it can't be trusted to run a whelk stall.

In true twoofer fashion, I'll point out that I'm just asking questions, and encourage you to look at the evidence.

Rolfe.

[Rolfe]

Hostages?

Specifically hostages taken by "Islamic Jihad" in Beruit circa late 80's. In late 89 Terry Anderson and Terry Waite were both hostages, and they'd just hanged Col William Higgins. Perhaps the pursuit of the PFLP-GC was "low-keyed" because of this ongoing hostage crisis and various shady deals that were bing done to try to effect their release. Perhaps threats of more direct action that would risk the lives of many more US/UK citizens in that area if they continued "hot-pursuit" of PFLP. Perhaps somehow Vincennes or even Iran-Contra is tied in here as well.

The Iran Iraq war has just finished and the "West" have been pretty much on "Iraqs side" or it would certainly have been made out that way to Iranians via Iranian media.

Salman Rushdie?

In February 1989 Khomeini declares a fatwah against him , Iran is in uproar over The Satanic Verses.

Maybe several things combined, perhaps there is no big single reason for keeping quiet.


I remember that the hostage situation has been brought into one of the suggested explanations for the attack. That Oliver North was running a "drugs for hostages" operation similar to the "arms for hostages" one, involving CIA-sponsored drugs couriers carrying stuff into New York on PanAm flights. One of these couriers was on the flight, allegedly. This story says that Charked McKee was on his way back from North Africa unexpectedly to blow the whistle on the operation, and so one of the drug suitcases was switched for the bomb suitcase, to get him out of the way.

I think that one is so much horse-feathers, but there are aspects of the scenario that might support it. You have to wade through all the stuff and decide which bits are credible.

I think this is what's so hard about this one. There are so many weird coincidences surrounding the flight and the bombing, and it's hard to decide what's really coincidence and what's signficant. Also, there are so many suggested scenarios for what really happened or what's being covered up, which one to pick?

Rolfe.

[GlennB]

I don't get it, why go through all this trouble to exonerate Al-Megrahi without also going through the trouble to make sure that it was "evil" American agents who themselves put the bomb on the plane (presumably before going somewhere to kill puppies for sport)? If you're going to create a thread just to piss off Americans don't half ass it, make sure you have President H.W. Bush himself giving the order to bomb the plane then laughing maniacally while thunder claps in the background.

Sorry if I sound grouchy but your slanted take on the USS Vincennes shootdown reveals a bias here.

Travis - if people were discussing the evidence surrounding a case such as The Birmingham Six (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Birmingham_Six#Who_Bombed_Birmingham.3F), (or one of the many other miscarriages of justice that have occured in the UK) should Brits here assume the thread was designed to piss off Brits?

Or is it just possible this discussion has some inherent merit?

[manierisme]

Megrahi has released hundreds of pages worth of documents related to his pre-release appeal.

http://www.megrahimystory.net/

[Rolfe]

Thank you, I just heard that on the news and was about to Google for it.

Hundreds of pages? Sigh....

Rolfe.

[Rolfe]

I've come across more material relating to the saga of the fragment.

I don't know how far to credit de Braeckeleer. I think his assertion that the bomb was placed outside the baggage container is a bridge too far. However, he seems to have pulled together a lot of stuff about the timer fragment, much of which is corroborated by other sources.

http://english.ohmynews.com/articleview/article_view.asp?menu=c10400&no=385213&rel_no=1

This seems to me to assert that the fragment was created in June 1989 in order to be introduced into the Pan Am wreckage. It's the first time I've heard of Inspector Fluckiger, which just shows how much of the trial evidence there is to assimmilate. I'm not quite sure where this part is going or why, but it all fits with Paul Foot's account - perhaps not surprisingly because de Braeckeleer seems to be basing a lot of his account on the same material, that is the Camp Zeist evidence.

Anyway, the above link has a lot of very clear photos showing the discrepancies de Braeckeleer is reporting Ullpert as having identified.

More photos can be found on the site MeBo has put up about it all.

http://www.lockerbie.ch/

This is weird stuff, all hysterical English, big bold bright fonts, and hyperbole. I have little idea what is going on there. It's half way to the Time Cube. Nevertheless, it has pictures.

Rolfe.


Just bumping this post, in the hope that someone might have the inclination to look at the photographs of the timer fragment(s) shown there, and see if they can make any sense of what is being claimed.

Rolfe.

[dropzone]

Was the MST-13 timer fragment planted in the wreckage of Pan Am 103?Are you suggesting that the guys from Mystery Science Theater 1300 were involved in it 700 years ago?

[LONGTABBER PE]

Just bumping this post, in the hope that someone might have the inclination to look at the photographs of the timer fragment(s) shown there, and see if they can make any sense of what is being claimed.

Rolfe.

I actually read that

I wont stand on it without actually reviewing the actual results ( are those posted anywhere?) and examining the fragments with my firms own equipment obviously.

I'm even more convinced now that if the states theory regarding the device and the explosive are correct- its a fabrication and probably with at least some defense cooperation too.

Too many red flags to suit me.

[Caustic Logic]

Just bumping this post, in the hope that someone might have the inclination to look at the photographs of the timer fragment(s) shown there, and see if they can make any sense of what is being claimed.

Rolfe.

I have looked at it a bit but can't help too much. As I showed earlier, this passage from the site is incorrect - the proportions match up.
There is a small glitch... It is obvious that the fragment PT35(b) does not come from one of the 20 machine-made MST13 timer delivered to Libya. The location of the T shaped touch pad, its absolute and relative dimensions do not match. Moreover the curvature of the fragment round edge equally differs. Compare LDB003(a) and LDB003(b)!

I'll take your word for now on the outside-the-compartment claim. As for his others, there are few technical specifics about the board to discuss. The timeline issues he brings up are interesting. Have you verified his source material as legit? Stuff like:

MR. BURNS: Don't answer that question.
<snip>
MR. TURNBULL: Don't answer that.
If so this is valuable information that seems to support Lumpert's powerful claims. Again, MEBO has some question marks over them, but it's very interesting stuff.

I didn't really understand the second link.

I actually read that

I wont stand on it without actually reviewing the actual results ( are those posted anywhere?) and examining the fragments with my firms own equipment obviously.

I'm even more convinced now that if the states theory regarding the device and the explosive are correct- its a fabrication and probably with at least some defense cooperation too.

Too many red flags to suit me.

I'm not entirely sure what you mean here, but you seem to have doubts this was really an operative MEBO-made timer supplied to the Libyan government and then used for a timer to carefully blow 103 up right over Scotland so the proof could be found and traced right back. Or am I wrong?

Are you suggesting that the guys from Mystery Science Theater 1300 were involved in it 700 years ago?

Lol. I keep seeing the same thing myself, and Tom Servo is my imaginary co-investigator on this case. No wait, it's Crow (http://www.geocities.com/TelevisionCity/3539/crow.gif). Nonetheless, this is no B-movie to laff at...

[Ambrosia]

Timer fragment photo comparison:

There is a small glitch... It is obvious that the fragment PT35(b) does not come from one of the 20 machine-made MST13 timer delivered to Libya. The location of the T shaped touch pad, its absolute and relative dimensions do not match. Moreover the curvature of the fragment round edge equally differs. Compare LDB003(a) and LDB003(b)!

Photoshoppe to the rescue!

The solder terminal shaped like a "1" or a "T" doesn't match.

The curve of the board *does*, at least those photos do, and the parallel tracks of solder beneath the "1" and where they bend match as well.

Obviously you need to compare the actual fragment and a whole board, those photos he is comparing could have been manipulated.

I cut round the fragment pic semi-carefully (I could do a much better photo compare job, but this is close enough) recoloured it and pasted it ontop of the whole board pic and lined it up carefully.

Judge for yourself (and make your own comparison if you don't take my word for it :) )

http://img14.imageshack.us/img14/7458/fragmentcompare2.jpg

The very slight discrepancy between the edge line of the curved bit on close inspection looks like a shadow beneath the board caused by bad lighting/poor quality photo. Also my cutting out could easily have taken out 1 pixels width, I didn't spend too long on it. I also think that the fragment pic needs to be enlarged slightly by 1 or 2%, it's not quite spot on, and we have no idea what camera settings are used in each pic or whether they were both identical.

[LONGTABBER PE]

I'm not entirely sure what you mean here, but you seem to have doubts this was really an operative MEBO-made timer supplied to the Libyan government and then used for a timer to carefully blow 103 up right over Scotland so the proof could be found and traced right back. Or am I wrong?



Rolfe got me started on this in another thread and being in ops in different areas back during that time- there was other information floating around.

I never really even thought about ( much less read about) the bomb proper until that other thread but some of Rolfes comments piqued my interest.

I have applicable skills in several areas ( SF and demolitions dealing with terrorists for decades, Professional Engineer, former LE) and currently in theater and deal with IED's all the time.

I cant say yes or no and wouldnt without actually examining the actual physical remains and reviewing the actual testimony ( and exercising extreme caution regarding ALL information on the internet) but what I see ( which is somewhat consistent) raises extreme doubts in my mind as to the accuracy of the whole bomb theory as it is currently presented.

The basis of my concerns stems from the physics of the type of explosives used, the alleged physical construction of the device, my own forensic experience and a high degree of knowledge and experience on how terrorists work.

So, as long as you understand I'm not a CT type, not "selling" or attempting to promote or "prove" an alternate theory, cannot divulge some information because of my own NSA statements and have no care or interest whether this guy is guilty from a "hands on" perspective versus culpable knowledge standpoint- I'll show you some of the "red flags" I see and why I believe them questionable.

First, some baseline information- the reference for these is FM 5-25 ( newer version FM 5-525) which is the "bible" for demolitions and such and I'm flying from memory since I dont have a copy in front of me so give me some leeway regarding generalizing from memory.

Semtex is the first cousin to C4. They both are mallable, easy to work with, reliable and one is white/pearl looking and the other red/orange. Both commonly used in military/terrorist operations, readily available. Both have to be shock detonated ( need to have a cap detonator of some description) and both are "white" explosives. ( thats a reference to their color during explosion referencing their speed of burn in feet per second. Semtex burns around the 25k fps range thus is "white hot" during explosion as opposed to maybe a gas bomb which is much slower and an "orange" or "red" explosion)

All explosions have the same effects from physics- they burn, develop immediate dynamic overpressure, have physical shock and thermal shock and like any other violent release of stored energy- they explode in a sphere with energy at the same level/rate at all points.

1) the fragments themselves- If this was TNT, black powder or other slow explosive- you expect the casing to be blown "apart" and find fragments- just the properties of this explosive make that highly improbable as the components were plastic/polymer ( the board and alleged tape player) and they were in direct physical contact with the explosive.

The construction and proximity alone means they should have been vaporized and incinerated. ( one of the reasons professional bomb makers put them in contact is for that exact effect and it works)

There was a fraction of a second and a few cubic feet of air in the alleged suitcase so theres a possibility it was more "blown apart" than consumed.

This is important because you have a bomb with soft components touching, inside a case, inside a pressure vessel ( the hold)

Thats 3 levels of collection for heat,force and violent movement before it "exited" thru the plane wall. ( the difference between taking 2 exact charges and detonating 1 on the surface of the ground or under the ground)

Thats more than enough time to vaporize thin plastic.

Then given the after effects and dispersal of the plane and the crash over the area from that height- I find it virtually impossible that ANY component would be found.

2) The alleged timer itself. A timer is a timer is a timer and nothing more. 1st year engineering students make them. The focus on a specific timer ( especially one that is manufactured and possibly COULD be traced if components were found) for a professional or even experienced bomb maker is absurd.

Listen to the engineer part of me

if you believe version A where there is a timer board ( circuit board functioning) the bomb maker would need builders schematics to know ALL the functions of said board and its susceptability to EMF and other external influences so he would know how to wire it. ( component manufacturers ALWAYS build extra/hidden functions in boards for future upgrades) He would have to know all of this or risk premature detonation, malfunction or what ever. He would also need to know this for power consumption since this was a battery device. ( dont want it to run dead and expire before it blows up) It HAD to be "switched on" at some point.

If you believe version B and it was the inert prototype- first you ask why and how someone stole a prototype. OK, maybe they didnt know. Back to Mr. Bombmaker expert- now an expert bomb maker would see this ( has to have some knowledge of circuits since he builds bombs right?- he wouldnt live long if he didnt) He had to custom rig it at that point- he didnt have a choice

All of this James Bond/Mr Spock complexity and risk and effort from a "professional" bomb making "expert" when a normal expert could go to Radio shack and custom build a better one for $10 in less than an hour or simply go buy a cheap alarm clock and wire it into the buzzer. Bomb made- problem solved.

3) the alleged planting- here is a ARMED bomb and Mr Terrorist wants to blow up his plane. The timer is running and so is the battery.

They factored in wait times, conveyor speeds, human error, baggage apes, detection devices, flight times and such. They didnt mind that said bomb could be discovered, pre detonated from accidental dropping or static or EMF from a motor or whatever.

All of those "variables" from "professionals"? If terorists were that stupid and took those kinds of risks- they wouldnt be a problem. They wouldnt blow anything up but themselves.

4) The other components like the radio- When they build IED's- they dont go "buy" traceable stuff- they go dumpster diving or steal it ( unless they want to plant things to throw you off the trail) They wouldnt care if the recorder was new ( they would probably use it themselves)- they want it old and "used looking" to avoid suspicion.

5) The analysis itself- Explosion recreations are like fire investigations. Part science, part experience and part logical deduction ( educated GUESSING). You can say "consistent with" or "appears like" but in the end, all you have is bits of "stuff" that you place in a logical pattern. There are thousands of other equally plausible explanations too and too many variables to say for sure.

My big problems with the states case come from 1&2 obviously. Just the fact they found "anything" supposedly from a device of this nature makes my BS meter redline. Possible- yes but mathmatically anything is possible- from a realistic standpoint- I cant accept it. Its a combination of the CSI effect and Hollywood portrayals of complex artistic "bombmaking terrorists" that sell that theory- not real world experience.

Now for some "anecdotal" experience

My other AO was South America doing things like drug ops and stuff. I have worked in conjunction with spooks, the FBI and DEA. These agencies dont "hate" each other- they "loathe" each other.

The LE view the spooks as "above the law" and who will lie/fabricate at the drop of a hat under the guise of "National Security"- my experience is that said view is 100% correct.

The spooks view LE agencies as handcuffs around getting the job done and for the most part obstacles to be tolerated but worked around. They throw them bones and watch them go chase them to get them out of their way while they go about "business" ( from my experience- equally true)

Just the fact such fragments were found leads me to believe they were agency plants put there so the LE would incorrectly ( but honestly- no trickery on their part) come to the conclusion the agency wanted them to.

Heres the why

Terrorists thrive on anonimity and secrecy ( you see their spokespeople but not the operatives). Anyone who thinks they are easy to find, easy to get at or bring to justice watches too many Chuck Norris or Segal movies.

Since you cant find or identify them most of the time ( forget building a "legal" case against them) and even if you did- there is no Delta team thats going in and bring them to justice so what do you do?

Often its better to identify them and WATCH them because your chances are better at heading off a disaster than preventing it or punishing it after the fact. ( you find yourself taking one operative out if you are lucky but he is immediately replaced with 10 you dont even know about and you are back to square 1 with 10 times the risk)

As to this guys alleged involvement

As I have said before- I seriously doubt he had a hands on role but he probably had an administrative role or operational knowledge. ( either makes him guilty in my view)

He was in close proximity doing "something". Its common practice in military and terrorist tactics to make sure there is some kind of "oversight" from afar.

Just my thoughts

[Rolfe]

OK, good. Look at this. It's Greek to me. (I'm a biochemist, not a physicist.)

Lockerbie suitcase bomb: scientific implausibility (http://english.ohmynews.com/articleview/article_view.asp?menu=c10400&no=384880&rel_no=1&back_url=)

This article suggests that the bomb was placed as close as 10 cm to the skin of the aircraft, that is, not in a suitcase in baggage container AVE4041. Does it make any sense, and if so, where does that leave the rest of the speculation?

ETA: This is the only other source I've seen suggesting that the timer would have been vapourised. Why propaganda trumps truth (http://vdare.com/roberts/090914_propaganda.htm). It was rejected earlier in the thread on the grounds that the author is a raving 9/11 truther - which is self-evidently true, the article goes on about nano-thermite and other red flags.

For example, consider the case of the Lockerbie bomber. One piece of "evidence" that was used to convict Magrahi was a piece of circuit board from a device that allegedly contained the Semtex that exploded the airliner. None of the people, who have very firm beliefs in Magrahi’s and Libya’s guilt and in the offense of the Scottish authorities in releasing Magrahi on allegedly humanitarian grounds, know that circuit boards of those days have very low combustion temperatures and go up in flames easily. Semtex produces very high temperatures. There would be nothing whatsoever left of a device that contained Semtex. It is obvious to an expert that the piece of circuit board was planted after the event.


Nevertheless, even a stopped clock is right twice a day. You reckon?

Rolfe.

PS. Never mind if Megrahi knew about it/was involved/whatever. That's for the Social Events forum discussion. I'm far more interested in who is covering up what, and why. And the timer fragment seems pivotal to figuring that out.

[LONGTABBER PE]

OK, good. Look at this. It's Greek to me. (I'm a biochemist, not a physicist.)

Lockerbie suitcase bomb: scientific implausibility (http://english.ohmynews.com/articleview/article_view.asp?menu=c10400&no=384880&rel_no=1&back_url=)

This article suggests that the bomb was placed as close as 10 cm to the skin of the aircraft, that is, not in a suitcase in baggage container AVE4041. Does it make any sense, and if so, where does that leave the rest of the speculation?

Rolfe.

I'm a Mechanical and Electrical Engineer with a military background LOL ( and play with explosives military and some civilian)

I agree with their theory and it matches up with my personal doubts regarding the alleged device.

Since I dont have access to the information to do the math myself- let me convert what they are saying from engineerspeak into layman's English. ( give me some latitude because technical precision is sacrified to make it an easier read)

An explosion is an incident of physics. Energy is released in a sphere at all points at a constant thru time. Like any other energy- it fills until the container- ruptures and seeks the path of least resistance.

If the explosive was in the middle of a hold or randomly placed- it would fill up and "pop" the area. You would expect to see an almost equal dispersion everywhere with a slight concentration due to distance at the closest point of resistance. Similar to filling up a balloon with water until it bursts.

Now, lets break an explosion down into its components.

All explosives burn from point of ignition outward. So, in any moment of time ( measured in micro seconds or smaller) you have the the "push" ( detonation) at the root- the physical matter acting as a projectile ( being consumed on one side- getting dense on the other side as its moving)

( imagine throwing lit silly putty against a wall)

Then the physical reactions and subsequent reactions from the above depending on what this force encounters over distance.

( we call this "tamping" or directional charges)

What they are saying is that due to available evidence from the hull- theres a greater case that the explosive was physically on the wall ( or right beside it) out of a luggage area.

Then its "lopsided"

In the same moment of time as described above due to the small amount of explosive and observed effect- as the force and burn was expanding ( filling the hold)- the direct force of the "crater" ( imagine a bomb on the ground- 50% of the energy makes the crater) blew out the wall and the force followed it ripping as it went. Thus "tearing" the wall apart versus "blowing it apart".

Based on what I see ( and I'm not going to commit to "internet evidence") just on what little I know of the examination of the evidence- I also think the most probable occurance. It fits the "physics" of an explosive event more than what little evidence there is.

You add that to my doubts about the device proper and all the alleged "chain of events"- I think they are very close if not dead on.

[LONGTABBER PE]

ETA: This is the only other source I've seen suggesting that the timer would have been vapourised. Why propaganda trumps truth (http://vdare.com/roberts/090914_propaganda.htm). It was rejected earlier in the thread on the grounds that the author is a raving 9/11 truther - which is self-evidently true, the article goes on about nano-thermite and other red flags.

Rolfe.

PS. Never mind if Megrahi knew about it/was involved/whatever. That's for the Social Events forum discussion. I'm far more interested in who is covering up what, and why. And the timer fragment seems pivotal to figuring that out.

I'm not a truther or even attempting to "sell" anything- just speaking from knowledge and experience.

Just because information comes from a "truther" or other unreliable source doesnt mean its a lie,false or not correct.

We have a saying back home- "Even a bling hog finds a corn cob every once in a while" so dont throw the baby out with the bathwater because the water is dirty.

Forget the source and agenda- always examine the information.

The strong point is that it fits the KNOWN properties of this type of explosive and material in question, is a known bomb making technique.

When you put it all together- it makes a strong case.

Thats all

[LONGTABBER PE]

ETA: This is the only other source I've seen suggesting that the timer would have been vapourised. Why propaganda trumps truth (http://vdare.com/roberts/090914_propaganda.htm). It was rejected earlier in the thread on the grounds that the author is a raving 9/11 truther - which is self-evidently true, the article goes on about nano-thermite and other red flags.



That was entertaining but as you say, his agenda and bias is obvious- he is correct on several key points. ( the old mixing fact with fantasy game to shore up the fantasy)

Some of them are ( I wont bore you with the BS parts- just the truths)

What the sociologists and Hitler are telling us is that by the time facts become clear, people are emotionally wedded to the beliefs planted by the propaganda and find it a wrenching experience to free themselves. It is more comfortable, instead, to denounce the truth-tellers than the liars whom the truth-tellers expose.

He is right on that- thats Psy ops 101

The leaders of the movement are highly qualified professionals, such as demolition experts, physicists, structural architects, engineers, pilots, and former high officials in the government. Unlike their critics parroting the government’s line, they know what they are talking about.

True to a point. Some of them are but having credentials isnt a guarantee that intelligence and training will trump error or personal agenda.

I scan the CT 9-11 stuff for entertainment purposes but after reading Mackey and some other engineers tell it like it is- there wasnt anything left for me to contribute. They nailed it.

Another problem that the 9/11 Truth Movement faces is that few people have the education to follow the technical and scientific aspects. The side that they believe tells them one thing; the side that they don’t believe tells them another. Most Americans have no basis to judge the relative merits of the arguments.

In the generic sense, thats true also. A lot of people are equally as ignorant as truthers just under the guise of skepticism and critical thinking

Semtex produces very high temperatures. There would be nothing whatsoever left of a device that contained Semtex. It is obvious to an expert that the piece of circuit board was planted after the event.

all things being equal- he is correct

you see how they operate- sometimes you have to sift thru everything

[LONGTABBER PE]

PS. Never mind if Megrahi knew about it/was involved/whatever. That's for the Social Events forum discussion. I'm far more interested in who is covering up what, and why. And the timer fragment seems pivotal to figuring that out.

Understanding your conditions and taking it all out of the mix

The "who" is probably the intelligence agencies involved. They have access to more and greater things and always think in "the big picture". ( their world requires that mindset)

LE are more localized and event specific and have more of a "justice" mindset.

All things being equal- an operative would see the greater value of greater advantage and be more likely to "adjust stuff" beyond the incident in question whereas the LE would have numerous conflicts of conscience and ethics.

Thats why I believe that if it was "adjusted" that LE on all sides probably had no hand in it or knowledge of it. Its commonly known in the intelligence community that the most secure "mule" or courier is the person who has no clue he is one. Put the evidence there, let them find it ( or make sure they find it) and let nature take its course. It appears thats exactly what happened. I find no fault in the LE methods or conclusions or anything that indicates deception or underhandedness.

why

This is as long as it is wide and all are equally plausible ( or not)

They could have made a deal to get bigger fish and avoid greater disasters that since didnt happen- people dont know about.

It could be an intelligence trade off

It COULD be that he was the guy but there was nothing to prove it so they "framed a guilty man" ( that theory comes up in the OJ case)

It could be a red herring to allow the TRUE guilty party to "think" they got away with it to catch them later or to not drive them underground.

This is where you have to be intelligently on guard to differentiate between legitimate possibilities or go off the deep end CT part. Thats not a bright yellow line.

[Caustic Logic]

Timer fragment photo comparison:

Photoshoppe to the rescue!
http://img14.imageshack.us/img14/7458/fragmentcompare2.jpg
The solder terminal shaped like a "1" or a "T" doesn't match.

The curve of the board *does*, at least those photos do, and the parallel tracks of solder beneath the "1" and where they bend match as well.
<snip>
(I could do a much better photo compare job, <snip> make your own comparison if you don't take my word for it :) )

I already did back on page 1. Outline is the model board, and they seem to me to match up internally once the fragment is stretched to the right scale (starts out too small) and rotated about 1 deg CW. The only off spot is the upper left of the "1" pad, sticks out a tiny bit. Possible slight warping.

http://i133.photobucket.com/albums/q62/chainsawmoth/MST-13_comp_1.jpg
ETA: My artsy effect might be a gripe - I don't think it alters the proportions any, but I could re-do it with non-treated photos if that helps.
also just noticed, three minor outside he lines points, indicating I should have turned it like 1/2 degree CW.

Other questions are open, but i think further work on this angle is a dead end.

Hi Longtabber:
I have applicable skills in several areas ( SF and demolitions dealing with terrorists for decades, Professional Engineer, former LE) and currently in theater and deal with IED's all the time.

I cant say yes or no and wouldnt without actually examining the actual physical remains and reviewing the actual testimony ( and exercising extreme caution regarding ALL information on the internet) but what I see ( which is somewhat consistent) raises extreme doubts in my mind as to the accuracy of the whole bomb theory as it is currently presented.

The basis of my concerns stems from the physics of the type of explosives used, the alleged physical construction of the device, my own forensic experience and a high degree of knowledge and experience on how terrorists work.
<snip>

Wow, thanks for the elaborations, and so cool to have you in the discussion. It was mostly tl;dr right now, as I have to run errands today. I'll look later at what you're saying re: the evidence and what I can grasp... Techincals aside:

Forget the source and agenda- always examine the information.

I can dig that, totally. I'd modify to don't forget the source, just don't let the biases it instills in you cloud your vision. The actual info is what counts.

[LONGTABBER PE]

Hi Longtabber:
Wow, thanks for the elaborations, and so cool to have you in the discussion. It was mostly tl;dr right now, as I have to run errands today. I'll look later at what you're saying re: the evidence and what I can grasp... Techincals aside:
I can dig that, totally. I'd modify to don't forget the source, just don't let the biases it instills in you cloud your vision. The actual info is what counts.

Sure but please understand this beforehand ( rather do it before it happens because it probably will)

I'm not a CT type and in this specific incident- dont know or even care.

I'm NOT trying to sell, convince,justify or validate anyones position. (Rolfe just got me interested in another thread)

I'm not going to google or throw "internet evidence' around- I'm going to answer from experience and not promote or argue a position.

I'm real cautious because I'm not a principle investigator here and dnt have all the facts or the evidence for independant analysis.

I do have an understanding of the legal realm and the counter terrorist realm- those decisions OFTEN conflict but they are 2 separate and UNEQUAL entities.

I'll give you the best and most honest answer I know how but it may be wrong or shown wrong later due to things i dont know about this case.( or right for that matter)

As long as thats understood upfront

[Rolfe]

You keep saying you're "not a CT type". I don't think anyone in this thread has any form in the CT department. My main claim to fame in this forum is participating in the demolition of Malcolm Kirkman, with particular reference to the function of gravity-fed i/v infusion sets.

However, it can't be that there is never such a thing as a "conspiracy". Your own posts, which I accept are perfectly rational and based on practical experience, go further down this particular rabbit hole than I've ventured. If that bomb wasn't in a Toshiba bom-beat radio-cassette player, packed in a brown Samsonite hardshell suitcase along with some assorted clothes bought by a man of middle-eastern appearance from Mary's House in Sliema, and carried in the forward hold of Maid of the Seas near the bottom of luggage container AVE4041, then this conundrum is a lot deeper that I for one had suspected. And yet, that's what you've suggested.

Someone said in another thread that the Truther movement has done investigative reporting a real disservice, especially noticeable in cases like this. "Asking questions", even perfectly sensible and valid questions, can just be dismissed as "conspiracy theory".

I don't know how you define "CT type". If suspecting that there is a cover-up in the official version of some major global event fulfils that description, then nobody can even be the least bit suspicious of anything without being so labelled. Too bad if the suspicions are well founded.

I don't care about labels, and actually I don't care if it turns out that the Official Theory in this case is true. But I want to know what's been going on, and the Official Version doesn't do it for me. So could we just concentrate on the evidence?

Rolfe.

[Toke]

As far as I read the explosives explanation prints are very unlikely to survive.
And building/scavenging timers is not rocket science, and it would make no sense to pick an unusual one that can be traced back to you. (I have a large collection of timers at work for use in switchboards/control boxes)
The political parts look a bit muddled to me.

I have no idea how to get further, dragging information out of governments is not easy.

[LONGTABBER PE]

You keep saying you're "not a CT type". I don't think anyone in this thread has any form in the CT department. My main claim to fame in this forum is participating in the demolition of Malcolm Kirkman, with particular reference to the function of gravity-fed i/v infusion sets.

However, it can't be that there is never such a thing as a "conspiracy". Your own posts, which I accept are perfectly rational and based on practical experience, go further down this particular rabbit hole than I've ventured. If that bomb wasn't in a Toshiba bom-beat radio-cassette player, packed in a brown Samsonite hardshell suitcase along with some assorted clothes bought by a man of middle-eastern appearance from Mary's House in Sliema, and carried in the forward hold of Maid of the Seas near the bottom of luggage container AVE4041, then this conundrum is a lot deeper that I for one had suspected. And yet, that's what you've suggested.

Someone said in another thread that the Truther movement has done investigative reporting a real disservice, especially noticeable in cases like this. "Asking questions", even perfectly sensible and valid questions, can just be dismissed as "conspiracy theory".

I don't know how you define "CT type". If suspecting that there is a cover-up in the official version of some major global event fulfils that description, then nobody can even be the least bit suspicious of anything without being so labelled. Too bad if the suspicions are well founded.

I don't care about labels, and actually I don't care if it turns out that the Official Theory in this case is true. But I want to know what's been going on, and the Official Version doesn't do it for me. So could we just concentrate on the evidence?

Rolfe.

Fair enough
You keep saying you're "not a CT type". I don't think anyone in this thread has any form in the CT department. My main claim to fame in this forum is participating in the demolition of Malcolm Kirkman, with particular reference to the function of gravity-fed i/v infusion sets.

That was no reflection on you personally- I just know what the title and claim brings. I'm not one of "them". I dont know what the rest of that even is.

However, it can't be that there is never such a thing as a "conspiracy"

They are quite real

Your own posts, which I accept are perfectly rational and based on practical experience, go further down this particular rabbit hole than I've ventured.

I'm sorry that happened but i guess theres a true difference between a real conspiracy versus a made up one- altho I dont see a clear line.

If that bomb wasn't in a Toshiba bom-beat radio-cassette player, packed in a brown Samsonite hardshell suitcase along with some assorted clothes bought by a man of middle-eastern appearance from Mary's House in Sliema, and carried in the forward hold of Maid of the Seas near the bottom of luggage container AVE4041, then this conundrum is a lot deeper that I for one had suspected. And yet, that's what you've suggested.

Thats the way I see it based on experience and what I know about demolitions and explosives. I really havent examined the evidence testimony because it may be right,wrong or indifferent. I have always started at the physics.

In this case ONLY- the physics dont match the states claim. Thats a fact and I can make a strong case for it.

Someone said in another thread that the Truther movement has done investigative reporting a real disservice, especially noticeable in cases like this. "Asking questions", even perfectly sensible and valid questions, can just be dismissed as "conspiracy theory".

Its what they do with the answers is my guess and how they exploit them and for what purpose.

I don't know how you define "CT type". If suspecting that there is a cover-up in the official version of some major global event fulfils that description, then nobody can even be the least bit suspicious of anything without being so labelled. Too bad if the suspicions are well founded.

I'll tell you how I personally do. ( for what thats worth)

Evidence is evidence- its a building block to build a theory in the absence of incontrovertiable proof or weight

Theory is theory- just support it with as much as is available

Make the best and most logical assumption you can based on the 2

any promotion beyond the above is CT in my book ( and you cant rule them out- even that blind hog eats)

I don't care about labels, and actually I don't care if it turns out that the Official Theory in this case is true. But I want to know what's been going on, and the Official Version doesn't do it for me. So could we just concentrate on the evidence?

Thats what I have tried to do

[Rolfe]

As far as I read the explosives explanation prints are very unlikely to survive.
And building/scavenging timers is not rocket science, and it would make no sense to pick an unusual one that can be traced back to you. (I have a large collection of timers at work for use in switchboards/control boxes)


No disrespect to Longtabber, but I'm going to stick with the "it was in the baggage container" for now, until someone gets really heavy on the subject of why it couldn't have been. Because otherwise we have so little information to go on we might as well stop now. I'm open to persuasion though.

Regarding the bigger picture, I note Paul Foot spotted the question (http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/media/lockrbie.htm) of the very early start to the soft-pedalling of the PFLP theory.

[....] the outstanding questions: why did the cover-up start so early? Why, in March 1989, long before the invasion of Kuwait, when both the British and the American Governments regarded Saddam as an ally, and were arming the Iraqi dictator to the hilt, did Bush and Thatcher decide to 'cool it' on Lockerbie?


His point, in that essay, is that the Trail of the Octopus story covers that objection. Whether that particular CT is true or not, there's certainly a suspicion that the dogs were called off the PFLP at a pretty early date. If the entire forensics regarding the suitcase and the clothes and the radio-cassette-player were fabricated, then the fabrication must have started almost at once, and one wonders how it might be possible to do that effectively from a standing start.

However, if we concentrate on the timer fragment, then even there we see evidence of at least an intent to have the fragment in there at least by September 1989, which is still quite a while before Desert Storm was on the horizon. So if the fragment was fabricated, and it's crucial, then I think there must have been some imperative in addition to the whole "we can't alienate Iran right now" stuff that came to the fore in the spring of 1990.

By the way, I may not have posted this important link (http://i-p-o.org/Private_Eye-Lockerbie-Oct2007.jpg) earlier. It's a short Private Eye follow-up from 2007, relating to the second appeal, and the reason the hearing was so delayed. As I said before, this was primarily to do with the UK government refusing to release a certain document the defence thought was important to their case. This is the clearest statement of what everybody inferred was going on, from the rather coded language.

Claims that Scottish prosecutors suppressed evidence that could have pointed to the innocence of Libyan Ali Mohmed Al-Megrahi, jailed for life for the murder of 270 people in the 1988 Lockerbie bombing, have prompted demands for an immediate international investigation.

Last week the Glasgow Herald disclosed that the prosecution team had examined a CIA document relating to a tiny fragment of a bomb timer said to have been found in the crash debris and used to implicate to Megrahi. They had failed to disclose it to the defence, even though it apparently cast doubt on both the suggestion that the fragment came from the timer used to blow up the Pan Am flight, and the idea that it was, as claimed, purchased by the Libyan.

The existence of the document, uncovered by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission, formed one of six grounds for concluding last July that there had been a miscarriage of justice. The Commission did not disclose the sensitive document as part of its 800-page report into the affair because it could not obtain authority from the US.


So this crucial document, which could not be disclosed because so doing "would damage the UK's relations with a friendly power" was about the timer fragment, and it was in fact the US that was refusing to allow its disclosure. With threats, possibly.

I'm having trouble believing that this is all about Desert Storm, the timing is all to pot.

Rolfe.

[Rolfe]

Mmm, I went looking for that Herald article. They've recently updated their web site with a new domain name, and the search function is now horrendous. But I think I found it.

Top Secret Lockerbie report not disclosed by Crown (http://www.heraldscotland.com/top-secret-lockerbie-report-not-disclosed-by-crown-1.866301)

Using its enhanced powers, the commission compelled the Crown to show it the highly confidential document and decided the contents - still unknown to the defence - were sufficiently disturbing for a court to have believed the conviction could have been a miscarriage of justice.

Proving the MST13 timer found at the site was purchased by the Libyans was pivotal to the conviction at Camp Zeist in the Netherlands. It is thought the document originally came from the CIA and questions the validity of claims the timer was bought by the Libyans.

It is also thought to dispute whether it was the same timer used to detonate the bomb and suggests other countries and terrorist networks would have had access to such a device.

Members of the Crown Office are understood to have signed an agreement with the US security agencies at the time to say that, if they viewed certain confidential documents, they would not disclose the details. The defence team is expected to cite the secret report and the Crown's continued refusal to make it available, as grounds for a special hearing later this month.

A source close to the case said: "The SCCRC has uncovered there is a document which was in the possession of the Crown and was not disclosed to the defence, which concerns the supply of MST13 timers. Moreover, the commission has determined the decision to keep the document from the defence may have constituted a miscarriage of justice.

"The commission was unable to obtain authority for its disclosure. Without access to this document, the defence are disabled from putting before the court full and comprehensive grounds of appeal as to why the conviction should be quashed."


While I was at it, though, I found another couple of articles that look relevant. This one is from the following week as the above.

Appeal team demands secret files (http://www.heraldscotland.com/appeal-team-demands-secret-files-1.866960)

The hour-long hearing in Edinburgh followed recent speculation that United States security services were blocking the handover of potentially crucial information about the timer which detonated the bomb on PanAm flight 103.

But today, Scotland's top judge Lord Justice General Lord Hamilton, sitting with Lords Kingarth and Eassie, heard that the Americans were not involved.

"The documents don't come from that government or any of its agencies," said advocate depute Ronald Clancy QC, for the Crown.

He told the court: "The documents in question were passed to the UK Government on the basis that they were regarded as being confidential by the authorities that passed them over.

"That being so, the Crown has always taken the position that, if possible, confidentiality should always be respected."

Mr Clancy added: "The Crown has been actively pursuing the matter but today it remains unresolved."

Requests had been made to allow the Crown to hand over the documents and it was possible this might happen without the appeal judges having to rule on the issue, the court heard.

Mr Swire said if the secret documents did not come from the United States it was "pure speculation" which government they belonged to.


So this one is saying that it isn't a US document at all? Or is this actually talking about something different?

And then there's this article, from the previous June.

Lockerbie: the truth at last? (http://www.heraldscotland.com/lockerbie-the-truth-at-last-1.827699)

Al-Megrahi's team also found inconsistencies in the evidence surrounding a child's baby-gro, which the prosecution had claimed was wrapped around the Toshiba radio cassette which exploded in mid-air in the hold of the London Heathrow to New York flight.

The charred fragments of the child's clothing were apparently shown to the trial suggesting it was very close to the initial explosion.

However, statements casting doubt on the credibility of the cause of the blast came from two mountain rescuers whose evidence that they found an intact baby-gro was submitted to the SCCRB. The statement read: In the statements noted from these witnesses, they are both adamant that they remembered finding an intact baby-gro.

Other key parts of the defence submission include claims that a radio cassette manual, the trial had heard was found shredded alongside the Toshiba BomBeat radio, was also discovered in one piece. The evidence played a crucial part in al-Megrahi s conviction because it provided the link to a minute piece of the bomb's mechanism which was linked to the Libyan.

A 70-year-old woman from Northumberland had given evidence to the trial that the document was found intact, but police later presented it with charring.

They explained it was crucial evidence because of its closeness to the blast.

Meanwhile, a forensic scientist, Dr Thomas Hayes, who gave evidence to the trial that he had identified the charred remains of the baby-gro in the suitcase which contained the bomb, which from its labels led investigators to Gauci's shop appears to have had a new page added to his records.

The SCCRB were said to have been troubled by the addition of Page 51 to his evidence about the discovery of fragments from a Slalom shirt which had particles of the bomb timer s mechanism.

Al-Megrahi's team claim to have proof from German police files that fragments of the bomb timer were found on the shirt in January 1990. The documents are said to contain photographs showing a piece of the shirt with most of the breast pocket undamaged. However, images of the shirt were presented to the trial in a different state, showing a deep triangle-shaped which continued into the pocket.

The shirt's manufacturers were enlisted by the defence and pointed out the shirt was a boy's size, rather than an adult's by virtue of the fact the breast pocket was 2cm narrower than on the adult-sized shirt. The report to the SCCRB is scathing about this evidence stating it is the culmination of a co-ordinated effort to mislead the court.


This is the first time I've seen the stuff about the anomalies on the shirt outside de Braekeleer's articles. So, the shirt seems to have been tampered with. The babygro seems to have been tampered with. The Toshiba manual seems to have been tampered with. All things that were supposed to have been damaged by being in close proximity to the explosion. All things members of the public report having found intact, which were subsequently exhibited damaged.

And then there are de Braekeleer's reports that Gauci did not in fact sell either the slalom shirt or the babygro. Maybe he should be taken more seriously after all.

Longtabber, you're starting to persuade me....

Rolfe.

PS. I would regard being a "CTer" as stubbornly pursuing a conspiracy theory which has been credibly and comprehensively shown to be untrue. Like thermite in the WTC and the flyover at the Pentagon and the moon landing hoax and crop circles being the work of aliens.

If someone can credibly and comprehensively put the doubts about PA103 to bed, then I would see no reason to pursue it. What say we give it a run until that happens?

[Caustic Logic]

Quickly before I fully catch up, I suggest we hold where the bomb was discussions until/if a new thread is created. I'd be curious to look at the container damage, hull damage, as much info as is available, and all the science stuff related to it.

ETA: In fact, given Long's listed knowledge and assertion of an opinion here, I really want to see that. But it's too far off from the timer issue for a worthy expansion inside this thread, fer sure.

I had a thought directly related to the OP "was the fragment planted in the wreckage?" It's a good title for the thread but the simply answer's probably "no." Since it wasn't "discovered" until some time around the time people started cutting up prototype boards (allegedly), I'm guessing it was planted in the 103 evidence locker.

Also for the record I consider myself the type of paranoid-leaning person one could call a "CTist." I've just hung out here long enough to go native. It's a good formula I think for figuring out mysterious stuff (or pondering it at least).

[Caustic Logic]

I'll show you some of the "red flags" I see and why I believe them questionable.
<snip>

1) the fragments themselves- <snip>
The construction and proximity alone means they should have been vaporized and incinerated. ( one of the reasons professional bomb makers put them in contact is for that exact effect and it works)

Sounds like an endorsement of the same kind of idea PC Roberts found evident, that the fragment should not exist given the nature of the explosives. You also mention "more than enough time to vaporize thin plastic." I think we covered the material somewhere, and the De Braeckeleer piece (http://english.ohmynews.com/articleview/article_view.asp?menu=c10400&no=385213&rel_no=1) cited brown 8-ply board and green 9-ply board as the alleged styles of the supplied prototype and found fragment. I know it's been covered, but I forget what the layers are of, but mostly plastic, I think. Now if it were coming apart but not completely vaporizing, would a pice look simply fragmented or partly vaporized, with melty thinned edges and such? Because this piece we're presented with looks just cut up and run over in the driveway. Would a simple shirt collar shield it enough once leaving the bomb shell on its way out the suitcase? That does seem possible, perhaps why they picked that swatch to hide it in.


2) The alleged timer itself. A timer is a timer is a timer and nothing more. 1st year engineering students make them. The focus on a specific timer ( especially one that is manufactured and possibly COULD be traced if components were found) for a professional or even experienced bomb maker is absurd.

I tended to think so too. It's one of those clues that makes me suspect more of a psyops set-up, before or after the fact. Glad to see some expert agreement.

Just the fact such fragments were found leads me to believe they were agency plants put there so the LE would incorrectly ( but honestly- no trickery on their part) come to the conclusion the agency wanted them to.

Just to quote it I guess.

As to this guys alleged involvement

As I have said before- I seriously doubt he had a hands on role but he probably had an administrative role or operational knowledge. ( either makes him guilty in my view)

Honestly I don't see any evidence for that fact except that he was convicted for pretty much the whole thing, all apparently the wrong parts he didn't do, and based on planted/bought evidence. But that's just my opinion, not knowing what you're basing on, and better to not get back-n-forth over. In this thread anyway.

[Ambrosia]

Just stumbled across a recent interview (http://www.abc.net.au/rn/breakfast/stories/2009/2666843.htm) on ABC radio (Australian Broadcating Corp) from last month interviewing Robert Baer.

He talks about lots of evidence that was withheld at trial that pointed to Iran and the PFLP-GC.

He does have a new book out about Iran though.

[LONGTABBER PE]

Sounds like an endorsement of the same kind of idea PC Roberts found evident, that the fragment should not exist given the nature of the explosives. You also mention "more than enough time to vaporize thin plastic." I think we covered the material somewhere, and the De Braeckeleer piece (http://english.ohmynews.com/articleview/article_view.asp?menu=c10400&no=385213&rel_no=1) cited brown 8-ply board and green 9-ply board as the alleged styles of the supplied prototype and found fragment. I know it's been covered, but I forget what the layers are of, but mostly plastic, I think. Now if it were coming apart but not completely vaporizing, would a pice look simply fragmented or partly vaporized, with melty thinned edges and such? Because this piece we're presented with looks just cut up and run over in the driveway. Would a simple shirt collar shield it enough once leaving the bomb shell on its way out the suitcase? That does seem possible, perhaps why they picked that swatch to hide it in.



I tended to think so too. It's one of those clues that makes me suspect more of a psyops set-up, before or after the fact. Glad to see some expert agreement.



Just to quote it I guess.



Honestly I don't see any evidence for that fact except that he was convicted for pretty much the whole thing, all apparently the wrong parts he didn't do, and based on planted/bought evidence. But that's just my opinion, not knowing what you're basing on, and better to not get back-n-forth over. In this thread anyway.

Well, this is all theoretical anyway so I'll expound on the theory

Sounds like an endorsement of the same kind of idea PC Roberts found evident, that the fragment should not exist given the nature of the explosives. You also mention "more than enough time to vaporize thin plastic." I think we covered the material somewhere, and the De Braeckeleer piece (http://english.ohmynews.com/articleview/article_view.asp?menu=c10400&no=385213&rel_no=1) cited brown 8-ply board and green 9-ply board as the alleged styles of the supplied prototype and found fragment. I know it's been covered, but I forget what the layers are of, but mostly plastic, I think. Now if it were coming apart but not completely vaporizing, would a pice look simply fragmented or partly vaporized, with melty thinned edges and such?

First, explosions are weird animals- anything can ( or cannot) happen. I've seen pens driven thru walls from rockets. So, the short answer is "anything" can happen- you have to make the best determination based on realistic probability considering ALL factors- even then, its still a SWAG under the best of circumstances.

Plus, no one knows for certain how the Semtex was placed in relation to the alleged board. Was it insulated from it, wrapped over it, pressed on it or totally separated from it.

All of those play a part.

But going on the general theory they were both inside the alleged radio

Its impossible in my mind and experience for anything short of metal to have survived immediate incineration.

You are talking in micro seconds going from ambient to white hot and then add motion creates the blowtorch effect.

Also ( still measuring in micro seconds) the board caught the full brunt BEFORE the case went. ( like an oven for about a milli fraction of a micro second) Then engulfment.

Then consider the thermal properties of the components themselves relative to their dimensions. ( a match will ignite a toothpick but not enough energy to do a 2X4)

So, they say there was a "brownish" one too? There was a "hole" in the blast?

If part of it was incinerated, charred or whatever- it all should have been.

I find it suspicious all things being equal, "just enough" was found to make some sort of an ID but no more.

Doesnt add up with the overall knowns regarding that type of explosive

Now if it were coming apart but not completely vaporizing, would a pice look simply fragmented or partly vaporized, with melty thinned edges and such?

If in a garden variety fire maybe but not with this kind of temp. The heat would have hit it all at once then cooked it a bit inside the radio then as the part was "overtaken" in the expanding blast- cooked some more

It couldnt have "outrun" the violent energy release- it would be engulfed by it.

Then theres secondary ignition

Then theres the blow out caused by the vacuum created

Thats a lot of "what if's" and "maybes" for an item made of plastic ( basically) that was in direct contact with the charge.

Because this piece we're presented with looks just cut up and run over in the driveway. Would a simple shirt collar shield it enough once leaving the bomb shell on its way out the suitcase?

As long as the laws of physics apply in this universe- no way in hell

I tended to think so too. It's one of those clues that makes me suspect more of a psyops set-up, before or after the fact. Glad to see some expert agreement.

when you look at the whole thing- thats what it looks like

Honestly I don't see any evidence for that fact except that he was convicted for pretty much the whole thing, all apparently the wrong parts he didn't do, and based on planted/bought evidence. But that's just my opinion, not knowing what you're basing on, and better to not get back-n-forth over. In this thread anyway

Went into that in a different thread

[LONGTABBER PE]

Rolfe ( from multiple posts)

No disrespect to Longtabber, but I'm going to stick with the "it was in the baggage container" for now, until someone gets really heavy on the subject of why it couldn't have been. Because otherwise we have so little information to go on we might as well stop now. I'm open to persuasion though.

The only way to get past that ( or confirm it) is to have access to the actual investigative reports in detail. Do you know if they are available? ( I would almost bet not for obvious reasons)

Proving the MST13 timer found at the site was purchased by the Libyans was pivotal to the conviction at Camp Zeist in the Netherlands. It is thought the document originally came from the CIA and questions the validity of claims the timer was bought by the Libyans.

Just curious- did anyone ever check to see the accountability of all these timers? What was their order purpose? What and where did each end up?

Members of the Crown Office are understood to have signed an agreement with the US security agencies at the time to say that, if they viewed certain confidential documents, they would not disclose the details. The defence team is expected to cite the secret report and the Crown's continued refusal to make it available, as grounds for a special hearing later this month.

This one right here leads me to believe its the planted red herring. Its probably DISinformation marked "secret" just to make a diversion.


This is the first time I've seen the stuff about the anomalies on the shirt outside de Braekeleer's articles. So, the shirt seems to have been tampered with. The babygro seems to have been tampered with. The Toshiba manual seems to have been tampered with. All things that were supposed to have been damaged by being in close proximity to the explosion. All things members of the public report having found intact, which were subsequently exhibited damaged.

A lot of inconsistencies for objects that in reality should have been incinerated and completely shredded. Were there any ( to anyones knowledge) wipe tests or chemical analysis done?

[Ambrosia]

LongTabber:

How large an explosion will 450g or so of Semtex produce?

As far as physics goes, the explosive is detonated by a trigger charge, what hapens next? Does the explosion produce a blast shockwave and the friction from the air being squashed create the heat? Or does the explosive produce lots of heat that expands the air that produces the shockwave?

[Ambrosia]

Were there any ( to anyones knowledge) wipe tests or chemical analysis done?

Dr John Rouse testifying at the Camp Zeist trial states:

But Douse confirmed that his agency[Defense Evaluation and Research Agency (DERA)] had not been able to test fragments of an electronic timer and the tape recorder thought to have hidden the bomb, citing cost savings at the laboratory.

"I would have given my right arm to examine them all," he said.

[ source (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2000/05/23/world/main198514.shtml) ]

Clothing was tested, the suitcase fragments were tested The radio fragments, and definitely the MST-13 fragment were not tested.

Another excuse for this non testing was that the fragment[MST-13] was "too small"

[LONGTABBER PE]

LongTabber:

How large an explosion will 450g or so of Semtex produce?

As far as physics goes, the explosive is detonated by a trigger charge, what hapens next? Does the explosion produce a blast shockwave and the friction from the air being squashed create the heat? Or does the explosive produce lots of heat that expands the air that produces the shockwave?

I'm going to have to borrow a copy of FM 5-525, from memory tho ( which I may have to correct later)

Thats a 1 lb stick ( std unit of issue)

Its force is about 1.4 ish of TNT which is about 25,000fps burn

"large" isnt how explosives are measured but 1 stick will take out construction steel girders, about 6" of reinforced concrete, about 2" of packed asphalt. In the open, safe distance is about 800' ( from memory- would have to see the tables for precision)

The anatomy of an explosion ( concerning mallables- ie plastics) depends a good bit on how the charge is expanded or "shaped" and where the actual detonator is but for this purpose thats not too critical since thats for steel cutting mainly.

( Imagine an atom bomb movie- all explosions do basically the same thing- just bigger- you can actually see it with a A bomb and relate) All of this happens in about .02-.03 seconds.

In essence from point of ignition- you create the bubble ( white hot violence)

That bubble expands creating a pressure wave in front of it ( the static air being compressed until its dense) then the bubble is becoming the fireball ( as it breathes)

"White" explosives generally "blow fires out" because they are so hot they pre burn and the heat actually burns the air out before most combustables can ignite ( talking about things normally solid)- they dont make too many fires in the conventional sense- they literally incinerate.

So, at full expansion with a 1lb stick- you are looking at about a 20ft area thats "flashed" at white hot ( these charges vaporize STEEL- thats why they are so popular in demolitions- they dont actually "blow up" like TNT) ( assuming in the wide open- everything it hits and individual circumstances make that a true infinite answer depending on any number of variables) then rapidly cooling. ( we used to fire one on reinforced pads to illustrate this by the circle)

( this has a lot to do with the density of the molecules for non liquid explosives- the denser it is, the more it burns and the faster it hits with force- like the difference between an axe sticking in a tree versus a machete slicing thru one)

This is what I meant by the PROPERTIES of this particular explosive make me discount the entire state theory and existance of this "evidence" totally and completely.

If they said conventional dynamite, TNT, Ammonium Nitrate or something like that- that would be a completely different story.

Thats why I asked for residue tests and wipes for trace to factually confirm that SEMTEX and nothing else was used or is that an assumption. That makes or breaks the states official line in my opinion.

These are used BECAUSE they are the fastest burning and hottest of explosives.

Theres more ( a lot)- lets talk about tamping

We dont know whether this one lone suitcase was on top, under,beside others. We also dont know how close it was to the wall.

For discussion purposes, I'm going to assume it was in the middle. ( just for talking purposes)

All those bags around it, the decking under it and maybe on it is just like tamping ( sandbagging) so now you have additional "soak time" before the bubble reaches full expansion ( contact with open air) That adds the additional back pressure ( as the wave goes thru each object) thus making "ground zero" ( the suitcase it was supposedly in) that much HOTTER and LONGER ( still talking in milli seconds here)

Now, with all of that- the state wants me to believe some "fragments" survived and "some" clothing was unburned? ( that was actually in the bubble at detonation) ( using Semtex or C3 or C4 or any in that family)

This is simple CLOTH and plastic a few mils thick.

I'm sorry but my mind simply cannot accept that as even possible.

Theres more

At some point ( this too is critical) there was skin rupture and violent decompression ( planes pressure was greater than outside)

Whatever was happening at whatever stage then got "blown out" ( path of least resistance)

We know that happened but dont know exactly "when" in the chain of explosion it did.

So, if you believe the fragments and clothing /whatever ARE physically in the plane and were "discovered" then the only answer I can accept to allow it possible is that they were at the front of the wave and NOT in a container with it ( progressive damage) That would support the bomb being somewhere else.

[LONGTABBER PE]

Dr John Rouse testifying at the Camp Zeist trial states:



[ source (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2000/05/23/world/main198514.shtml) ]

Clothing was tested, the suitcase fragments were tested The radio fragments, and definitely the MST-13 fragment were not tested.

Another excuse for this non testing was that the fragment[MST-13] was "too small"

From the article

It suggested Monday that two key fragments of wreckage had been contaminated with several kinds of explosive residue during British laboratory tests and not just by one kind from a bomb in the plane's hold.

Defense lawyer Richard Keen questioned former Defense Evaluation and Research Agency (DERA) forensic scientist John Douse on possible sources of contamination, including storage procedures and equipment used to prepare samples.

Douse dismissed Keen's arguments.

"That is unscientific. ... I have conclusive proof which I believe can refute this," he said from beside the reconstructed remains of the shattered aircraft luggage container said to have been torn apart by the bomb.

But Douse confirmed that his agency had not been able to test fragments of an electronic timer and the tape recorder thought to have hidden the bomb, citing cost savings at the laboratory.

"I would have given my right arm to examine them all," he said.

Former DERA forensic explosives director Thomas Hayes, testifying Monday after Douse, told the court he was certain a bomb in a brown Samsonite case had destroyed the jet.
"It was established without any doubt that this item had been subjected to a large internal explosion and therefore had originally contained an explosive device," he said.

Hayes said the nature of the damage indicated the suitcase had been either on the floor of the baggage container or on top of another case, corroborating blast pattern evidence from previous witnesses.[/QUOTE]

Tell you what I think

Somebody took a suitcase packed with stuff with a stick of TNT and blew it up on a pad- instant evidence with conflicting residues- very sloppy

[Toke]

Interesting, I had no idea there were that much difference in high explosives.

[LONGTABBER PE]

Interesting, I had no idea there were that much difference in high explosives.

There really is but useless trivia moment follows:

TNT is the explosive baseline- everything is measured against it

Anything below it is just explosive and anything at it or beyond is referred to as high explosive- then there are the "super" high explosives ( PETN and RDX classes)

Depends on what you need to do as to which is the correct choice.

C's & B's are the preferred explosives because they can be molded, cut into various sizes, rolled into strings and such so they fit unusual shapes, can cut like DET cord and you can do designer things with them like blow out locks or blow holes in walls- even blow names in things ( for the artistic types)

C4 and Semtex are also 100% waterproof too and safer ( burn without exploding and almost impossible to detonate by physical shock)

The real difference is the "blast" ( hard to describe with words and without formulae or good pictures)

If I remember, you are an electrical engineer too so its "kinda/sorta" like the difference in electromotive force between DC and AC current.

You need pure raw horsepower to break something up- (pushing force)- then the lower ones are the choice

You need fast,hard,high impact "shock" and high concentrated force ( high impact) like a capacitor discharging then you need the faster ones.

I guess I needed to say that because its directly relevant ( in terms of believability) to the states version.

If they claimed nitro, dynamite, gel- yeah I could buy their account- they arent near as hot and "blow" things out so I would expect debris from the bomb and a good bit ( thats why those are used in grenades- it defeats the purpose to "vaporize" your schrapnel)

Its the explosive equilavent to telling me an oxy acetylene torch with a cutting flame is the proper tool to solder copper pipe and it wont hurt the pipe rather than a propane torch.

Thats why, based on what Rolfe posted regarding the "physical remains" lead me to believe someone pulled the old "switch-a-roonie" with a suitcase blown up with a lower grade explosive.

I now believe maybe in those "secret documents" that some other explosives expert figured it out too.

The math doesnt add up

[Toke]

There really is but useless trivia moment follows:
Fine with me.:)
(I guess the driving explosives would be the black powder used for undermining trenches and fortifications, or the modern fuel air stuff.)

This makes the whole case look rather suspect, particularly the lab with no money for samples and your idea of the alternate suitcase blown up with something with less punch to provide evidence for planting.
Those two fit nicely together.

[LONGTABBER PE]

Fine with me.:)
(I guess the driving explosives would be the black powder used for undermining trenches and fortifications, or the modern fuel air stuff.)

This makes the whole case look rather suspect, particularly the lab with no money for samples and your idea of the alternate suitcase blown up with something with less punch to provide evidence for planting.
Those two fit nicely together.

Its a theory that fits the facts ( if in reality those are indeed "facts") The problem is that they DO "fit" and very well.

Admittedly, This incident has never been anywhere in my thoughts ( except back in the day) and I wouldnt have even thought about it if it hadnt been for another thread by Rolfe.

Honestly, I've learned some things this week reading some of his links.

Like I said earlier, I always start with the physics of the act based on the evidence then gauge the account. ( I do that on everything)

The math doesnt add up here- but as i say that, I'm not going to stake my credentials on "internet information" either.

Like electricity- explosives are pure math and engineering constants- they dont change. Its a case of how much information you have to assign values to the variables. After that, the math speaks for itself.

The states claim of what happened doesnt match the evidence they say remains with what they say it was done with.

Based on what I have seen ( especially that alternate report- assuming its legit)- the whole suitcase theory is a red herring and all its details structured to lead to a conclusion.

That leads me to believe they actually DO know what happened and the trial itself was a red herring also.

This sounds like a PR stunt to throw "the public" off the scent of the real bombers.

Thats where I sit right now.

My personal question now shifts to ( regarding the guy)

1) is he innocent yet framed

2) involved but not direct

3) sacrificial lamb ( guilty of other things known but not this and sacrificed as a political compromise)

Thats another thread tho

[TriskettheKid]

Hang on a sec....

Longtabber, are you saying that high explosives will completely obliterate any device it's attached to, leaving no evidence of the device behind? Regardless if it's enclosed in a suitcase, in the open, in a car, etc?

Is that what you're saying?

[Guybrush Threepwood]

Tell you what I think

Somebody took a suitcase packed with stuff with a stick of TNT and blew it up on a pad- instant evidence with conflicting residues- very sloppy

Now we're cooking! From the vague possibility of one piece of evidence being planted, we're off down the rabbit hole, and being led by a guy who isn't a CTer so it must be true!

I haven't seen this linked in any of the threads, if it has been and I missed it my apologies, but here you go AAIB Report on PanAm 103 (http://www.aaib.gov.uk/publications/formal_reports/2_1990_n739pa.cfm).

It's an overview, not very mathematical, and doesn't analyse the type of explosive, but it's still a lot of people involved who would have to be "leant on" or "compromised" or "terminated with extreme prejudice" or whatever Longtabber's colleagues did in the early 90's, if this is a fabrication, and not what actually happened.

I'm sure by tomorrow we can advance to the whole thing being an early test of holographic aircraft simulations in case they would ever be needed in future, if we all just work together.

[Caustic Logic]

Then consider the thermal properties of the components themselves relative to their dimensions. ( a match will ignite a toothpick but not enough energy to do a 2X4)

So, they say there was a "brownish" one too? There was a "hole" in the blast?

If part of it was incinerated, charred or whatever- it all should have been.

I find it suspicious all things being equal, "just enough" was found to make some sort of an ID but no more.

Doesnt add up with the overall knowns regarding that type of explosive

Thanks, that sounds reasonable. I agree that just from a logic point of view it seems implausible and too convenient. With all other factors considered it just gets worse.

So, they say there was a "brownish" one too?

I'm a little confused on the color issue but brown was I think the original color of the protoype board plastic, while green is what they supplied libya with. I guess the model and fragment we've seen photos of are of the green type tho they look blue-gray to me and that seems a tint issue (it's all a bit blue). Apologies for still being confused on that.

[LONGTABBER PE]

Hang on a sec....

Longtabber, are you saying that high explosives will completely obliterate any device it's attached to, leaving no evidence of the device behind? Regardless if it's enclosed in a suitcase, in the open, in a car, etc?

Is that what you're saying?

Not at all.

In anything- there are a million variables that can a million different outcomes.

The problem is ( regarding those who dont do this) that people who are armchair commentators love to plan for or on some kind of "perfect world" scenario then pick it apart.

Certainly its POSSIBLE and I dont dispute that. Never have or will.

Is it PROBABLE- HIGHLY unlikely

There is no "exact" answer so you have to base the DEDUCTION on the whole

Thats how it works- it doesnt add up

[LONGTABBER PE]

Now we're cooking! From the vague possibility of one piece of evidence being planted, we're off down the rabbit hole, and being led by a guy who isn't a CTer so it must be true!

I haven't seen this linked in any of the threads, if it has been and I missed it my apologies, but here you go AAIB Report on PanAm 103 (http://www.aaib.gov.uk/publications/formal_reports/2_1990_n739pa.cfm).

It's an overview, not very mathematical, and doesn't analyse the type of explosive, but it's still a lot of people involved who would have to be "leant on" or "compromised" or "terminated with extreme prejudice" or whatever Longtabber's colleagues did in the early 90's, if this is a fabrication, and not what actually happened.

I'm sure by tomorrow we can advance to the whole thing being an early test of holographic aircraft simulations in case they would ever be needed in future, if we all just work together.


Here is a textbook example why I deliberately avoid CT type threads and armchair commentaries and people who throw google as their fact source as a whole.

They have something to say but no knowledge from which to say it- thats not a discussion, thats an argument. I dont do those.

I'm a SME who knows what I'm talking about with the 214 and the professional credentials to back up the mouth ( big difference)

I made it CLEAR that I'm NOT going to accept "internet evidence" as a reliable source ( what part of that didnt you understand?) and WITHOUT directly examining the evidence and testimony, this is a THEORY.

What part of THAT didnt you understand?

Now we're cooking! From the vague possibility of one piece of evidence being planted, we're off down the rabbit hole, and being led by a guy who isn't a CTer so it must be true!

This is where you look foolish because its obvious and documented in the thread. ( and why I dont post in CT threads because there are too many morons in it and sorry Rolfe, I'm about to leave this one) I'm not "leading" anyone,anywhere- I stated my observations and the reasons for them. ( are YOU an engineer or do demolitions?- if not- how do you know they are wrong?) I didnt think so.

It's an overview, not very mathematical, and doesn't analyse the type of explosive, but it's still a lot of people involved who would have to be "leant on" or "compromised" or "terminated with extreme prejudice" or whatever Longtabber's colleagues did in the early 90's, if this is a fabrication, and not what actually happened.

emphasis on the bolded

[Caustic Logic]

Hang on a sec....

Longtabber, are you saying that high explosives will completely obliterate any device it's attached to, leaving no evidence of the device behind? Regardless if it's enclosed in a suitcase, in the open, in a car, etc?

Is that what you're saying?

If so it don't sound right, but I think he meant only for sure in this case, depending exactly how close the semtex was to the timer within a radio. He did say that would be most likely vaporized. Would you disagree with that? In the space of a radio within a suitcase in a cargo hold? Minus a sheet of lead between them?

[LONGTABBER PE]

I'm a little confused on the color issue but brown was I think the original color of the protoype board plastic, while green is what they supplied libya with. I guess the model and fragment we've seen photos of are of the green type tho they look blue-gray to me and that seems a tint issue (it's all a bit blue). Apologies for still being confused on that.

Both exist and are common stock- what I dont know is what that company's "standard" id and if it was a "handmade" it could have come from anywhere.

Thats why I asked earlier about the disposition of the "other" boards and will add the manufacturing specs as RAW materials are always purchased in BULK.

These can be traced too- the question is how deeply was this looked into

[Caustic Logic]

Here is a textbook example why I deliberately avoid CT type threads and armchair commentaries and people who throw google as their fact source as a whole.

They have something to say but no knowledge from which to say it- thats not a discussion, thats an argument. I dont do those.

I'm a SME who knows what I'm talking about with the 214 and the professional credentials to back up the mouth ( big difference)

I made it CLEAR that I'm NOT going to accept "internet evidence" as a reliable source ( what part of that didnt you understand?) and WITHOUT directly examining the evidence and testimony, this is a THEOR

Sorry dude but you're internet evidence too. We're all ON the internet. This is our medium of communicating evidence. Should we be printing and mailing? Or ignoring it? I think he meant 'to show the results of on-the-scene investigators, for comparison. Does it fit your theories? If so why not and why do you have more basis than them to disagree? And what will be thread title for that discussion?

Thanks for the link Guybrush as I hadn't hunted that stuff down yet. It's linked now for future ref.

[Rolfe]

Now we're cooking! From the vague possibility of one piece of evidence being planted, we're off down the rabbit hole, and being led by a guy who isn't a CTer so it must be true!

I haven't seen this linked in any of the threads, if it has been and I missed it my apologies, but here you go AAIB Report on PanAm 103 (http://www.aaib.gov.uk/publications/formal_reports/2_1990_n739pa.cfm).

It's an overview, not very mathematical, and doesn't analyse the type of explosive, but it's still a lot of people involved who would have to be "leant on" or "compromised" or "terminated with extreme prejudice" or whatever Longtabber's colleagues did in the early 90's, if this is a fabrication, and not what actually happened.

I'm sure by tomorrow we can advance to the whole thing being an early test of holographic aircraft simulations in case they would ever be needed in future, if we all just work together.


Mmmmmm, kay.... :oldroll:

Can we back off a bit here?

We ought to appreciate that Longtabber has actually repeated an existing CT regarding PA103. de Braekeleer thinks the explosion happened outside the luggage container (something to do with the "Mach Stem Effect"). He also thinks Giaka (the CIA mole) bought the clothes from Gauci, which is certainly related. There is a fair bit of tittle-tattle surrounding other bits of evidence that were identified with the bomb suitcase, such as the babygro, the slalom shirt and the Toshiba manual. So the suspicions aren't necessarily confined to the timer fragment alone. So I don't think we should reject the thesis entirely - this whole thing is too damn strange to reject anything out of hand.

Nevertheless, the implications of this particular theory are pretty heavy. The evidence of the brown Samsonite hardshell and the fragments of radio-cassette player were found very early in the proceedings as far as I know. You could point to the very rapid progress made in the early weeks of the investigation to suggest that evidence was actually being fed to the investigators, I suppose, but that just gets you right back in the same place. Who had the means and the motive to plant fabricated, misdirecting evidence within the investigation, right there in Scotland, within the first few weeks?

There's only one answer. It's well known that the CIA showed up at Lockerbie before it even got light, having flown personnel up from London almost immediately the news broke. There are many reports of US officials "shadowing" the police and the other searchers, and interfering with evidence. There's no other possible candidate for the role.

My assumption has always been that the reason for that was the presence in the wreckage of sensitive information or material they didn't want to come to light. Something being carried by one or more of the CIA operatives who died on the plane. It may have had nothing at all to do with the explosion. It may or may not have had anything to do with the persistent allegations of drugs found in the wreckage and whatever the hell was going on with Jaffaar.

However, if Longtabber's (and de Braekeleer's) thesis is correct, they were in fact busy planting fabricated evidence to mislead the investigators into believing that the plane had been blown up by a bomb in a suitcase, when in reality the aircraft was sabotaged on the ground.

This, ladies and gentlemen, is a full-blown, no-holds-barred MIHOP.

I for one am going to take an awful lot of persuading that a US government agency deliberately blew up a plane carrying nearly 200 Americans.

Rolfe.

[LONGTABBER PE]

Sorry dude but you're internet evidence too. We're all ON the internet. This is our medium of communicating evidence. Should we be printing and mailing? Or ignoring it? I think he meant 'to show the results of on-the-scene investigators, for comparison. Does it fit your theories? If so why not and why do you have more basis than them to disagree? And what will be thread title for that discussion?

Thanks for the link Guybrush as I hadn't hunted that stuff down yet. It's linked now for future ref.

I realize that

I think he meant 'to show the results of on-the-scene investigators, for comparison.

I didnt get that same tone

Does it fit your theories? If so why not and why do you have more basis than them to disagree? And what will be thread title for that discussion?

I dont have a "theory" because if you read what i wrote- I havent given this situation a conscious thought since it happened except in another thread this last week. Dont know and didnt care ( still dont) I was offering information- nothing more.

Believe what you will- I'm not trying to sell or convince

[Rolfe]

Nevertheless, your assessment of the evidence leads somewhere, even if you haven't followed it through yet.

Rolfe.

[LONGTABBER PE]

We ought to appreciate that Longtabber has actually repeated an existing CT regarding PA103. de Braekeleer thinks the explosion happened outside the luggage container (something to do with the "Mach Stem Effect"). He also thinks Giaka (the CIA mole) bought the clothes from Gauci, which is certainly related. There is a fair bit of tittle-tattle surrounding other bits of evidence that were identified with the bomb suitcase, such as the babygro, the slalom shirt and the Toshiba manual. So the suspicions aren't necessarily confined to the timer fragment alone. So I don't think we should reject the thesis entirely - this whole thing is too damn strange to reject anything out of hand.

Nevertheless, the implications of this particular theory are pretty heavy. The evidence of the brown Samsonite hardshell and the fragments of radio-cassette player were found very early in the proceedings as far as I know. You could point to the very rapid progress made in the early weeks of the investigation to suggest that evidence was actually being fed to the investigators, I suppose, but that just gets you right back in the same place. Who had the means and the motive to plant fabricated, misdirecting evidence within the investigation, right there in Scotland, within the first few weeks?


However, if Longtabber's (and de Braekeleer's) thesis is correct, they were in fact busy planting fabricated evidence to mislead the investigators into believing that the plane had been blown up by a bomb in a suitcase, when in reality the aircraft was sabotaged on the ground.


Rolfe.

I didnt know about anyone elses theory ( still dont know or care)

I simply looked at the explosive claimed and the knowns about it and my experience.

I'm not about to get into the game of "who did what,when and where". I really dont know and certainly dont care.

From what I have seen- the states case doesnt match the math and the evidence- thats a fact

There are a million variables that can change that- thats a fact


Examining the factuals could change everything I have said- thats a fact

I havent personally examined any of it and doubt I ever will- thats a fact also

I do know how these operations work- thats a fact also

What else do you want? I looked at whats out there and it doesnt add up

[LONGTABBER PE]

Nevertheless, your assessment of the evidence leads somewhere, even if you haven't followed it through yet.

Rolfe.

The problem is- I have little faith in "the evidence" and I made it clear it DEPENDS on its accuracy.

IF its accurate- theres a serious flaw. I just believe it is accurate and there is in fact a serious flaw.

Thats pretty much it unless the evidence,testimony and tests are available to review. I doubt they are and I see why.

They know its a scam and they arent going to put it in public- if it were bullet proof, put it out there, case closed

[Ambrosia]

The evidence of the brown Samsonite hardshell and the fragments of radio-cassette player were found very early in the proceedings as far as I know. ... Who had the means and the motive to plant fabricated, misdirecting evidence within the investigation?

There's only one answer. It's well known that the CIA showed up at Lockerbie before it even got light, having flown personnel up from London almost immediately the news broke. There are many reports of US officials "shadowing" the police and the other searchers, and interfering with evidence. There's no other possible candidate for the role.


However, if Longtabber's (and de Braekeleer's) thesis is correct, they were in fact busy planting fabricated evidence to mislead the investigators into believing that the plane had been blown up by a bomb in a suitcase, when in reality the aircraft was sabotaged on the ground.

There are sooooo mnay problems with this theory we can pretty much discard it right away.

While I can believe that the timer and the device itself were likely vapourised by the mechanics of the explosion, I don't buy for a moment the idea that the whole of the radio it was encased in and the suitcase and the contents of the suitcase were also vapourised.

Even if we accept that there were American intelligence operatives on the ground from very early on, which there very very probably were. The idea they were planting evidence is ridiculous. The recovery operation was spread over a huuuuge area and it was a joint operation between Scottish and American police. A couple of volunteer searchers or what have you could have easily come across conflicting evidence and exposed the whole thing.

There is actual evidence to base the idea on that MST-13 was planted, there's nothing but speculation to base the idea on that charred clothing which was tested, or that suitcase fragments which were also tested for explosives were fabricated.

While one of the AAIB people that wrote that report has since revised some of his opinions about the exact placement of the explosion from 25cm inside the cargo hold wall, to more like 12cm inside the cargo hold wall, it doesn't follow that the bomb was built into the aircraft somehow, there is a pile of credible scientific evidence that the explosion originated from within the cargo container.

[Rolfe]

I didnt know about anyone elses theory ( still dont know or care)

I simply looked at the explosive claimed and the knowns about it and my experience.

I'm not about to get into the game of "who did what,when and where". I really dont know and certainly dont care.

From what I have seen- the states case doesnt match the math and the evidence- thats a fact

There are a million variables that can change that- thats a fact

Examining the factuals could change everything I have said- thats a fact

I havent personally examined any of it and doubt I ever will- thats a fact also

I do know how these operations work- thats a fact also

What else do you want? I looked at whats out there and it doesnt add up


What do I want?

Well, simply throwing my hands in the air and saying "this doesn't add up" isn't enough. I've known that at some level for over 15 years. I'd like to have some idea which parts of the evidence are credible and which suspect. I'd like to make some assessment of which theories are credible and which wild conspiracy theorising. I don't know how far it's possible to get, but I'd like to try.

Your own assessment of the evidence leads, to my mind, to the conclusion that the CIA actually sabotaged the aircraft, then moved in at a very early stage to plant evidence suggestive of a terrorist "suitcase bomb". Either that or some other party did the sabotage, but the CIA jumped in almost from day one with the cover-up.

I have to say I find that one of the least probable explanations for the events, and I'd have more faith in what you were proposing if you'd looked at a lot more of the evidence before jumping to these conclusions, and also considered where your theorising actually leads you.

Rolfe.

[Rolfe]

I haven't seen this linked in any of the threads, if it has been and I missed it my apologies, but here you go AAIB Report on PanAm 103 (http://www.aaib.gov.uk/publications/formal_reports/2_1990_n739pa.cfm).


I wasn't aware that was online, and thank you very much for finding it. There's so much out there, all in different places. I think Longtabber ought to look at it before coming to any more theories about what was fabricated and what wasn't.

Rolfe.

[Ambrosia]

There's another theory that the loss of 103 was an accident and not caused by an terrorist bomb at all.

PA103 was, according to this theory (http://www.firmmagazine.com/features/324/Attack_or_a_trick?.html), blown apart by detonation of military ordnance, carried illicitly on the plane and detonated accidentally by radio signals from the normal ATC system.

This theory hangs on the testimony of a volunteer searcher who at trial descrbes "sewing needles" hampering the search effort, which according to John Parkes were actually fletchettes from inside some kind of anti-personnel weapon that exploded.

Parkes on face value appears to be qualified nough to know what he's talking about, and examined 3 bodies first hand at the time, as well as assissting in the Lockerbie cleanup operation.

[Rolfe]

Ow! I knew about the needles, but I hadn't come across that explanation. So, would the cover-up in that case be aimed at concealing the presence of illegal weapons on the plane, by planting evidence to suggest instead a terrorist bomb?

And the recent discovery of the PFLP-GC devices provided a convenient template for the supposed methodology? Helluva coincidence the explosion happened at the very time the PFLP devices would have gone off though. And it still doesn't really explain the timer fragment.

My head hurts.

Rolfe.

ETA: In a way, that link is quite entertaining. It provides a non-MIHOP scenario that is consistent with Lontabber's theorising, as I understand it. But at the same time if true, it completely exonerates Megrahi. He was framed, set up, railroaded and generally had for a sucker in every possible way, by the very people who are now screaming the most furious outrage over his release.

And Longtabber came into this because he believes that Megrahi is guilty, because they wouldn't have chosen someone completely innocent as the fall guy/sacrificial lamb.

[Rolfe]

( and why I dont post in CT threads because there are too many morons in it and sorry Rolfe, I'm about to leave this one)


Well, leave if you like. The only morons I've seen in this thread are those who have declared that all the doubts about the Official Version are only a ruse to excuse Megrahi's recent release from prison, perpetrated by people whose sole aim is to annoy Americans. Because of course the captain of a US naval vessel couldn't possibly have been unjustified when he shot down a civil airliner in 1988.

I think this forum has the resources to do a good job of investigating the Lockerbie affair, and I think it would be a better use of posters' time than debunking rubbish about nano-thermite and holographic planes. The sheer amount of resources that have been turned up by just a few posters in three threads is quite impressive.

I wish we could interest some more of the regular 9/11 debunking crew, and where's Gravy when you need him?

If you're interested, then look at the totality of the information available concerning the aspect you're theorising about. If you're not, then fine, just go away.

Rolfe.

[Ambrosia]

Ow! I knew about the needles, but I hadn't come across that explanation. So, would the cover-up in that case be aimed at concealing the presence of illegal weapons on the plane, by planting evidence to suggest instead a terrorist bomb?

And the recent discovery of the PFLP-GC devices provided a convenient template for the supposed methodology? Helluva coincidence the explosion happened at the very time the PFLP devices would have gone off though. And it still doesn't really explain the timer fragment.


Well I can't for the life of me work out why anyone would want to be transporting military weapons on a civilian plane going TO America, that aside.

the only evidence planted would be the timer fragment, everything else would fit, say for example the suitcase had innocuous clothes and a normal radio in it and was sitting on top of whatever exploded in the cargo hold. The reported traces of the type of explosive found would match (?) what was attributed to Semtex.

The pathology reports are an issue here, Parkes is saying what he saw indicates explosive shrapnel wounds, the pathologist says those were caused on impact with the ground. Also the Air Accident report is an issue. Wouldn't they have noticed shrapnel damage to the aircraft and been able to identify it as that?

It also puts place of ingestion as Heathrow, I could see a bomb in a radio maybe slipping past inline baggage, x-ray checks, but not some kind of warhead.

If the government leaned on the accident investigators and the pathologist maybe.

It's not the most likely theory by any means, thats for sure.

The co-incidence between the ice cube timers and the time of explosion, well where does the 30-40 minutes timeframe come from in the first place? If that is accurate it could just be a coincidence.

A better collection of letters from Parkes is found here (http://www.twa800.com/news/parkes-10-17-00.htm).

Parkes currently runs a company called "Dell Explosives" based in Edinburgh.

[Caustic Logic]

I didnt get that same tone

It looked to me like that PLUS a snarky tone.

I didnt know about anyone elses theory ( still dont know or care)

I simply looked at the explosive claimed and the knowns about it and my experience.

I'm not about to get into the game of "who did what,when and where". I really dont know and certainly dont care.

From what I have seen- the states case doesnt match the math and the evidence- thats a fact

There are a million variables that can change that- thats a fact


Examining the factuals could change everything I have said- thats a fact

I havent personally examined any of it and doubt I ever will- thats a fact also

I do know how these operations work- thats a fact also

What else do you want? I looked at whats out there and it doesnt add up

Sounds good. I for one have no more questions for you.

Well I can't for the life of me work out why anyone would want to be transporting military weapons on a civilian plane going TO America, that aside.
Central/South America? Gladio-types were in frequent contact down there ... I just have no stomach for more theories for what exactly DID happen. I even tried.

would the cover-up in that case be aimed at concealing the presence of illegal weapons on the plane, by planting evidence to suggest instead a terrorist bomb? <snip>And it still doesn't really explain the timer fragment.
:confused:


I wish we could interest some more of the regular 9/11 debunking crew, and where's Gravy when you need him?

I don't think I've ever seen Gravy stray much from 9/11 nuttery and perhaps never will. If his knowledge and reasoning on the subject were sound and valuable (if not already then with some work), it might run counter to his usual M.O. on CT examination - that is, taking the normal side. Maybe I'm wrong, I dunno.

Others I think think kinda the same. They don't really like to argue against really strong theories. Therm*te really is more their speed. (That's a challenge, folks).

[Rolfe]

the only evidence planted would be the timer fragment, everything else would fit, say for example the suitcase had innocuous clothes and a normal radio in it and was sitting on top of whatever exploded in the cargo hold. The reported traces of the type of explosive found would match (?) what was attributed to Semtex.


I don't know about that. While that theory explains some stuff that was unclear before, it leaves an awful lot more hanging in the air.

I was thinking of starting another thread on whether it was possible the entire "suitcase bomb" hypothesis was either fabricated or a complete mistake, because it's getting this thread quite a long way off-topic. I think it's unlikely, myself, but it's worth examining.

I'm just concerned that there isn't sufficient interest in the forum in looking into this.

I don't think I've ever seen Gravy stray much from 9/11 nuttery and perhaps never will. If his knowledge and reasoning on the subject were sound and valuable (if not already then with some work), it might run counter to his usual M.O. on CT examination - that is, taking the normal side. Maybe I'm wrong, I dunno.

Others I think think kinda the same. They don't really like to argue against really strong theories. Therm*te really is more their speed. (That's a challenge, folks).


Not getting at Gravy in particular here, because he doesn't even post in the CT forum any more, but if your point about "taking sides" is true, I think that's a pity, and a real indictment for a sceptics' forum.

For me, this isn't about "taking sides". It's about huge curiosity about what actually happened, and if indeed it's impossible to find out what did happen (as is probably the case), to get some sort of a handle on the possibilities/probabilities as opposed to the wilder flights of fancy. It's about looking at the evidence and seeing where it leads.

Just because 9/11 was a LIHBA, and the Official Version is very robust with no real evidence of cover-up, doesn't mean that's true for every incident. In particular, it's obvious that there's a cover-up surrounding Lockerbie. The question is really, what's being covered up?

It could be as simple as Megrahi did it but they couldn't bring their real evidence to court so they resorted to fabrications (though I don't think so), right through to deliberate, state-sanctioned murder of either Charles McKee or Bernt Carlsson (I don't think that either).

Of course we have to try out possible explanations to see how well they stand up, and we also have to argue against them, but that's not the same as taking sides. Are you saying that most posters here only want to debunk obvious nonsense, and aren't interested in actual investigation?

Rolfe.

[Caustic Logic]

Cool, you caught me still awake.

Not getting at Gravy in particular here, because he doesn't even post in the CT forum any more, but if your point about "taking sides" is true, I think that's a pity, and a real indictment for a sceptics' forum.

Just because 9/11 was a LIHBA, and the Official Version is very robust with no real evidence of cover-up, doesn't mean that's true for every incident. In particular, it's obvious that there's a cover-up surrounding Lockerbie. The question is really, what's being covered up?

<snip>
Of course we have to try out possible explanations to see how well they stand up, and we also have to argue against them, but that's not the same as taking sides. Are you saying that most posters here only want to debunk obvious nonsense, and aren't interested in actual investigation?

Yeah, more or less. And I don't blame them. It's a discussion forum, a place for diversion, maybe when you're tired of video games but it's too early for porn. It can be more of course, and for some people, the right mystery at the right time ...

It could be as simple as Megrahi did it but they couldn't bring their real evidence to court so they resorted to fabrications (though I don't think so), right through to deliberate, state-sanctioned murder of either Charles McKee or Bernt Carlsson (I don't think that either).

I think we're about on the same page. The maybes are there. I am becoming aware again how little I know and how much room there is for it being waaay different than I suspect, but hey, as far as grasping in the dark goes I think we're doing pretty well here.

I see you did link to the BBC Conspiracy Files show which I just finally watched. I found it more comprehensive than I expected, and a good intro to the facts that can seem so arcane in txt. Ultimately tho it seemed carefully sculpted to narrow end. Full review later and elsewhere...

The link again: (http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=7160854996287567609#docid=-327765978162851498)

I detect manipulation in their coverage of the timer fragment, Mebo/Bollier/Lumpert, and some other finer points that give a different flavor than what we have here. I need to sleep now but I'll have some thoughts on it tomorrow. Rolfe, what did they get right and wrong here, IYO? People can ten just watch along and see the fault lines in action.

ETA: example, I didn't notice any mention of Lumpert's story about the fragment. Was that public at the time?

[Rolfe]

[Edited - moved discussion of The Conspiracy Files to the other thread.]

I have a feeling Lumpert hadn't made his "confession" at the time that programme was made.

Rolfe.

[Ambrosia]

I have a feeling Lumpert hadn't made his "confession" at the time that programme was made.



You might want to get your feelings checked out :)

Lumpert makes his affidavit in July 2007.

The Conspiracy Files "Lockerbie" film was first broadcast 31st August 2008.

You can either get this from the official BBC page (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/conspiracy_files/7570580.stm), or from Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Conspiracy_Files).

I do not know how much lead time there is inbetween making finishing such a documentary and it being broadcast, I'd guess way less than a year though.

[Caustic Logic]

You might want to get your feelings checked out :)

Lumpert makes his affidavit in July 2007.

The Conspiracy Files "Lockerbie" film was first broadcast 31st August 2008.

You can either get this from the official BBC page (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/conspiracy_files/7570580.stm), or from Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Conspiracy_Files).

I do not know how much lead time there is inbetween making finishing such a documentary and it being broadcast, I'd guess way less than a year though.

Yes, but De Brackeleer's article, AFAIK the first media report on it that got picked up, was published September 6. So that shortens it some. I think they downplayed the Mebo angle, letting Bollier speak, but especially about the money he was hoping to get from Libya for getting Megrahi released. I presume that deal is modified by now. Other questions about the timer were downplayed, presented pretty much as Bollier's questionable assertions and nothing else.

[LONGTABBER PE]

There are sooooo mnay problems with this theory we can pretty much discard it right away.

While I can believe that the timer and the device itself were likely vapourised by the mechanics of the explosion, I don't buy for a moment the idea that the whole of the radio it was encased in and the suitcase and the contents of the suitcase were also vapourised.

Even if we accept that there were American intelligence operatives on the ground from very early on, which there very very probably were. The idea they were planting evidence is ridiculous. The recovery operation was spread over a huuuuge area and it was a joint operation between Scottish and American police. A couple of volunteer searchers or what have you could have easily come across conflicting evidence and exposed the whole thing.

There is actual evidence to base the idea on that MST-13 was planted, there's nothing but speculation to base the idea on that charred clothing which was tested, or that suitcase fragments which were also tested for explosives were fabricated.

While one of the AAIB people that wrote that report has since revised some of his opinions about the exact placement of the explosion from 25cm inside the cargo hold wall, to more like 12cm inside the cargo hold wall, it doesn't follow that the bomb was built into the aircraft somehow, there is a pile of credible scientific evidence that the explosion originated from within the cargo container.

This is why its often difficult to get the "whole" point across in a blog just because of the amount of words and other possibilities

While I can believe that the timer and the device itself were likely vapourised by the mechanics of the explosion, I don't buy for a moment the idea that the whole of the radio it was encased in and the suitcase and the contents of the suitcase were also vapourised.

This is what I was alluding to earlier but I guess it got overlooked.

There are no absolutes in anything. Only best guesses ranked in probability based on the total body of evidence.

Its no different when I do an RCFA for a client when all I have to work with is a box of metal that at one point in its life used to be a bearing or a wreck recreation based on skid marks or scene analysis.

Also from doing similar work myself. ( referring to one I was involved in with a very similar weapon in Iraq involving an IED in a backpack that destroyed a DFAC at Anaconda)

There are many considerations- each one depending on what it was or combinations will alter the result. Here are a few just for illustration purposes.

The radio/fragment- these were thin plastics in direct contact with the explosive. The body was secured (screwed together)- that gave it time to develop internal heat and pressure. Given the type explosive- the greatest probability is that it SHOULD have been vaporized.

The suitcase- this is a hard shell secured by latches with "stuff" in it. Also, it has a larger overall area.

Each "everything" in contact with the device can best be explained similar to dielectric layers in a capacitor- the energy must ( not might) overcome each one before it breaches.

That does 2 things

1) increases the soak time for anything behind the expanding bubble

2) builds backpressure until it breaches

The 2 most affective variables are where the physical suitcase was and what was packed/stacked on it and then where was the proximity of the blast to the actual rupture that caused decompression.

Those are the things that really determine what happens and nobody has those answers.

I can take the same exact charges ( I mean exact in every way) and stack them on a bridge in the open or bag them ( tamp) or leave a channel open ( shaped) and 3 distinctly different outcomes.

You simply dont know

Even if we accept that there were American intelligence operatives on the ground from very early on, which there very very probably were. The idea they were planting evidence is ridiculous. The recovery operation was spread over a huuuuge area and it was a joint operation between Scottish and American police. A couple of volunteer searchers or what have you could have easily come across conflicting evidence and exposed the whole thing.

Hell no- nobody in their right mind is going to do it in the open and in broad daylight ( altho theres no way to know what was in anyones pocket)- they will do it at the evidence collection or analysis locations where there are tens of thousands of pieces and lots of activity.

[Rolfe]

Can I drag this back on to the topic of the timer fragment, and request that if we have further to say about the possibility that the entire suitcase bomb was a fabrication/error we take it to a new thread?

The basis of my thinking in this area is that the combination of a Toshiba bom-beat radio-cassette bomb and the 38-minute explosion is very important. That is, in the context that we know that in October the PFLP-GC in Frankfurt were making very very similar devices using Toshiba radio-cassette players, with barometric timers that would explode 35 to 45 minutes after takeoff.

Occam's razor seems to dictate that either a PFLP-GC device was actually used for this attack, or whoever actually did it deliberately rigged it up to look as if such a device had been used. This is before we go anywhere near the MST-13.

One thing Longtabber said here seems significant to me. He expected that any timer/detonator right next to the Semtex would be vaporised. So indeed, even if one were used, it's not surprising that no pieces of an ice-cube timer were recovered, and their absence doesn't prove in any way that there wasn't such a timer in the device.

I think it's true that if an ice-cube timer were used, it would have had to have been introduced into the system at Heathrow. Everybody but de Braekeleer says so, and I think de Braekeleer is wrong. (He says first that a flight from Frankfurt to Heathrow wouldn't go high enough to trigger the timer, which I think is incorrect, then he says that the pressure in the baggage hold is the same as in the passenger compartment, therefore an ice-cube timer in the baggage hold would never detonate. I'm 99% sure this is wrong in two separate respects.)

So if it was indeed an ice-cube timer, then we're looking at the stray suitcases loaded on to the baggage container at Heathrow, and the break-in airside the previous evening, and so on. There is an assertion in one link that a PFLP-GC member travelled to London by air with the disassembled bomb in his luggage. Luqa and Frankfurt don't really come into it. And the MST-13 must have been planted.

However, if it was a deception intended to look like a PFLP-GC job, the options open right up. It's possible that the device could have been loaded somewhere else, possibly using the MST-13. This, though, implies a much more complex trigger mechanism. First, a barometric component is almost inevitable, in addition to the timer. In fact PA103 wasn't really late - it left the stand on time, it just hung around on the tarmac for a bit longer than usual before it got to the runway, taking off 25 minutes after leaving the stand. But how well could its take-off time actually be predicted?

One piece of information I'd like to have which we're not going to get, is what time PA103 left the ground on average in the days and weeks prior to the attack. If in fact it was very regular, to within ten minutes every time, then it might have been possible to take a chance on a simple timer set to 7pm on the 21st coming into the window, or near enough to be credible on that front. On the other hand, given the time of year and the holiday traffic, it seems a bit of a stretch to me. If I'd wanted to pin it on the PFLP by way of the timing, I'd have used a barometric trigger.

However, if I'm not restricted to an ice-cube timer, maybe I'm being real cute and I want to load the device somewhere other than Heathrow, in the hope that the authorities will concentrate on Heathrow and not notice the airport I in fact infiltrated. This would seem to imply not just a barometric component, but some way to ensure it wasn't triggered by the preliminary leg (or legs) of the journey.

How much am I going to cram into that Toshiba, I wonder? An aneroid barometer, some sort of electronics to count how many times the device has taken off, and the MST-13, as well as the Semtex. Maybe it's perfectly practical.

But then I ask, who am I, that I want to blow up this airliner, and make it look as if the PFLP-GC did it? Libya, and it was Megrahi all along? Somebody intent on murdering McKee or Carlsson?

The PFLP-GC hypothesis is the simple one. But that leads inexorably to the inference that the MST-13 was planted, which starts us on who, when and why.

The second hypothesis does not imply any fabrication of evidence at all. But it's hellish complicated.

Am I making any sense here?

Rolfe.

[Rolfe]

You might want to get your feelings checked out :)

Lumpert makes his affidavit in July 2007.

The Conspiracy Files "Lockerbie" film was first broadcast 31st August 2008.

You can either get this from the official BBC page (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/conspiracy_files/7570580.stm), or from Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Conspiracy_Files).

I do not know how much lead time there is inbetween making finishing such a documentary and it being broadcast, I'd guess way less than a year though.


Sorry, I thought the Conspiracy Files episode was 2007. I didn't realise it was as recent as last year.

I don't know if Lumpert is being ignored because he's a lunatic probably in it for the money, or because nobody in any official position wants to go there on a bet.

Rolfe.

[Rolfe]

The radio/fragment- these were thin plastics in direct contact with the explosive. The body was secured (screwed together)- that gave it time to develop internal heat and pressure. Given the type explosive- the greatest probability is that it SHOULD have been vaporized.

The suitcase- this is a hard shell secured by latches with "stuff" in it. Also, it has a larger overall area.

[snip more technicalities]


Correct me if I'm wrong here, but would it be fair to say that you would have expected the actual triggering mechanism (including timer) to be vaporised, but that the same might not necessarily be true for the radio-cassette player itself?

It's always the timer that's seemed to me to be incongruous, especially in the context of the radio-cassette player. Are you perhaps less surprised about the bits of the Toshiba being identified than about the MST-13 fragment?

What about the manual for the Toshiba? (Though when we consider that was allegedly found intact and later exhibited damaged, I'm not sure where it goes - just damaged by the forensic testing?)

What about the fact that bits of the radio-cassette player were also allegedly found in the shirt collar along with the MST-13 fragment?

Hell no- nobody in their right mind is going to do it in the open and in broad daylight ( altho theres no way to know what was in anyones pocket)- they will do it at the evidence collection or analysis locations where there are tens of thousands of pieces and lots of activity.


Yes, exactly. Though remember there wasn't a lot of broad daylight around - the crash happened on the winter solstice, in Scotland. We're at the same latitude as the Hudson Bay, here.

If the timer fragment was planted, it was introduced into the chain of evidence quite a bit later, with some doctoring of the paperwork to make it look as if it had been retrieved and logged earlier. However, I think the bits of Toshiba were identified very early indeed, certainly before March 1989, so if that was fabricated, the fabrication must have begun practically from the get-go.

Rolfe.

[Guybrush Threepwood]

Tell you what I think

Somebody took a suitcase packed with stuff with a stick of TNT and blew it up on a pad- instant evidence with conflicting residues- very sloppy


I dont have a "theory" because if you read what i wrote- I havent given this situation a conscious thought since it happened except in another thread this last week. Dont know and didnt care ( still dont) I was offering information- nothing more.
Believe what you will- I'm not trying to sell or convince

Those two statements are directly contradictory.


Here is a textbook example why I deliberately avoid CT type threads and armchair commentaries and people who throw google as their fact source as a whole.

They have something to say but no knowledge from which to say it- thats not a discussion, thats an argument. I dont do those.

I'm a SME who knows what I'm talking about with the 214 and the professional credentials to back up the mouth ( big difference)

I made it CLEAR that I'm NOT going to accept "internet evidence" as a reliable source ( what part of that didnt you understand?) and WITHOUT directly examining the evidence and testimony, this is a THEORY.

What part of THAT didnt you understand?
What part of the link confused you? It is the official report by the British Government body which investigates every aircraft crash in the UK, and which reconstructed the whole of PanAm103 after the accident to determine the cause. It was published on paper in 1990. It is as close as we are going to get to primary evidence 20 years after the fact.



This is where you look foolish because its obvious and documented in the thread. ( and why I dont post in CT threads because there are too many morons in it and sorry Rolfe, I'm about to leave this one) I'm not "leading" anyone,anywhere- I stated my observations and the reasons for them. ( are YOU an engineer or do demolitions?- if not- how do you know they are wrong?) I didnt think so. I don't know you are wrong, but have no reason to think you are right.



Mmmmmm, kay.... :oldroll:

Can we back off a bit here?



Yes, I'm sorry, my post sounded better in my head than it looks on the screen, I was just amused that the thread had so quickly got onto fairly advanced CTs without even looking at the primary evidence.


We ought to appreciate that Longtabber has actually repeated an existing CT regarding PA103. de Braekeleer thinks the explosion happened outside the luggage container (something to do with the "Mach Stem Effect").
Rolfe.Actually Longtabber appears to be claiming almost the opposite of de Braekeleer. De Braekeleer's claim is that 1lb of Semtex could not puncture an aircraft hull from a distance of 25", Longtabber's is that it would vapourise everything in the immediate vicinity, so I don't think they reinforce one another.
The AAIB report I linked to is long and detailed, and carefully explains why they think the bomb was in the cargo container. It was prepared based on the investigations of a large number of people, if it is fraudulent they were all lying, if it is inaccurate it has been in the public domain for 18 years and no-one has identified or publicised the errors.


The evidence for the bomb location seems strong. That for the timer being found exactly as described less so, however what confuses me is exactly what would have been achieved by planting the timer.

Yes it points to Libyan involvement, but unless whoever planted it was very familiar with the history of these timers, and the limited numbers made, how could they know it would point only to Libya? Equally why could Libya not have passed the timers on to a terrorist organisation. They would have some culpability but wouldn't be directly responsible.

[Ambrosia]

... says that the pressure in the baggage hold is the same as in the passenger compartment, therefore an ice-cube timer in the baggage hold would never detonate. I'm 99% sure this is wrong in two separate respects.)

The baggage hold is pressurised to the same pressure as the passenger cabin. It's not the same as air pressure at ground level though.

They must be pressurised such that air pressure never falls below what you might find at 8000ft.

Some experiments re: cabin pressure in 747s (http://www.thoracic.org.au/abs2005/tp146-295seccombel2005.pdf) were done in 2005 to determine how useful the tests used to test aircraft were, they note that.

Cabin pressure and indicated cabin altitude are directly related to aircraft altitude. At the average aircraft cruise altitude of 34,000 ft, cabin altitude is 5,000 ft and increases or decreases 257ft for each 1,000 ft change in aircraft altitude

It takes about 200km for a commercial aircraft to hit cruising altitude of 34000ft, and about the same to descend, It's a little over 600km distance from Frankfurt to london.


So if it was indeed an ice-cube timer... snip

So use 2 timers connected to the charge in series. A is the clock timer it's set for published take off time, B is the barometric timer, it blows when it hits the preset altitude pressure in the cabin/hold. Both A and B must be closed else the bomb doesn't go off.

Why does the shirt and the fragment need to have been part of the bomb? A n other bag containing shirt and an entirely seperate MST type timer not connected to anything are right near the source of the explosion perhaps?

Gaucis revised testimony was that he sold the buyer of the clothes a beige shirt. The shirt the fragment is found in is grey....

I still don't see any evidence linking the timer fragment to the bomb, much less proving the fragment was part of the bomb.

Yes it's a type of timer used for bombs but it does not follow that it *must* have been used for *this* bomb.

[Rolfe]

What part of the link confused you? It is the official report by the British Government body which investigates every aircraft crash in the UK, and which reconstructed the whole of PanAm103 after the accident to determine the cause. It was published on paper in 1990. It is as close as we are going to get to primary evidence 20 years after the fact.


I read a good part of it last night. It's very clear and very comprehensive. I appreciate what Longtabber said, that if you're going to fabricate stuff you introduce it somewhere down the line rather than strewing it about the countryside for people to find (or not), but I think it's a huge stretch to imagine that bits of an expoded Toshiba were all carefully seeded into just the right places without anyone noticing. Also, remember, the manual was genuinely found on the ground, by a farmer's wife in Northumberland.

Sneaking in a fragment of a timer, months later, I can cope with. Planting all the evidence of the bits of the Toshiba, the burned clothes (bought at Gauci's shop about a month earlier, or is that bit fabricated too?) and the suitcase, all neatly planted within a handful of weeks of the actual crash? No, I'm struggling.

Yes, I'm sorry, my post sounded better in my head than it looks on the screen, I was just amused that the thread had so quickly got onto fairly advanced CTs without even looking at the primary evidence.


The rolleyes was directed at Longtabber more than you! What you said was reasonable. I just wish he'd either go away as he said he would, or buckle down and look at the evidence before firing off theories that are pretty implausible on the face of it.

Actually Longtabber appears to be claiming almost the opposite of de Braekeleer. De Braekeleer's claim is that 1lb of Semtex could not puncture an aircraft hull from a distance of 25", Longtabber's is that it would vapourise everything in the immediate vicinity, so I don't think they reinforce one another.


I don't think they're inconsistent. They're both in effect saying that the explosion didn't go off in a suitcase in the baggage container. I sort of know why de Braekeleer thinks that (Mach Stem Effect, see the Air Accident report), and as far as I was following him, I thought Longtabber had done the same calculations.

De Braekeleer thinks the explosion would have had to be a lot closer to the skin of the aircraft than 2 feet to punch a hole in it. Longtabber thinks that everything within about three inches (guessing here, obviously depends on the exact geometry of what's there) would have been vaporised. These two things aren't contradictory.

The AAIB report I linked to is long and detailed, and carefully explains why they think the bomb was in the cargo container. It was prepared based on the investigations of a large number of people, if it is fraudulent they were all lying, if it is inaccurate it has been in the public domain for 18 years and no-one has identified or publicised the errors.


I agree to a certain extent. De Braekeleer is shouting "Mach Stem Effect!!! OMG!!!", and the proposers of the accident hypothesis also question what they see as lack of clarity in some aspects of the report that might allow their "flechettes" theory to slide into consideration. Nevertheless, it looks strong to me, and I'd need a lot more explanation before I was prepared to consider seriously that the Toshiba and the clothes and the suitcase fragments were fabricated.

The evidence for the bomb location seems strong. That for the timer being found exactly as described less so, however what confuses me is exactly what would have been achieved by planting the timer.

Yes it points to Libyan involvement, but unless whoever planted it was very familiar with the history of these timers, and the limited numbers made, how could they know it would point only to Libya? Equally why could Libya not have passed the timers on to a terrorist organisation. They would have some culpability but wouldn't be directly responsible.


If it was planted, I don't think the intention was to link it to Libya at the time. The timing is wrong.

There's no real imperative to switch culpability from Iran/Syria to Libya until at least the early months of 1990 as far as I can see. And yet we have clear evidence that a high-level decision was made to cool it on the pursuit of Iran/Syria as early as mid-March 1989, and the timer fragment appears to have been in the system at least by September 1989.

I've got more thoughts about this, but my main impression is that the objective wasn't necessarily to implicate Libya, but to muddy the waters and let Iran/Syria off the hook. And not because of the imminence of Desert Storm either, because it wasn't imminent at that stage.

Rolfe.

[Ambrosia]

The AAIB report I linked to is long and detailed, and carefully explains why they think the bomb was in the cargo container. It was prepared based on the investigations of a large number of people, if it is fraudulent they were all lying, if it is inaccurate it has been in the public domain for 18 years and no-one has identified or publicised the errors.

Well apart from Chris Protheroe giving evidence at the actual trial that is.

An air accident investigator has told the Lockerbie trial there was a significant mathematical error in the official report on the disaster. [ linky (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/763686.stm) ]

I don't recall anyone in the thread claiming that the bomb was anywhere BUT in the cargo container. The conclusion of the AAIB report was that a bomb caused the destruction of the plane, and that it was located in that cargo container.

what confuses me is exactly what would have been achieved by planting the timer.

Yes it points to Libyan involvement, but unless whoever planted it was very familiar with the history of these timers, and the limited numbers made, how could they know it would point only to Libya? Equally why could Libya not have passed the timers on to a terrorist organisation. They would have some culpability but wouldn't be directly responsible.

Good point. Though there remains no evidence linking the timer fragment with the bomb itself, and the fragment is the *only* evidence that points to Libya. The other evidence from Giaka that linked Megrahi and Fhima to bombs and tied it all in nicely with the Libya hypothesis was thrown out of court on the basis that Giaka was a lying toad.

[Guybrush Threepwood]

I agree to a certain extent. De Braekeleer is shouting "Mach Stem Effect!!! OMG!!!", and the proposers of the accident hypothesis also question what they see as lack of clarity in some aspects of the report that might allow their "flechettes" theory to slide into consideration. Nevertheless, it looks strong to me, and I'd need a lot more explanation before I was prepared to consider seriously that the Toshiba and the clothes and the suitcase fragments were fabricated.
Rolfe.

I take it you haven't read the appendices to the AAIB report? They cover the Mach stem effect in some detail, and why it is relevant. If you compare it to de Brakeleers work, you will also note that the error he claims to have found (20 degree rather than 40 degree angle where Mach Stem doesn't occur) is not there.
The flechettes stuff sounds like nonsense to me, the fuselage fragments would be riddled with small holes that couldn't be hidden so I think it's a non starter.

ETA: Hadn't seen Ambrosia's post when I posted that, nor was I aware of Chris Protheroe. That is interesting.

[Guybrush Threepwood]

I don't recall anyone in the thread claiming that the bomb was anywhere BUT in the cargo container. The conclusion of the AAIB report was that a bomb caused the destruction of the plane, and that it was located in that cargo container.
Longtabber did.

So, if you believe the fragments and clothing /whatever ARE physically in the plane and were "discovered" then the only answer I can accept to allow it possible is that they were at the front of the wave and NOT in a container with it ( progressive damage) That would support the bomb being somewhere else.


Good point. Though there remains no evidence linking the timer fragment with the bomb itself, and the fragment is the *only* evidence that points to Libya. The other evidence from Giaka that linked Megrahi and Fhima to bombs and tied it all in nicely with the Libya hypothesis was thrown out of court on the basis that Giaka was a lying toad.

Surely Tony Gauci's identification of Megrahi as the man who bought the clothes is the key evidence connecting Libya? I know it's unbelivably weak, but I thought that was the basis for the conviction?

[LONGTABBER PE]

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but would it be fair to say that you would have expected the actual triggering mechanism (including timer) to be vaporised, but that the same might not necessarily be true for the radio-cassette player itself?

It's always the timer that's seemed to me to be incongruous, especially in the context of the radio-cassette player. Are you perhaps less surprised about the bits of the Toshiba being identified than about the MST-13 fragment?

What about the manual for the Toshiba? (Though when we consider that was allegedly found intact and later exhibited damaged, I'm not sure where it goes - just damaged by the forensic testing?)

What about the fact that bits of the radio-cassette player were also allegedly found in the shirt collar along with the MST-13 fragment?




Yes, exactly. Though remember there wasn't a lot of broad daylight around - the crash happened on the winter solstice, in Scotland. We're at the same latitude as the Hudson Bay, here.

If the timer fragment was planted, it was introduced into the chain of evidence quite a bit later, with some doctoring of the paperwork to make it look as if it had been retrieved and logged earlier. However, I think the bits of Toshiba were identified very early indeed, certainly before March 1989, so if that was fabricated, the fabrication must have begun practically from the get-go.

Rolfe.

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but would it be fair to say that you would have expected the actual triggering mechanism (including timer) to be vaporised, but that the same might not necessarily be true for the radio-cassette player itself?

I would expect both- heres why

The physical construction and the physical properties of the building materials of the alleged device.

Fragmentation ( which is what you are talking about) is another funny beast.

Does it fragment ( stay on the front of the wave) or it is disintegrated ( vaporized in the blast) or both.

It boils down to a combination of factors- some of which are

1) the type/amount of the explosive

2) the thickness and properties of the material

3) the proximity of the charge to the material

4) the security of the container ( structural integrity)

5) any tamping

In this case- we are talking about a commercial plastic case with very thin walls- SCREWED together ( get to that below) that has a high adhesive quality due to being a polymer and a VERY low melting point. Also, theres a lot of "air" in it and it isnt airtight ( various orifices for equalization)

The amount- IF this was the full stick ( as claimed) then you are talking about white hot bubble ( well above 5000f) that will literally vaporize construction steel in about .02 seconds. It it was a slice maybe 1" square ( anti personnel type device) then I would have no problem accepting it.

Problem is- that amount probably wouldnt take out the plane.

I can show you IED's where metal containers have disintegrated but components disimilar such as bolts and brass components have survived.

Now the screwed together part- this plastic case ( with all its properties) was very well secured so it held together and stretched for a nano second until it ruptured. That made it absorb BTUs on one side thus "cracking" it into shards. ( radically different temps on both sides creating thermal shock)

Then it breaks thru and you have all these parts being engulfed at those temps and velocity. It would be like firing a wax bullet.

Then theres secondary containment from the suitcase ( more soak time)

Thus, ANY fragment of PLASTIC by all rights be the same form of dripped candle wax and completely unidentifiable. It would be molten ( if it survived at all- styrene plastics are known for this- thats why they are MELTED at LOW temps and INJECTION MOLDED in industry)

The thing that makes it impossible for me to accept is the TYPE and AMOUNT of this SPECIFIC explosive in relation to the material properties of the casing.

There are many other explosives that all things being equal I wouldnt have any difficulty accepting the official story. Thats not whats claimed tho.

What about the manual for the Toshiba? (Though when we consider that was allegedly found intact and later exhibited damaged, I'm not sure where it goes - just damaged by the forensic testing?)

I'm "suspicious" of that for a variety of reasons. My OPINION is that it was planted- heres why

I have bought all kinds of similar devices- first thing I throw away is the manual so just the fact its there suggests to me its planted.

If it was there and flat ( as they are) I would expect it to be like any other newspaper in a bomb charred and splayed and torn ( folded paper in layers has very good insulation and physical properties) but probably survive in some form.

The damage- I dont know how they do it in the UK but I know how destructive testing is done here. ( I do it in engineering as well as formerly for LE) Many things are damaged/consumed by testing- thats nothing new.

The process is- take multiple pics where its found and collected- you do the same in the lab before testing- then you have the remains.

Thats evidence chain of custody and testing protocol 101- if all of that is present, I would probably accept it- if they dont- my BS indicator would redline.

What about the fact that bits of the radio-cassette player were also allegedly found in the shirt collar along with the MST-13 fragment?

The only thing I would believe ( and this is a stretch) is they MIGHT in a million to 1 shot find "globs" of melted goo in any fabric for reasons atated above.

Yes, exactly. Though remember there wasn't a lot of broad daylight around - the crash happened on the winter solstice, in Scotland. We're at the same latitude as the Hudson Bay, here.

This goes back to scene security and since I wasnt there- I dont know who did what.

If the timer fragment was planted, it was introduced into the chain of evidence quite a bit later, with some doctoring of the paperwork to make it look as if it had been retrieved and logged earlier. However, I think the bits of Toshiba were identified very early indeed, certainly before March 1989, so if that was fabricated, the fabrication must have begun practically from the get-go.

I can think of 3 possible scenarios

1) the evidence was planted because intel gave them information so they made the facts fit the intel

2) it was planted outright ( a frame)

3) it was planted as a red herring

[Rolfe]

The baggage hold is pressurised to the same pressure as the passenger cabin.


That's what I read in some of the Lockerbie sources. I've got separate reasons for doubting it though (to do with imploding drinks cans that soaked my luggage on two occasions). It may not be terribly relevant though.

It's not the same as air pressure at ground level though.

They must be pressurised such that air pressure never falls below what you might find at 8000ft.


Again, that's exactly the assumption in all the sources dealing with the barometric timers. One of the films had Jibril trying to claim that the devices weren't necessarily intended to attack aircraft, but to target enemies who might be driving up to 8,000 feet on terra firma. It was this degree of reduction in pressure they were set to detect, not the actual pressure at 35,000 feet.

It takes about 200km for a commercial aircraft to hit cruising altitude of 34000ft, and about the same to descend, It's a little over 600km distance from Frankfurt to london.


That wouldn't of course prove that an airliner on that route would ascend to that height, but I think they do. London and Glasgow are about the same distance apart, and I've flown that route often. Unless I'm completely mis-remembering, that's the altitude we were cruising at.

So use 2 timers connected to the charge in series. A is the clock timer it's set for published take off time, B is the barometric timer, it blows when it hits the preset altitude pressure in the cabin/hold. Both A and B must be closed else the bomb doesn't go off.


Uh, you scare me. :eek:

Why does the shirt and the fragment need to have been part of the bomb? A n other bag containing shirt and an entirely seperate MST type timer not connected to anything are right near the source of the explosion perhaps?


The evidence seems to be fairly clear that only items in close proximity to the bomb would be or were charred (apart from what went up in flames in Sherwood Crescent of course). That's how they identified which clothes had been in the actual suitcase. There's no suggestion that anything in any other cases was charred.

The shirt fragment was charred. It also apparently had bits of Toshiba in it as well as the timer fragment. To my mind, that says it was either part of the bomb, or a fabrication.

Then it gets quite murky, because Gauci's initial testimony (which showed a surprising degree of recall of a transaction that had taken place months earlier, but which seems to have been accurate) made no mention of a shirt. In fact he explicitly stated at least twice that he didn't sell the man a shirt. De Braekeleer has further information that supports Gauci's original list as being correct, which if true suggests Megrahi's defence team should be taken out and shot, but I don't know the source of that. However, Gauci later "remembered" selling the man a slalom shirt. Then, apparently, the size of the pocket on the recovered fragment is wrong for the ize of the shirt Gauci says he sold the man, and the shirt is another of the items (with the blue babygro, which again it's doubtful Gauci supplied, and the Toshiba manual) alleged to have been damaged after they were recovered.

Gaucis revised testimony was that he sold the buyer of the clothes a beige shirt. The shirt the fragment is found in is grey....


Among other inconsistencies that develop in what seems to have initially been an unusually clear and consistent recollection.

I still don't see any evidence linking the timer fragment to the bomb, much less proving the fragment was part of the bomb.

Yes it's a type of timer used for bombs but it does not follow that it *must* have been used for *this* bomb.


Where else do you think it came from then? Is this the sort of thing most of us might have in our luggage? The finding in charred cloth, which also contained bits of shattered Toshiba, seems to me to indicate either it was genuinely part of this bomb, or a fabrication.

Rolfe.

[LONGTABBER PE]

Those two statements are directly contradictory.



What part of the link confused you? It is the official report by the British Government body which investigates every aircraft crash in the UK, and which reconstructed the whole of PanAm103 after the accident to determine the cause. It was published on paper in 1990. It is as close as we are going to get to primary evidence 20 years after the fact.


I don't know you are wrong, but have no reason to think you are right.





Yes, I'm sorry, my post sounded better in my head than it looks on the screen, I was just amused that the thread had so quickly got onto fairly advanced CTs without even looking at the primary evidence.

Actually Longtabber appears to be claiming almost the opposite of de Braekeleer. De Braekeleer's claim is that 1lb of Semtex could not puncture an aircraft hull from a distance of 25", Longtabber's is that it would vapourise everything in the immediate vicinity, so I don't think they reinforce one another.
The AAIB report I linked to is long and detailed, and carefully explains why they think the bomb was in the cargo container. It was prepared based on the investigations of a large number of people, if it is fraudulent they were all lying, if it is inaccurate it has been in the public domain for 18 years and no-one has identified or publicised the errors.


The evidence for the bomb location seems strong. That for the timer being found exactly as described less so, however what confuses me is exactly what would have been achieved by planting the timer.

Yes it points to Libyan involvement, but unless whoever planted it was very familiar with the history of these timers, and the limited numbers made, how could they know it would point only to Libya? Equally why could Libya not have passed the timers on to a terrorist organisation. They would have some culpability but wouldn't be directly responsible.

Those two statements are directly contradictory.

No, you took them out of context

What part of the link confused you? It is the official report by the British Government body which investigates every aircraft crash in the UK, and which reconstructed the whole of PanAm103 after the accident to determine the cause. It was published on paper in 1990. It is as close as we are going to get to primary evidence 20 years after the fact.

None of it confused me

I don't know you are wrong, but have no reason to think you are right.

Thats why they are called opinions and they are all valid in absence of cold hard facts.

Yes, I'm sorry, my post sounded better in my head than it looks on the screen, I was just amused that the thread had so quickly got onto fairly advanced CTs without even looking at the primary evidence.

The primary evidence itself is suspect

Actually Longtabber appears to be claiming almost the opposite of de Braekeleer. De Braekeleer's claim is that 1lb of Semtex could not puncture an aircraft hull from a distance of 25", Longtabber's is that it would vapourise everything in the immediate vicinity, so I don't think they reinforce one another.

I'm not familiar with his claim in chief but if he says a 1lb stick wont puncture ALUMINUM alloys from 25 INCHES- he isnt wrong- he is clinically INSANE but that points needs to be further defined as well because once again, many what if's and lots of words to explain it to non engineering types.

I do know semi from where he is coming tho but from what I just read- he didnt plug in all the facts and didnt include all the variables.

It wouldnt vaporize everything- just like any other fireball- maybe 2-3 feet- heres why

The stick only has X amount of stored energy

That amount is released in a sphere so unless its a shaped charge- it goes all over- not in one direction. ( there could have been some shaping due to location and tamping but those are unknown variables)

Then you have the density and thermal properties of the mass and dimension of everything the heat comes into contact with. ( another variable thats unknown)

Then on top of everything else- you have structural stress of the airframe itself as well as the delta between skin temp and internal temp when massive heat hit it. Thats structure specific and playa a MAJOR part in what THAT ( and no other model) could require before it bursts.

I do DT/NDT on all kinds of metals ( and aircraft components)- you would be surprised what stress cracks are in things that you find from magnet partical, X ray, ultrasonics and resistance testings as well as fastners,rivets and such.

When you are doing such an analysis- there are many variables- you cant assume anything

[LONGTABBER PE]

Longtabber did.



Surely Tony Gauci's identification of Megrahi as the man who bought the clothes is the key evidence connecting Libya? I know it's unbelivably weak, but I thought that was the basis for the conviction?

No I didnt- you misread something somewhere- I'm talking possible locations WITHIN the container- not elsewhere

[Ambrosia]

Uh, you scare me. :eek:

Sorry, I'm quite nice really. :) Just trying to think of ways to account for this fragment.


The evidence seems to be fairly clear that only items in close proximity to the bomb would be or were charred (apart from what went up in flames in Sherwood Crescent of course). That's how they identified which clothes had been in the actual suitcase. There's no suggestion that anything in any other cases was charred.

I need to go look at the evidence about the clothing.

I agree that only items in close proximity would be charred. But how do we know how close they had to be?

If Longtabber is correctabout how destructive plastic explosives are, and plastic explosive was used for the bomb then isn't it possible that bomb was in suitcase X, the Samsonite case with the clothes and the radio was next ot it. When the explosion happens it blows the samsonite case to pieces charring some of it's contents and smashing apart the radio, most of suitcase X being vapourised in the process.

here else do you think it came from then? Is this the sort of thing most of us might have in our luggage?

Clearly not. Though there are CIA people on board the flight, they boarded at Frankfurt, and might potentially have been bringing stuff from the Autumn Leaves raid or other related pieces of evidence back to the US ?

[Rolfe]

So use 2 timers connected to the charge in series. A is the clock timer it's set for published take off time, B is the barometric timer, it blows when it hits the preset altitude pressure in the cabin/hold. Both A and B must be closed else the bomb doesn't go off.


Actually, thinking about it, that wouldn't work with a multi-stage flight. It would blow at the scheduled take-off time, because the barometric timer would already have been triggered. You'd need some way to stop the barometric timer from triggering until the clock timer told it to, and from what I've read about these timers, there was no way to do that - they had to be carried disassembled if going on a flight where you didn't want them to blow.

Not that relevant, sorry.

Rolfe.

[Ambrosia]

I don't know how the ice-cube timers are supposed to have worked.

If it's triggered at x pressure and then it stays triggered you're right. If it's like a switch that turns on at x pressure and then off at y pressure then it could have required both to be triggered at the same time to activate.

[Guybrush Threepwood]

Actually, thinking about it, that wouldn't work with a multi-stage flight. It would blow at the scheduled take-off time, because the barometric timer would already have been triggered. You'd need some way to stop the barometric timer from triggering until the clock timer told it to, and from what I've read about these timers, there was no way to do that - they had to be carried disassembled if going on a flight where you didn't want them to blow.

Not that relevant, sorry.

Rolfe.

So I'll add slightly to the irrelevance. One of your arguments has been that the explosion over Lockerbie was a mistake, why couldn't have been almost deliberate, that the intention was to have the plane come down on Glasgow, and rain fiery death from the sky on the infidel? and the take off delay made them miss that?

[LONGTABBER PE]

I don't know how the ice-cube timers are supposed to have worked.

If it's triggered at x pressure and then it stays triggered you're right. If it's like a switch that turns on at x pressure and then off at y pressure then it could have required both to be triggered at the same time to activate.

Red herring here- let me explain these devices from being an EE

"Icecube" is only in reference to their physical appearance and plug in ability

They have a pinned base with a clear top- thus they look like an "ice cube"- their internals can be relays, timers or ( insert function here)

In the curcuit however

a timer is an OUTPUT device that sends a signal- its an internal component ( it can do clock time, count up, count down, on delay, off delay or triggered by another device)

A sensor is a transducer that converts whatever input ( speed,pressure,light,whatever) into an output signal also

timers "count"- thats all they do

Transducers convert a physical input into an output signal- thats all they do

Now, its a matter of how you configure the circuit

If you had both- it could be a dual trigger ( time or pressure- independant of each other) or a progressive trigger ( timer doesnt come on until the pressure sensor tells it to)

[LONGTABBER PE]

Sorry, I'm quite nice really. :) Just trying to think of ways to account for this fragment.



I need to go look at the evidence about the clothing.

I agree that only items in close proximity would be charred. But how do we know how close they had to be?

If Longtabber is correctabout how destructive plastic explosives are, and plastic explosive was used for the bomb then isn't it possible that bomb was in suitcase X, the Samsonite case with the clothes and the radio was next ot it. When the explosion happens it blows the samsonite case to pieces charring some of it's contents and smashing apart the radio, most of suitcase X being vapourised in the process.



Clearly not. Though there are CIA people on board the flight, they boarded at Frankfurt, and might potentially have been bringing stuff from the Autumn Leaves raid or other related pieces of evidence back to the US ?

I agree that only items in close proximity would be charred. But how do we know how close they had to be?

You cant UNLESS you know the exact tamping in and around the actual charge.

If Longtabber is correctabout how destructive plastic explosives are, and plastic explosive was used for the bomb then isn't it possible that bomb was in suitcase X, the Samsonite case with the clothes and the radio was next ot it. When the explosion happens it blows the samsonite case to pieces charring some of it's contents and smashing apart the radio, most of suitcase X being vapourised in the process.

I can assure you thats correct ( borrowed an old copy of 5-25 now) I was actually a bit low on most but go to chapter 3, Table VIII on page 83 and read it for yourself.

[Rolfe]

Well apart from Chris Protheroe giving evidence at the actual trial that is.

[ linky (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/763686.stm) ]


According to de Braekeleer, the judges just decided not to listen to him. "We need not concern ourselves with the Mach Stem Effect."

I don't recall anyone in the thread claiming that the bomb was anywhere BUT in the cargo container. The conclusion of the AAIB report was that a bomb caused the destruction of the plane, and that it was located in that cargo container.


It's been commented on several times that it was very bad luck the bomb suitcase was placed so close to the skin of the plane. That couldn't really be controlled unless someone in the Heathrow baggage handling was working for them (Kamboj?). If it had been placed more centrally, it probably wouldn't have fatally damaged the plane. (I think there had been another case in the past where a plane limped home after an incident like that.)

I'm not totally kidding about Kamboj. The baggage containers were shaped to follow the curve of the plane's hull, so it could have been feasible for a baggage handler to place a case deliberately where it would cause maximum damage - as Bedford said the suitcase he saw had been placed. However, I'd have thought the police would have examined Kamboj pretty thoroughly for questionable associations.

Assuming Protheroe is right, and the explosion was a foot from the skin, given that the baggage containers fitted quite closely to the wall of the hold, I'd have thought that a suitcase in exactly the right place could still do it.

Good point. Though there remains no evidence linking the timer fragment with the bomb itself, and the fragment is the *only* evidence that points to Libya. The other evidence from Giaka that linked Megrahi and Fhima to bombs and tied it all in nicely with the Libya hypothesis was thrown out of court on the basis that Giaka was a lying toad.


The other evidence, as GT pointed out, was Gauci's identification. That was the strong bit, if it had been reliable. Whoever bought those clothes from Gauci was involved in the plot. However, Gauci's evidence was right back in the melting pot, to put it politely. Without that, the case really collapses.

Rolfe.

[Rolfe]

[snip interesting technicalities]

There are many other explosives that all things being equal I wouldnt have any difficulty accepting the official story. Thats not whats claimed tho.


Have you read the Air Accident report? I'd dearly like to know where you think they went wrong - either through miscalculation, or because they were working with tainted evidence. And do you concur with Protheroe that a mistake was made in the original document?

I'm "suspicious" of that for a variety of reasons. My OPINION is that it was planted- heres why

I have bought all kinds of similar devices- first thing I throw away is the manual so just the fact its there suggests to me its planted.

If it was there and flat ( as they are) I would expect it to be like any other newspaper in a bomb charred and splayed and torn ( folded paper in layers has very good insulation and physical properties) but probably survive in some form.

The damage- I dont know how they do it in the UK but I know how destructive testing is done here. ( I do it in engineering as well as formerly for LE) Many things are damaged/consumed by testing- thats nothing new.

The process is- take multiple pics where its found and collected- you do the same in the lab before testing- then you have the remains.

Thats evidence chain of custody and testing protocol 101- if all of that is present, I would probably accept it- if they dont- my BS indicator would redline.


The woman who found it is interviewed in one of the films I mentioned above, and asked about its condition when she found it compared to when it was produced at the trial.

I'm also somewhat suspicious about the manual, because it's one of the items alleged to have been tampered with after collection. However, as you say, it could simply have been a result of testing for expolsives.

I think the point about the manual was thought to be that the Toshiba was in its original packaging as if it was a new purchase. I don't know what other grounds there were for assuming that though.

The only thing I would believe ( and this is a stretch) is they MIGHT in a million to 1 shot find "globs" of melted goo in any fabric for reasons atated above.


There are photographs.

Second picture down on this page (http://english.ohmynews.com/articleview/article_view.asp?menu=c10400&no=385213&rel_no=1) is the shirt, with the fragment, and I believe these are supposed to be bits of the Toshiba to the left of it.

Colour pictures on this page (http://www.lockerbie.ch/) (though Bollier is deifinitely a bit strange).


I can think of 3 possible scenarios

1) the evidence was planted because intel gave them information so they made the facts fit the intel

2) it was planted outright ( a frame)

3) it was planted as a red herring


I've got an open mind on that. However, it was present in the narrative well before the investigation was looking at Libya, and before there seems to be any reason to look at Libya. Perhaps coincidentally (another one of these) its provenance was only established nearly a year after it was logged, just as Saddam was invading Kuwait, and the political imperatives to smear Libya became evident.

This is what makes me feel that it might have been a red herring, more intended to turn attention away from Iran than towards Libya. On the other hand, the "special-order" nature of the things does seem to indicate that a Libyan origin was envisaged from the start, which tends to point more to 1 or 2.

Rolfe.

[Rolfe]

The primary evidence itself is suspect.


I agree. However, one still has to look at it to try to determine which parts are suspect, and how it might have been manipulated. Also to try to decide where original conclusions might have gone off the rails.

I'm not familiar with his claim in chief but if he says a 1lb stick wont puncture ALUMINUM alloys from 25 INCHES- he isnt wrong- he is clinically INSANE but that points needs to be further defined as well because once again, many what if's and lots of words to explain it to non engineering types.

I do know semi from where he is coming tho but from what I just read- he didnt plug in all the facts and didnt include all the variables.

It wouldnt vaporize everything- just like any other fireball- maybe 2-3 feet- heres why

The stick only has X amount of stored energy

That amount is released in a sphere so unless its a shaped charge- it goes all over- not in one direction. ( there could have been some shaping due to location and tamping but those are unknown variables)

Then you have the density and thermal properties of the mass and dimension of everything the heat comes into contact with. ( another variable thats unknown)

Then on top of everything else- you have structural stress of the airframe itself as well as the delta between skin temp and internal temp when massive heat hit it. Thats structure specific and playa a MAJOR part in what THAT ( and no other model) could require before it bursts.

I do DT/NDT on all kinds of metals ( and aircraft components)- you would be surprised what stress cracks are in things that you find from magnet partical, X ray, ultrasonics and resistance testings as well as fastners,rivets and such.

When you are doing such an analysis- there are many variables- you cant assume anything


I'm a bit hazy just where de Braeckeleer comes in. He's a physicist, so he should have some grasp of all this. However, although he's written a great deal about the incident, unlike the other major commentators I don't know what his connection to it is.

Most of what I've read of his seems to be based on Camp Zeist evidence, however I'm fairly sure he's wrong on a couple of very elementary points - for example that a plane flying from Frankfurt to Heathrow wouldn't reach 35,000 feet, or that an ice-cube timer would never explode if placed in either the cabin or the baggage hold.

His point about the Mach Stem Effect however seems to be taken directly from the Air Accident report (http://www.aaib.gov.uk/publications/formal_reports/2_1990_n739pa.cfm), and Protheroe's explanation (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/763686.stm) of the mistake in the calculation. He has an article explaining what he's on about (http://english.ohmynews.com/articleview/article_view.asp?menu=c10400&no=384880&rel_no=1&back_url=).

Perhaps you could take a look at that lot and assess how justifiable the assumptions are.

Rolfe.

[Caustic Logic]

Alright that's it. Split thread please.

[LONGTABBER PE]

Have you read the Air Accident report? I'd dearly like to know where you think they went wrong - either through miscalculation, or because they were working with tainted evidence. And do you concur with Protheroe that a mistake was made in the original document?




The woman who found it is interviewed in one of the films I mentioned above, and asked about its condition when she found it compared to when it was produced at the trial.

I'm also somewhat suspicious about the manual, because it's one of the items alleged to have been tampered with after collection. However, as you say, it could simply have been a result of testing for expolsives.

I think the point about the manual was thought to be that the Toshiba was in its original packaging as if it was a new purchase. I don't know what other grounds there were for assuming that though.




There are photographs.

Second picture down on this page (http://english.ohmynews.com/articleview/article_view.asp?menu=c10400&no=385213&rel_no=1) is the shirt, with the fragment, and I believe these are supposed to be bits of the Toshiba to the left of it.

Colour pictures on this page (http://www.lockerbie.ch/) (though Bollier is deifinitely a bit strange).





I've got an open mind on that. However, it was present in the narrative well before the investigation was looking at Libya, and before there seems to be any reason to look at Libya. Perhaps coincidentally (another one of these) its provenance was only established nearly a year after it was logged, just as Saddam was invading Kuwait, and the political imperatives to smear Libya became evident.

This is what makes me feel that it might have been a red herring, more intended to turn attention away from Iran than towards Libya. On the other hand, the "special-order" nature of the things does seem to indicate that a Libyan origin was envisaged from the start, which tends to point more to 1 or 2.

Rolfe.

Have you read the Air Accident report? I'd dearly like to know where you think they went wrong - either through miscalculation, or because they were working with tainted evidence. And do you concur with Protheroe that a mistake was made in the original document?

I skimmed it and I've got a flight this weekend- I plan to digest it then. Get back to you on that. I see several things that need looking into.

However, as you say, it could simply have been a result of testing for expolsives.

I'll buy that as long as the documentation and COC information is intact

[LONGTABBER PE]

I agree. However, one still has to look at it to try to determine which parts are suspect, and how it might have been manipulated. Also to try to decide where original conclusions might have gone off the rails.




I'm a bit hazy just where de Braeckeleer comes in. He's a physicist, so he should have some grasp of all this. However, although he's written a great deal about the incident, unlike the other major commentators I don't know what his connection to it is.
Most of what I've read of his seems to be based on Camp Zeist evidence, however I'm fairly sure he's wrong on a couple of very elementary points - for example that a plane flying from Frankfurt to Heathrow wouldn't reach 35,000 feet, or that an ice-cube timer would never explode if placed in either the cabin or the baggage hold.

His point about the Mach Stem Effect however seems to be taken directly from the Air Accident report (http://www.aaib.gov.uk/publications/formal_reports/2_1990_n739pa.cfm), and Protheroe's explanation (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/763686.stm) of the mistake in the calculation. He has an article explaining what he's on about (http://english.ohmynews.com/articleview/article_view.asp?menu=c10400&no=384880&rel_no=1&back_url=).

Perhaps you could take a look at that lot and assess how justifiable the assumptions are.
Rolfe.

I'm going to because I have a long flight

Let me give you a bit of a precursor.

My firm has done a substantial amount of expert testimony over the years. ( we are one of those experts who normally are hired to combat the states expert- its happened but we rarely are contracted by the state)

Let me tell you about PhDs. ( Mine is in engineering so technically I could call myself a physicist too and would if I worked in R&D exclusively or in a think tank but in my world, nobody cares much past my P. E. registration except in a CV for a court)

Its my nature to be suspicious of EVERY report issued by anyone. ( comes with experience I guess). I have seen just about every way to hide or ignore information there is- from disguising pseudoscience as science to outright omissions or single line inclusions hidden by 1 million words to keep it from being seen.

One thing thats common. They always seem to say what whoever is paying them wants them to say and often tests ( or other data) is "selectively manipulated" to shore it up. They know laypeople will read it but they also know that laypeople arent going to understand 3/4 of it. They also know lawyers know law- most arent capable of effectively calling them on technical issues.

Just in skimming ( so give me latitude to go back and update/change completely after I read it in depth) I see things that need to be seriously reviewed for accuracy and maybe more important "completeness" of the tests.

One thing that jumps out to me is its very generalized and non descript on the technical aspects. That concerns me.

One thing I did see from the other link- that shirt and debris. I see lots of sharp angles and edges. They might have been blown up but they were NOT exposed to the temps and bubble from that type of explosive. ( sitting on top and in physical contact with a stick of semtex) Theres no melting, ashing or anything.

That shirt doesnt look damaged or surface seared enough to have been there either. It looks like it was wrapped around the end of a shotgun ( with shot removed) and fired off. ( thats how some field expedient suppressors are done or stuffed in a 2 liter bottle for packing)

I'm not in a position yet to tell you what I think happened but I'm 100% convinced now of what didnt happen. Aint no way.

[Ambrosia]

The other evidence, [connecting Libya] as GT pointed out, was Gauci's identification. That was the strong bit, if it had been reliable. Whoever bought those clothes from Gauci was involved in the plot.

Gaucis evidence really doesn't implicate Libya - even if it's 100% rock solid positive identification (and it's very very far from that)

The ID implicates 1 Libyan national, not Libya itself. Yes this national is likely a JSO agent, but he could have been using his status surreptitiously.

Even then you have to prove conclusively that the clothes from Malta are charred by the bomb by virtue of being in the same suitcase that contained the bomb.

I can't remember which film I saw this in, I'll go check, but Richard Marquise is asked about MST-13 and it's importance:

Interviewer: "without this fragment would Megrahi have been convicted?"
RM: "We wouldn't even have got an indictment."

[Rolfe]

Alright that's it. Split thread please.


I don't think it's practical to split it now - if you think you can tease out the relevant posts, by all means make the request, but I think it's too much interwoven.

Would there be a vote for starting a new thread to continue discussing the possibility that the Toshiba and all its works were either planted or hideously misinterpreted too?

Rolfe.

[Rolfe]

Red herring here- let me explain these devices from being an EE

"Icecube" is only in reference to their physical appearance and plug in ability

They have a pinned base with a clear top- thus they look like an "ice cube"- their internals can be relays, timers or ( insert function here)

In the curcuit however

a timer is an OUTPUT device that sends a signal- its an internal component ( it can do clock time, count up, count down, on delay, off delay or triggered by another device)

A sensor is a transducer that converts whatever input ( speed,pressure,light,whatever) into an output signal also

timers "count"- thats all they do

Transducers convert a physical input into an output signal- thats all they do

Now, its a matter of how you configure the circuit

If you had both- it could be a dual trigger ( time or pressure- independant of each other) or a progressive trigger ( timer doesnt come on until the pressure sensor tells it to)


The 38-minutes thing comes from the examination of the timers found in the possession of the PFLP-GP cell. According to the source I was reading, the time these were set for could not be varied by the operative. All the ones found by the German police were set to a time that would have caused an explosion at between 35 and 45 minutes after takeoff.

So far as I know, once the device was triggered by the drop in pressure, that was it. Short of disarming the device, it would blow.

I have read two separate explanations of the timing, but they're similar. One said that all the timers were set to 30 minutes, and it takes seven minutes (about) from take-off for a 747 to reach the altitude that would trigger the timers. The other said they were all set to times that would cause the explosions between 35 and 45 minutes after take-off. It could be that both accounts are describing the same thing, with the former one being the more accurate.

I don't know why the PFLP-GC were restricted to the 30-minute countdown. It's always referred to as if it's an inherent property of the devices they had.

Rolfe.

[Rolfe]

Even then you have to prove conclusively that the clothes from Malta are charred by the bomb by virtue of being in the same suitcase that contained the bomb.


The clothes from Malta are very strange. They all match up to this one purchase in this one shop - apparently, apart from the ones Gauci only "remembered" about later. They don't seem to match in a suitcase as someone's normal luggage - assorted random men's things, and a baby-gro? No underwear or toiletries mentioned at all. It does fit with the idea that the stuff was bought just to pack round the bomb and make the suitcase look plausible to a cursory inspection or an x-ray.

Gauci remembers the purchaser. I don't think he's bright enough to be making this lot up or acting. Colin Boyd said he was "a sandwich short of a picnic". It has always stood out for me in this evidence that a man of middle eastern appearance really did go into his shop one midweek evening in early winter when it was raining and buy that stuff. And that Gauci's main problem has been recognising and identifying him. (Aso that investigators subsequently persuaded him that he sold stuff he originally denied selling.)

This hugely suspect assortment of clothes, originating from this weird purchase, just happened to be in the next suitcase?

Along with a Toshiba radio-cassette, awfully similar to the ones Khreesat was playing with in Frankfurt?

:confused:

I can't remember which film I saw this in, I'll go check, but Richard Marquise is asked about MST-13 and it's importance:

Interviewer: "without this fragment would Megrahi have been convicted?"
RM: "We wouldn't even have got an indictment."


The Dutch one I've just watched, I think.

Rolfe.

[LONGTABBER PE]

His point about the Mach Stem Effect however seems to be taken directly from the Air Accident report (http://www.aaib.gov.uk/publications/formal_reports/2_1990_n739pa.cfm), and Protheroe's explanation (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/763686.stm) of the mistake in the calculation. He has an article explaining what he's on about (http://english.ohmynews.com/articleview/article_view.asp?menu=c10400&no=384880&rel_no=1&back_url=).

Perhaps you could take a look at that lot and assess how justifiable the assumptions are.

Rolfe.

That report makes a lot of technical sense and I definitely see where he is coming from and going. Similar to where I was going.

The big selling point for me is this 20x20 hole with the petaling.

Thats consistent with that size charge very close to plate metal. ( I think I said 2-3 feet somewhere earlier) That says placed charge to me rather than the suitcase theory.

What would tell me "yes" or "no" in certain terms is an X ray analysis of the entire area paying close attention to heat affected zones at the edges.

Its like what I do on machined parts cut by lasers.

If the bomb was close and did it- the heat had to hit it and change the density of the metal and thermal shock is easy to see.

If the hole was made by explosive force ( pushing until the MoE reached and it ruptured) ( further from the bubble)- that would show up as well

If it was punched thru as in projectile as a secondary effect- that would be distinguishable too.

Were any such tests as these done? I see where microscopy was done but nothing NDT related.

[Ambrosia]

The clothes from Malta are very strange. ... They don't seem to match in a suitcase as someone's normal luggage - ... It does fit with the idea that the stuff was bought just to pack round the bomb and make the suitcase look plausible to a cursory inspection or an x-ray.

What evidence is there that the clothes mentionned and only those clothes were in this suitcase? It's Dec 21st, perhaps some of the items in the case are destined for Christmas presents in America and the case also had other "normal mens luggage" packed in it as well that were not found. This suitcase blew apart and the contents fell from 31000ft up.

I agree that if these clothes the radio and nothing else was in that case, then it looks mighty suspicious.


Gauci remembers the purchaser. I don't think he's bright enough to be making this lot up or acting.

I agree here.


This hugely suspect assortment of clothes, originating from this weird purchase, just happened to be in the next suitcase?

Along with a Toshiba radio-cassette, awfully similar to the ones Khreesat was playing with in Frankfurt?


Toshiba radio cassette players aren't exactly rare, and it wasn't that similar to the Khreesat bomb from the Frankfurt raid, but I take your point.

[LONGTABBER PE]

Toshiba radio cassette players aren't exactly rare, and it wasn't that similar to the Khreesat bomb from the Frankfurt raid, but I take your point.

Let me elaborate here and maybe clear up a few points. Its referring to these flags I see and experience. I dont think I have related fully where I'm coming from.

This comes purely from the engineer in me and my company and what we do.

We specialize in all the process engineering ( TQM, 6 Sigma, Weibull, ISO and all that) as well as RFCA/FMECA, predictive technologies and DT/NDT and the ancillary areas.

The thing with anything Japanese ( and bomb makers who use them without sterilizing them) is the Japanese literally live and die on process control and tracibility.

They can trace all the way up and down the chain from raw material literally to final purchaser if need be. ( we test this in audits all the time)

The casing is one thing but the maker would need to remove the dataplate, internal guts and even shave off mold ID's or run the risk of possible tracing UNLESS he wanted you to find something or it was just "stolen" and they didnt care. They dont out and PURCHASE them for the reasons above. ( thats a very real trail right back to their door- those serial numbers and bar codes mean things)

Amatuers dont always realize this- professionals do

On the explosion/device - its about the same.

I do testing of components ranging from cuts/stamps to boiler refractories, molds and almost everything including failures. ( textbook RCFA/FMECA)

When you break an explosion down into its parts- its heat,pressure and time in infinite combinations- no different than any other ruptured pressure vessel or whatever.

Theres a test for almost everything- the question is- did you recognize the need for the specific test and run it. They you compare tests.

I do this every day so thats what I start from.

There are 2 standard methods for doing this ( both work and have their own set of problems- SMART engineers do BOTH and look for what matches and doesnt)

1) assemble the causes and extrapolate the effect
2) examine the effect and determine the cause

I'm simply starting at the cause (2) because in my world, I seldom get #1- I get a box or pallet of mangled "stuff" and the client wants me to determine the cause.

So far ( still reading) these people seem to be working from #1- what I'm seeing ( actually, not seeing) is a strong lack of #2 to validate the findings of #1.

Thats swimming in shark infested waters with a steak necklace from a professional perspective.

I see a lack of detailed testing to validate these different theories. Its like they are throwing propositions out there seeing what sticks.

But, still looking

[Caustic Logic]

I don't think it's practical to split it now - if you think you can tease out the relevant posts, by all means make the request, but I think it's too much interwoven.

Would there be a vote for starting a new thread to continue discussing the possibility that the Toshiba and all its works were either planted or hideously misinterpreted too?

Rolfe.

You're right of course. I was typing in a moment of frustration. There's enough off-topic info to start a new thread, and it does clutter examination of this key piece of evidence, but I for one wouldn't want to decide where to cut.

I'm working on sorting out the details on the fragment, Mebo vs. FBI stories, etc. Not sure if my head will blow up before posting the results here. We'll see.

[Caustic Logic]

Longtabber, apologies for getting exasperated with you there. I think you have some serious potential to help folks out if you do get to care enough about this stuff to really dig in to the available material and add to it, with concrete stuff. It would be awesome in its might. Any area that interests you most, you've got a lot of good thoughts.

FWIW I totally agree that so little would remain of the radio and timer that the chunks we've been shown are questionable. That collar does look like pretty burly fabric, and there are dynamics by which one or two odd frgments might be just shielded enough, etc... I can't vouch for the science til I can see it point-by-point in great detail, like you'd break it to a 3-year-old, and I think I'd run screaming from that right now anyway so... I have to remain a little ambivalent on the plausibility of it and let that steady me to look closer.

First, the Comparison photo (http://image.ohmynews.com/down/images/1/todd_385213_1[674788].jpg) I've been working off of, the (blue?) circuit board used in the investigation as exhibit PT/35(b). Rolfe: do you know where deBrackeleer got this from? It was app. printed ... do we have a primary source where we can verify it as the gebuine evidence photo unaltered?

Second, do we know if this is the very photo taken by political scientist agent Thurman, shown on ABC News in 1991? Has anyone seen where video or still from this broadcast can be found?

ETA: The comparison model, DP/347(a), is I would presume the comparison Thurman is said to have used:
in the timer that had been seized from a Libyan intelligence agent, Mohammad al-Marzouk, who had been arrested in Dakar airport, Senegal ten months before PA 103 (The Independent, December 19, 1990). Marzouk was found to be carrying 9.5 pounds (4.3 kg) of Semtex, several packets of TNT, 10 detonators, and an electronic timer—a so-called MST-13 timer—with the word Mebo printed on it.
wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Investigation_into_the_bombing_of_Pan_Am_Flight_10 3)
This was supposed to a green type board as well, right?

I had thought this could hardly be a green circuit board of the usual green I've seen - there is a serious blue tint issue, so I messed with color adjustments in Photoshop. I'm no pro at this, whether the color schemes can translate so a simple RGB-CMYK adjustment will give honest results... FWIW then:
http://i133.photobucket.com/albums/q62/chainsawmoth/127-911/MST-13_tint-variations.jpg
The bottom two are global adjustments - across the whole image indiscriminately. I didn't really keep track except to achieve in one case a normal looking board, and in the other normal-looking labels. Apologies for the nerdiness or if I'm missing something obvious.

[Rolfe]

Can I drag this back on to the topic of the timer fragment, and request that if we have further to say about the possibility that the entire suitcase bomb was a fabrication/error we take it to a new thread?


I know it's grown naturally out of the original topic, but the line of thinking that questions the authenticity of the entire suitcase theory (as opposed to the provenance of the timer fragment) is quite a different one from the timer issue.

I'm going to start a new thread and copy the last couple of relevant posts on that issue into it. Perhaps we could try to keep the two issues separate? I agree with GT that it would facilitate discussion.

Rolfe.

[Rolfe]

Ambrosia mentioned the Dutch film "Lockerbie Revisited", and I watched it last night. This is obviously very recent, as it ends with a couple of impromptu interviews conducted at the 20-year memorial service for the crash, which would have been just before Christmas last year. So the film itself must be no older than early 2009.

The interviews degenerate into a huge row about the provenance of the timer fragment. Thurman, who has by that time been quite thoroughly discredited so far as his professional competence and ethics are concerned, states quite categorically that he did not make his identification from a photograph, but from the actual exhibit. He says the finger in an apparently iconic photo of the fragment I hadn't seen before (and which apparently shows the reverse side of the thing) is his. And the photo was taken in America.

At the same time (literally - this is all happening with grieving relatives in the background) Marquise and a guy who identifies himself as Henderson, a senior Scottish police officer in charge of the investigation, declare absolutely categorically that the fragment never left Britain.

I'm not sure we can determine what was in the system before Thurman came up with the "it's part of a MeBo timer!" breakthrough in June 1990. I've never seen this polaroid that Feraday was supposed to have sent to Williamson the previous September, for example.

I need to dig around a bit more and see just what's alleged to have gone on between the Feraday polaroid and the Thurman breakthrough. Williamson is supposed to have spent months trying to figure out what it was, but this is all pretty hazy.

Rolfe.

[JHawke]

The interviews degenerate into a huge row about the provenance of the timer fragment. Thurman, who has by that time been quite thoroughly discredited so far as his professional competence and ethics are concerned, states quite categorically that he did not make his identification from a photograph, but from the actual exhibit. He says the finger in an apparently iconic photo of the fragment I hadn't seen before (and which apparently shows the reverse side of the thing) is his. And the photo was taken in America.

Rolfe.

Maybe this is the picture?

http://i487.photobucket.com/albums/rr231/dngrjoe/Lockerbie1.jpg

Found it on Google by searching for "mst-13 timer thurman"
Btw, it was uploaded on infowars. So it might be a fake, I'll let you figure that out.

Interesting topic. For me, the trial seems very suspicious.
I'm not so sure anything was planted though

EDIT:
Here's the first Lockerbie judgement:
http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/library/lockerbie/docs/lockerbiejudgement.pdf

And here's the appeal:
http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/library/lockerbie/docs/lockerbiejudgement.pdf

[Rolfe]

That does resemble the picture shown in Lockerbie Revisited. Is it really the other side of the bit in the other pictures though? It doesn't appear to be the same shape.

I'm not sure anything was planted either. I'm also not sure that it wasn't, though, and a remarkable number of otherwise quite respectable people seem to have strong suspicions that it was planted.

Rolfe.

[realdon]

First post here but I have been following this thread over the last few days.

I have seen that picture of the circuit board fragment on a finger on a few Pan Am 103 related sites and News sources.

I am pretty certain that it is not a fragment of the MST 13 timer. It looks like a fragment of a circuit board from a mass produced radio receiver (Toshiba ?) that has been screen printed with component numbers as part of the manufacturing process

The L108 will be reference to Inductor number 108. If you look in any combined radio casette player you will find many inductors in the radio receiver part of the circuit board
All component positions are marked with a letter which designates the component type
C = capacitor, R = resistor, SW = Switch L = Inductor The number is not the value but to reference the component on a circuit diagram

From the MST 13 Timer images I have seen the board does not appear to be screen printed with component numbers.The cost of artwork and printing can only be justified for large volume mass produced items Also a timer circuit would be unlikely to use an inductor in its circuit design.

I have some more thoughts on the timer fragment that I will get to asap. I have spent the last 30 years working with printed circuits and a few things about the fragment offered as evidence dont seem right to me

David

[LONGTABBER PE]

First post here but I have been following this thread over the last few days.

I have seen that picture of the circuit board fragment on a finger on a few Pan Am 103 related sites and News sources.

I am pretty certain that it is not a fragment of the MST 13 timer. It looks like a fragment of a circuit board from a mass produced radio receiver (Toshiba ?) that has been screen printed with component numbers as part of the manufacturing process

The L108 will be reference to Inductor number 108. If you look in any combined radio casette player you will find many inductors in the radio receiver part of the circuit board
All component positions are marked with a letter which designates the component type
C = capacitor, R = resistor, SW = Switch L = Inductor The number is not the value but to reference the component on a circuit diagram

From the MST 13 Timer images I have seen the board does not appear to be screen printed with component numbers.The cost of artwork and printing can only be justified for large volume mass produced items Also a timer circuit would be unlikely to use an inductor in its circuit design.

I have some more thoughts on the timer fragment that I will get to asap. I have spent the last 30 years working with printed circuits and a few things about the fragment offered as evidence dont seem right to me

David

Welcome aboard

First time I ever saw it

I agree with your assessment and it would be a simple matter to show what production line board it matches.

I have a bigger concern- if you believe the story and the stuffing of the radio with 1+/- lbs of semtex

You have to accept that the explosive was packed in direct contact with this board and all around it to make sure the mystery timer could fit too.

Thats touching at the "moment of truth" so thats why I cant accept it even exists much less has legible numbers on it.

If all this miracle PLASTIC and board materials survived- where are the METAL parts as well? Where are the speaker fragments and magnets, transformers, coils.

Some that should certainly survive too. Nope, no metals at all- just pieces of plastic in direct contact with a high temp explosive that should have vaporized them since it "obviously" vaporized the much stronger metals also in direct contact with it. ( I would believe a speaker magnet and housing as dense as it is being iron would stand a much better chance)

Must be "smart" semtex

[Rolfe]

Ceud mìle fàilte, by the way.

I am pretty certain that it is not a fragment of the MST 13 timer. It looks like a fragment of a circuit board from a mass produced radio receiver (Toshiba ?) that has been screen printed with component numbers as part of the manufacturing process


I think you're right. I think it's a bit of Toshiba.

There was another bit of circuit board that was important in the Lockerbie investigation, over and above the MST-13. Here's how Paul foot describes that discovery, while summarising the contemporary Sunday Tines reporting of the story.

“From the moment a policeman picked up a little piece of printed circuit board which had fallen onto the floor from a shattered luggage pallet, investigators were on their way to solving the mystery of who had carried out the biggest mass murder on British territory.”

Thanks to what the article described as “the brilliance of Allen Fereday, Britain’s foremost forensics expert” the fragment was traced to a Toshiba radio cassette recorder which had contained the explosive device. The Toshiba was in turn traced to a Samsonite suitcase placed by “probably the most brilliant piece of detective work in the inquiry” in the second layer of a luggage pallet on Pan Am 103.


I think that's what this picture is. A picture of the first bit of the Toshiba they found, which started them on the road to the "suitcase bomb" explanation. How and why would anyone mistake it for a picture of the MST-13 fragment? This is worth a little bit more investigation. Thurman, and Lockerbie Revisited, both seem to be accepting it as the bit of timer.

Rolfe.

[Rolfe]

I have a bigger concern- if you believe the story and the stuffing of the radio with 1+/- lbs of semtex

[....]


Sure. :rolleyes:

And we've got a whole other thread to look at that. To give this thread half a chance at examining the "mystery fragment" in detail.

Let's just suppose, for the sake of argument, that the explosion was as claimed, and bits of Toshiba, and clothes, and suitcase, were recovered as described.

You never know, we might find out something.

Rolfe.

[LONGTABBER PE]

Sure. :rolleyes:

And we've got a whole other thread to look at that. To give this thread half a chance at examining the "mystery fragment" in detail.

Let's just suppose, for the sake of argument, that the explosion was as claimed, and bits of Toshiba, and clothes, and suitcase, were recovered as described.

You never know, we might find out something.

Rolfe.

OK, who is to say ( and prove by any forensic technique known to exist) that there couldnt be MORE than 1 toshiba radio ( VERY common device) on another piece of luggage or that said board isnt a production line board used in several models?

I would need to see exactly how they matched it and to what as well as a residue test. Until they do that- they have nothing more than a guess.

Its a dangerous premise to assume that just because you found something that looks like something- its really a part of that specific something.

[Rolfe]

Just saying, let's keep this thread on-topic to the provenance of the timer fragment.

We know you don't think it could have survived at all, as alleged. Which is interesting, and relevant. But if we continually go down that route, we'll fail to examine the details of the Official Version, and the plausibility of the timer fragment as it relates to that.

Rolfe.

[Ambrosia]

the "finger photo" is Toshiba and the circuit board is beige, it's one of the images in the first few minutes of the Al Jazeera film.

There were off the top of head 16 such bits of Toshiba circuit board, all similar in size.

One was found on a pallet, one was found within the folded/torn metal of the fuselage near the explosion.

[Caustic Logic]

Rolfe, this is cool, thanks. A bit more room to work. Unfortunately I have a hectic weekend starting sometime today and won't be able to contribute as much until sometime Sunday. Luckily, we have TWO new conversants! Welcome JHawk and realdon!

And now we're getting somewhere. I'd seen that finger photo in a similar search looking for the video. I figured it was misused by some numbskull to illustrate something. It's clearly not the almost-square piece we're looking at anyway. But come to hear it IS claimed by some as an "iconic" photo of just that? Hmmm... I'll check that video soon. Apparently I stopped too early on it before. It's also shown in the AJazeera vid, as general radio board, huh? And that's what it seems to be? Alright, I'll be back.

Its a dangerous premise to assume that just because you found something that looks like something- its really a part of that specific something.


Absolutely. And for that same scientist (Dr. Thomas Hayes) to, as Ambrosia and Rolfe have mentioned, decide against explosives residue tests altogether (too small a fragment he said), and to apparently insert his notes on it later, renumbering the pages to accommodate it, both add to the suspicions.

[LONGTABBER PE]

Absolutely. And for that same scientist (Dr. Thomas Hayes) to, as Ambrosia and Rolfe have mentioned, decide against explosives residue tests altogether (too small a fragment he said), and to apparently insert his notes on it later, renumbering the pages to accommodate it, both add to the suspicions.

Thats not an excuse I accept

Thats not destructive testing and what harm can a wipe do or UV scan?

Also, there is microscopic examination for pitting, heat etc

Even if theres no identification of the explosive by trace- theres other physical evidence of being at the heart of an explosion.

[Caustic Logic]

Briefly on my color confusion: It does seem the second site (http://www.lockerbie.ch/) linked by Rolfe shows a different Mebo MST-13, intact and it's quite blue. It's next to the equally blue PT35(b) - a different, blurrier photo - which is again described as green. I guess Swiss green circuit boards in the 1980s were just called green but actually blue?

Anyway, there are also issues between the clear side-by-side photo ad this blurry close-up - the latter has scratches, the "letter M" and a broad sribble patch (labeled "scratches by Lumpert" in German), while the former does not (visibly anyway). Why would these be on one photo but not the other? Obviously added later, unless sanded off later, or a photo illusion, or photo editing. I'll be back too with comparisons of that.

Okay the video now...

ETA: Cool on the timeline! I've been putting together my own, looks almost the same, will compare and take what's new. :)

[Rolfe]

Here's my summary of the timeline.

Incident to mid-March 1989. Investigation proceeds apace, though with a lot of CIA presence shadowing the police and allegedly interfering with evidence. Includes discovery of Toshiba and suitcase fragments. Connection made to Jibril and the PFLP-GC. Great anticipation of imminent arrests communicated to media on 16th March.

13th January 1989. Alleged discovery of the piece of charred shirt with fragments of Toshiba and MST-13 by PC Gilchrist. At later inspections, the label of this evidence bag is seen to have been altered.

Mid-March 1989. Alleged conversation between Thatcher and Bush, agreeing to take a "low-key" approach, for reasons connected to the security services.

12th May 1989. Thomas Hayes allegedly discovers the timer fragment while doing detailed examination of material collected from the crash site. However, the loose-leaf page on which he records this appears to be a later interpolation into the notes. Hayes and Feraday consistently maintain that the fragment they dealt with was green.

July 1989. Parkinson's promise to the relatives of a public inquiry is vetoed by Thatcher; he later attributes this to a need to protect security sources. No further government enouragement of speculation or enquiry, however press reports that the PFLP-GC have been identified as the perpetrators continue.

September 1989. Alan Feraday apparently notices that there's something interesting in the material logged as having been examined by Hayes in May, and decides to draw it to Williamson's attention. However, there is no photograph or drawing of the fragment, and he has to take a hurried Polaroid shot to send to him.

September 1989 to June 1990. Nothing happens as regards the mystery fragment, because nobody knows what it is. Williamson is apparently trawling Europe's electronics manufacturers to try to identify it.

Spring 1990. Increasing tensions in Middle East foreshadow the 1990 Gulf War.

June 1990. Thomas Thurman identifies a photograph of the fragment as a part of an MST-13 timer, similar to one which had been recovered from a Libyan agent in the Middle East. Manufacturer still not known, but subsequently identified as MeBo of Switzerland.

22nd June 1990. Date of Lumpert's confessed passing of a brown non-functional MST-13 prototype to someone involved in the Lockerbie investigation.

July 1990. Iraqi troops massing on border with Kuwait.

2nd August 1990. Saddam Hussein invades Kuwait.

November 1990. Visit(s) of Scottish and US law enforcement officials to MeBo. There is disagreement regarding who visited and when, which would bear closer investigation.

January 1991. Operation Desert Storm.

I'm trying to figure out when a fabricated fragment might actually have been introduced into the system, correlated with concurrent political events, and how far back the evidence trail might have been falsified to make it appear that the item was identified significantly earlier, before Middle Eastern politics provided motivation to place the blame on Libya. Not sure whether this flies or not. I really need to read more primary sources, because Foot has made some minor errors, and de Braeckeleer and Bollier do not necessarily come over as the full shilling.

Rolfe.

[Rolfe]

Thats not an excuse I accept

Thats not destructive testing and what harm can a wipe do or UV scan?

Also, there is microscopic examination for pitting, heat etc

Even if theres no identification of the explosive by trace- theres other physical evidence of being at the heart of an explosion.


Two different versions of this. One says the fragment was too small, however it's known that the RAERDE lab tested smaller samples in other cases. The other (put forward in Lockerbie Revisited) is that there was insufficient funding to do the test. This has also been ridiculed, for obvious reasons.

Rolfe.

[LONGTABBER PE]

Two different versions of this. One says the fragment was too small, however it's known that the RAERDE lab tested smaller samples in other cases. The other (put forward in Lockerbie Revisited) is that there was insufficient funding to do the test. This has also been ridiculed, for obvious reasons.

Rolfe.

All that tells you is that the real reason is hidden- thats also more sauce for the goose to support planting

They have enough money for everything else but not what amounts to $500 for chemical tests. ( thats as todays cost)

If they were that strapped, I would have put it on my Amex for them

poor devils

[Caustic Logic]

101 LIDS it seems to say on that fragment. Looks like the dosage label for a chunk of swiss-made super-hashish. Lol. Actually looks more like LIOS. But seriously, I'm watching the video now (http://www.disclose.tv/action/viewvideo/22580/Tegenlicht__Lockerbie_revisited/), and this is cited as the smoking gun proof implicating Libya and this photo shown (30:10)

There's the Thurman video... Bam, there he is showing a photograph at 30:45. Looks like the same squarish thing we've been looking at, with a different comparison model, like that shown on the Mebo site with a single angled scratch off the "1." Lol, "when you look at it in a microscope it jut jumps right out at you." It's always surprising the first time you look in one, idn' it? Got screen grabs, will be back later.

[Rolfe]

Briefly on my color confusion: It does seem the second site (http://www.lockerbie.ch/) linked by Rolfe shows a different Mebo MST-13, intact and it's quite blue. It's next to the equally blue PT35(b) - a different, blurrier photo - hich is again described as green. I guess Swiss green circuit boards in the 1980s were just called green but actually blue?

Anyway, there are also issues between the clear side-by-side photo ad this blurry close-up - the latter has scratches, the "letter M" and a broad sribble patch (labeled "scratches by Lumpert) in German, the former does not (visibly anyway). Why would these be on one photo but not the other? Obviously added later, unless sanded off later. I'll be back too with comparisons of that.


The colouring of these pictures is just bizarre. I haven't read all the primary sources yet, but here's what I gather about the timers.

Somebody (Libya? The GDR?) commissioned the manufacture of these things from MeBo in 1985, as a special order. Lumpert designed the item to order in spring/summer, using brown circuit board to make three prototypes by hand. The first item had a fault, and as a result of this he both made a new one and repaired the faulty one to give to Bollier for a demonstration. These two items found their way to East Germany, to a research institute known to be a front for the Stasi. He originally said the third circuit board was faulty and he threw it away.

The PFLP-GC were in contact with the Stasi, and it would have been perfectly feasible for one or both of the two brown boards to have made their way into Jibril/Khreeset's hands.

Once the design was perfected, the blueprint was sent to a different firm for 20 production pieces to be manufactured, in August 1985. These looked quite different, being much smoother and neater, green rather than brown, and 0.4mm larger. These were supplied to Libya.

Last year, Lumpert "confessed" that he did not throw away the third, non-functional prototype, but instead gave it on 22nd June 1990 to someone connected with the Lockerbie enquiry.

Hayes and Feraday consistently maintained that the fragment they were looking at in 1989 was green. Bollier is protesting that what he was shown at some point in the story was brown. There's more about whether or not there was evidence of solder and so on.

The controversy seems to be whether the exhibit has actually been the same item consistently throughout the saga, and whether it is one of the green ones supplied to Libya (which still could have ended up practically anywhere two years and more later), or one of the two given to the Stasi, or the third prototype Lumpert is now saying he gave directly to one of the investigators.

I'd love to see the orginal polaroid Feraday sent to Williamson, and to know the dates of the photographs we've seen. I'm really interested to know if there is in fact any evidence that this item really did exist before June 1990.

Rolfe.

[Rolfe]

the "finger photo" is Toshiba and the circuit board is beige, it's one of the images in the first few minutes of the Al Jazeera film.

There were off the top of head 16 such bits of Toshiba circuit board, all similar in size.

One was found on a pallet, one was found within the folded/torn metal of the fuselage near the explosion.


Hey, is that all that was ever found of the Toshiba? Just a few bits of circuit board?

Serves me right for believing Bollier - it was him who declared that these other bits of debris in the shirt photo with the MST-13 fragment were bits of Toshiba. I need to read those primary sources more....

If all that remained of the Toshiba was 16 bits of circuit board, that might be relevant to the question of how close it could have been to the explosion - a point for the other thread.

Rolfe.

[Rolfe]

"when you look at it in a microscope it jut jumps right out at you." It's always surprising the first time you look in one, idn' it? Got screen grabs, will be back later.


Yeah, he did say that, didn't he? But we know he wasn't sent the fragment, he was only sent a photograph. If he was looking at anything down a microscope, it would have been the intact board that he had acquired from the Libyan agent.

Rolfe.

[Rolfe]

Hey, is that all that was ever found of the Toshiba? Just a few bits of circuit board?

Serves me right for believing Bollier - it was him who declared that these other bits of debris in the shirt photo with the MST-13 fragment were bits of Toshiba. I need to read those primary sources more....

If all that remained of the Toshiba was 16 bits of circuit board, that might be relevant to the question of how close it could have been to the explosion - a point for the other thread.

Rolfe.


Strike that. Bollier was right. According to the court judgement, quite a few bits of Toshiba were found, including bits of plastic case. The other debris in the shirt collar was said to be bits of Toshiba.

According to his notes, this item was examined, initially on 12 May 1989, by Dr Hayes. His notes show that it was found to be part of the neckband of a grey shirt, and when the control sample was obtained it appeared similar in all respects to the neckband of a Slalom shirt. It was severely explosion damaged with localised penetration holes and blackening consistent with explosive involvement. Embedded within some of the penetration holes there were found nine fragments of black plastic, a small fragment of metal, a small fragment of wire, and a multi-layered fragment of white paper (subsequently ascertained to be fragments from a Toshiba RT-SF 16 and its manual). There was also found embedded a fragment of green coloured circuit board.


Rolfe.

[realdon]

Longtabber, No I cant see how this fragment survived, but I have no knowledge of explosives.

What I am seeing is what looks to me like a fragment of board that has never been operational

This an unpopulated MST board. The fragment area shows what looks to be a number 1 but this is a solder pad to attach a component to

15255

This is a finished board (not very clear) and Shows all the components in place.At the bottom some IC's (intergrated circuits or chips) the backs of switches (Red) at the sides, and directly over the fragment area a rectangular object which looks to me to be a relay. I think the relay would have been attached here at the number 1 pad and also to the rectangular pad below it and also to the pad top left
15256
Here's the fragment. I wish I could find a clearer image. I would expect to see more damage where the component had been ripped off . If you pulled the component of by hand you would rip off a good portion of the pad itself. its only a very thin layer of copper laminated to the board. I dont think anything has been attached to this pad. and it wouldnt be there for no reason

15257

Longtabber what kind of temp would you expect this board to be subjected to if it was at close proximity to the explosives?

The picture of the complete MST timer was found here

(wont let me post link, not 15 posts old yet!!!!)

Search Charles M Byers the pictures are there. Be warned the page is a bit CT ish !

David

[realdon]

This From Robert Black QC blog


Thursday, 24 September 2009
Crown challenged to prove semtex link to Pan Am 103

[This is the headline over an article published today on the website of the Scottish lawyers' magazine The Firm. The following are excerpts.]

[A] campaign initiated by the Lockerbie Justice Group ... challenges the Lord Advocate to openly demonstrate that Pan Am 103 could have been brought down by a semtex bomb, under controlled laboratory conditions.

The group state that fabric and circuit board fragments cannot survive a semtex explosion, and accordingly the entire Crown case against Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi falls. In 2007 Ulrich Lumpert of timer company MEBO released an affidavit stating he had manufactured the circuit board “evidence” relied upon by the Crown at the Zeist trial. Earlier this year a report by Dr Ludwig de Braeckeleer concluded that the Crown’s case was “scientifically implausible”.

“The Crown theory utterly depended upon Judges believing that this white-hot sphere with a temperature of 6,800F, travelling in all available directions at 20,000mph did not scorch, never mind totally annihilate, a printed circuit board and a fabric label, which it was able to wholly detach from the shirt. Our group finds this utterly incredible,” the group said.

“We, as members of the concerned Scottish public, invite the Crown to openly demonstrate their theory under controlled laboratory conditions. Either the circuit board survives with its legible ID and soft solder, or it is annihilated in a white-hot gas. In the event of PCB annihilation, we demand a proper and independent committee of inquiry into ‘What brought this plane down?’ Will you please publicly demonstrate your theory, ... Lord Advocate?”

The challenge has been backed by Dr Hans Koechler, who observed the trial [as a UN-appointed observer] and called for a full public inquiry afterwards.

“It is highly important to address this question to the Scottish prosecutor’s office and I shall add my name to such an initiative,” he said.

“It is equally important that an explosives expert with impeccable academic credentials, ideally a University professor from a European country, endorses this initiative or confirms the basic physical facts in writing. Under this condition I can join the initiative.”

De Braeckeleer and researchers at the Centre of Explosives Technology Research in Socorro, New Mexico estimated that up to thirty pounds of explosive was needed to destroy a Boeing 747, if the explosion had occurred in the hold as the Crown claimed

“As the explosion of one pound of Semtex H inside the luggage container does not generate a blast wave sufficiently powerful to fracture the skin of the fuselage, we have little choice but to conclude that the verdict appears scientifically very implausible,” they said.

The group’s initiative is bolstered by the new testimony of former Ferranti electrical engineer Aitken Brotherston, experienced in testing circuitry for use in military applications.

“Although no doubt there have been some advances in the construction of circuit boards the predominance of boards in current use are the same as those I tested. In most cases the boards would happily catch light with a flame source similar to that of a Swan Vesta (...)

“While we did not test them to the 3000 plus degrees C temperatures of a Semtex explosion bright spot, even as an apprentice electronics engineer with Ferranti, my experience at much lower temperatures would persuade me that nothing of the circuit boards would survive that environment.

“The proposal that fragments of the board, of sufficient size to permit identification, packed with the bomb had survived a temperature environment of more than 3000 degree C in the explosion is to me just not credible.

“What it does demonstrate is the extent to which anyone promulgating that theory believes us out here in the real world to be completely stupid.”

[Caustic Logic]

realdon, if that's a copyrighted work quoted in its whole, you'll want to take out part before a mod does and censures you. Minor rule around here. Some of that might fit better at the newer thread, I'm not sure what exactly that one's covering...

ETA: looking closer, it's already an excerpt and I'm sure Dr. Black has fair use ideas so I'm sure it's cool.

The link is this:
http://lockerbiecase.blogspot.com/2009/09/crown-challenged-to-prove-semtex-link.html
I'd tell you you can insert spaces to circumvent the URL rule, and that's usually allowed. But you'll be past 15 anytime anyway. On first blush, I feel that questioning whether Semtex could do it seems silly. If not, then why did the crown and FBI ever decide on an impossible story? What they seem to be saying is a Semtex bomb would be too strong for the timer to survive but too weak for the plane to die, an alleged epic double-fail of the comedic proportions regularly proposed by 9/11 Truther types. Seems like a wrong track, but the finer points could be argued and should, outside of this thread.

Here's the fragment. I wish I could find a clearer image. I would expect to see more damage where the component had been ripped off . If you pulled the component of by hand you would rip off a good portion of the pad itself. its only a very thin layer of copper laminated to the board. I dont think anything has been attached to this pad. and it wouldnt be there for no reason

That definitely makes sense to me, from the very little I know. AFAIK that is the best image, and indeed that pad is intact. It does however seem torn or folded a bit in the upper right, and a little uneven all across... Hmmm. Weak glue?

I've always wondered about the right-angled scoring, the bold scratches that meet in the "1" lower right. Somewhere I read about solder traces, or something, not filled so prototypical, non-operational. Is this what they're talking about do you think, or is this some alleged bomb damage, or what?

ETA: and also that second one you posted, finally a green one. It's so annpying to see these blue boards and eberyone else calling them green. So is that a yellow Mebo timer, the green one there? I've never heard of those, just green(blue) and brown(mystery).

[Ambrosia]

hi realdon

Welcome to the forums.

I don't have any time to spend on this at the moment, but I'll be back on Monday/Tuesday.

Here's a quick overlay of the "populated MST-13" board and the top edge where the fragment is located I knocked up with GIMP.

http://img97.imageshack.us/img97/2901/mstpopoverlay.jpg

The photo of the populated board is poor, as already noted. You can just about see though that the solder pad "1" is in fact visible in the finished item and doesn't have a relay stuck on top of it, right next to it yes, on top no.

[Caustic Logic]

Hmmm.... that does look off. It could be a scaling issue, where the green one is squished a bit. Took my own photo-fu to it and found if proportioned right they seem internally consistent. The outline again is from the green(blue) confiscated model board. I tried to fit the photo beneath it in its original scale but no go, so I wound up stretching it. Do they match up right? Anyone see any problems where the flupappitator meets the cylanoid inverter or anything else?
http://i133.photobucket.com/albums/q62/chainsawmoth/127-911/MST-13_comp_2.jpg

Now I won't have time, or much, after tonight. Had some other points and address some of Rolfe's, next post.

[realdon]

Caustic. Not up to speed on the ins and out of posting here but Robert Blacks blog is licenced under a "creative common licence" and is free to copy.
What does ETA stand for? and how do I quote sections from otherposts as you have done from mine?

Sorry but I have not done much posting on web forums

David

[Caustic Logic]

Ambrosia mentioned the Dutch film "Lockerbie Revisited", and I watched it last night. This is obviously very recent, as it ends with a couple of impromptu interviews conducted at the 20-year memorial service for the crash, which would have been just before Christmas last year. So the film itself must be no older than early 2009.

An amazing film I think. I'll have t re-watch parts where, as you explain pretty well, it gets about bizarre with the evident disconnect between, most visibly, Thurman and Marquise.

The interviews degenerate into a huge row about the provenance of the timer fragment. Thurman, who has by that time been quite thoroughly discredited so far as his professional competence and ethics are concerned, states quite categorically that he did not make his identification from a photograph, but from the actual exhibit. He says the finger in an apparently iconic photo of the fragment I hadn't seen before (and which apparently shows the reverse side of the thing) is his. And the photo was taken in America.

Actually what I saw was the editors placing that photo while mentioning the timer, agent Whitehurst saying that know-nothing Thurman had it on his finger, and Levy asking Thurman about how he had it "on your finger." He didn't confirm this but ignored the question, I don't think he understood it. (Dutch figure for "in your hands"?) He mentioned side-by-side analysis like we've seen, and showed photos of the fragment we've seen, so THIS part is a misunderstanding I think. But the weird part...

At the same time (literally - this is all happening with grieving relatives in the background) Marquise and a guy who identifies himself as Henderson, a senior Scottish police officer in charge of the investigation, declare absolutely categorically that the fragment never left Britain.

Yep, and didn't Marquise earlier, casually, say that Feraday had flown it over to Thurman? Then later "no, I never said that..." "he never said that..." Henderson? Was he on the original investigation or some new one related to it? He seems pretty "active" in demeanor. "No hidden holes." Hmmm...

I'm not sure we can determine what was in the system before Thurman came up with the "it's part of a MeBo timer!" breakthrough in June 1990. I've never seen this polaroid that Feraday was supposed to have sent to Williamson the previous September, for example.

Maybe... The one at the weird site with anthem MP3s... isn't that a totally different photo from the clear one? It's blurry... need to compare those next.

I need to dig around a bit more and see just what's alleged to have gone on between the Feraday polaroid and the Thurman breakthrough. Williamson is supposed to have spent months trying to figure out what it was, but this is all pretty hazy.

Rolfe.

Primary sources are something I'd like more of too. The court didn't seem to publish much, except thru the BBC. Their site (http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/library/lockerbie/index.asp) currently tells people to get the hell off their site and check the BBC.
"when you look at it in a microscope it jut jumps right out at you." It's always surprising the first time you look in one, idn' it? Got screen grabs, will be back later.

Yeah, he did say that, didn't he? But we know he wasn't sent the fragment, he was only sent a photograph. If he was looking at anything down a microscope, it would have been the intact board that he had acquired from the Libyan agent.

Rolfe.

I don't know that we know that. However, I had wondered if a photo of a photo next to the model timer would explain the tinting issues. Something for sure doesn't add up here, but I'm not ready to call it. I doubt he looked at anything under a microscope. That was probably just a staged "look at me I'm sciencey" moment. Yeah. Political science. How ironic is that anyway?

[Caustic Logic]

Caustic. Not up to speed on the ins and out of posting here but Robert Blacks blog is licenced under a "creative common licence" and is free to copy.
What does ETA stand for? and how do I quote sections from otherposts as you have done from mine?

Sorry but I have not done much posting on web forums

David

Hit the quote button for the post you want to quote. It brings it up in quote tags. Quotes within quotes don't show up tho. You can also copy and paste text in between tags QUOTE in caps within [ ] brackets, same at end but a / before QUOTE.

Edit To Add, so people know why you added something later. Actually I just didn't wanna retype my first sentence.
:thumbsup:

[Ambrosia]

Hmmm.... that does look off. It could be a scaling issue, where the green one is squished a bit.

??

The photo overlay I did above is meant to show that the solder pad that looks like a "1" doesn't have anything mounted on it.

I took the pic of the populated board, scaled it to match the size of the pic of the bare MST-13 board, and then moved it down a cm or so to allow you to closely compare the area with the "1" in it.

It's not an overlay showing the top bit of the bare board sticking out to say "these don't match" or anything like that, I probably should have made it more clear in my post.

The proportions of the two boards appear to match, but the pic of the populated board is too poor quality to draw many conclusions from. Lots of detail is missing from the pic due to things like resolution, film grain, shadow effects etc.

Look at your overlay outline and it shows the same thing. The "1" is not obscured by any components. This is all of course assuming that each photo shows a board of the same design.

[realdon]

[QUOTE=Ambrosia;5140484]??

The photo overlay I did above is meant to show that the solder pad that looks like a "1" doesn't have anything mounted on it.

Ambrosia I understand what you are getting at but the component would be placed beside the pads, if it was ontop you would have no access to actually
make the solder joint.

The photo is not clear and the area is in shadow but it looks like there are
two tabs protruding from the relay on its right side the top one seems to line up with the right angled section of the 1

Caustic. The two lines on the board are a bit odd. I am not sure if they are pencil marks or lines scored into the board. If they are scores they appear to cut through the two tracks, this is sometimes done to modifiy the circuit.
My first thought was that they were pencil marks made by some one who was going to cut a piece of the board off, maybe forensics ? But surely cutting up bits of evidence would not be allowed

[Caustic Logic]

??

The photo overlay I did above is meant to show that the solder pad that looks like a "1" doesn't have anything mounted on it.

I took the pic of the populated board, scaled it to match the size of the pic of the bare MST-13 board, and then moved it down a cm or so to allow you to closely compare the area with the "1" in it.

It's not an overlay showing the top bit of the bare board sticking out to say "these don't match" or anything like that, I probably should have made it more clear in my post.

The proportions of the two boards appear to match, but the pic of the populated board is too poor quality to draw many conclusions from. Lots of detail is missing from the pic due to things like resolution, film grain, shadow effects etc.

Look at your overlay outline and it shows the same thing. The "1" is not obscured by any components. This is all of course assuming that each photo shows a board of the same design.

Got it, sorry. I just have a thing for proportions now. As it turns out it was off a bit in prop. I did want to mention that it looks to me like the element at top might be touching the horizontal bar part of it.

The controversy seems to be whether the exhibit has actually been the same item consistently throughout the saga, and whether it is one of the green ones supplied to Libya (which still could have ended up practically anywhere two years and more later), or one of the two given to the Stasi, or the third prototype Lumpert is now saying he gave directly to one of the investigators.

I'd love to see the orginal polaroid Feraday sent to Williamson, and to know the dates of the photographs we've seen. I'm really interested to know if there is in fact any evidence that this item really did exist before June 1990.

Rolfe.
And the coup d'grace of the photo fu: The the picture from the German poster (http://www.crystalclearfilms.net/images/Timer%20fragment.jpg), within outlines of both the confiscated board, and the exhibit PT35b. What the hell is going on here?
http://i133.photobucket.com/albums/q62/chainsawmoth/127-911/MST-13_comp_3.jpg

ETA: I just verified this poster image as an accurate blowup of this exhibit photo (http://image.ohmynews.com/down/images/1/todd_385213_1[674787].jpg). So unless someone's altered one of these pictures or the fragment was mauled during the process. Poster says the photo is by T Hayes, Sept. 12 1989.

[Rolfe]

This link will remain pointed to the September archive.

http://lockerbiecase.blogspot.com/2009_09_01_archive.html

Realdon, you can also use the quote function to make Black's text appear in a quote box.

However, you also want to watch what Black does with his blog. He re-posts freely from other people's articles, and it's not always obvious, though he does give links. You can find yourself re-posting something that is copyright to a page you haven't even visited. Sometimes his sources are questionable - he's only posting the stuff for discussion. One day he posted a paragraph from an article which turned out, in its full version, to be banging on about nano-thermite in the Twin Towers.

I like to use him, as a source, but to check out where he got today's little gem from before getting too excited.

Rolfe.

[Caustic Logic]

Caustic. The two lines on the board are a bit odd. I am not sure if they are pencil marks or lines scored into the board. If they are scores they appear to cut through the two tracks, this is sometimes done to modifiy the circuit.
My first thought was that they were pencil marks made by some one who was going to cut a piece of the board off, maybe forensics ? But surely cutting up bits of evidence would not be allowed

This makes it look even more like cuts - the middle shot is a screen grab of Thurman's photo he had in '91 for the TV news. It's the same as the trial one mostly, but without the labels and in perhaps slightly different shape. The portion above the cut line, upper right here, is darker. Looks almost like a different plane, catching light different, meaning a deep cut and slight bent there. ??
http://i133.photobucket.com/albums/q62/chainsawmoth/127-911/MST-13_3_photos.jpg
Note the missing top portion between Sept 12 (presumably the photo Faraday sent to Williamson) and when Thurman had it. This is something. That ALSO is not supposed to happen, right?

ETA: The bleedin' obvious HACKS!


Unless, I got somethin' wrong...

[Rolfe]

I'm faint, but pursuing. This is beginning to sound something like the case Bollier is making. The problem is that Bollier is a slippery customer with a dubious past in the arms/electronics industry, and his web site on the issue is just one step down from the Time Cube. Some of it is probably translation issues, but the screaming hyperbole, the bright colours and the big bold and capitalised fonts aren't.

First, I think any label that identifies a photograph as being the polaroid taken on 12th September 1989 has to be verified. The narrative says that photo was taken by Feraday, so any label that attributes it to Hayes has to be questionable. I'm still looking for clear evidence the fragment as exhibited actually existed in the system prior to June 1990, as opposed to a trail of evidence being fabricated in retrospect.

In fact, looking at it now, that first picture of the three is a blow-up from the picture we often see of the shirt collar, the bits of plastic (allegedly Toshiba case) and the mystery fragment. The fragment is circled in every version of the picture I've seen.

I don't know the detailed provenance of this picture, when it was supposed to be taken, when it first verifiably appeared in the evidence and so on. I'm not clear that it's the famous 12-9-89 polaroid.

Rolfe.

[Caustic Logic]

Exactly. The ID on that IS just from the caption on the poster, and unltimately I'm only comparing digital info from the internet. But at the very least we have a discrepancy in the versions we can see. Not sure where you know from it had to be Ferraday - the 9/15 letter (http://www.mebocom-defilee.ch/2008/Memo-Feradey.jpg) just says "here are some polaroids." The date Sept 12 is interesting - either based on specific info or some kind of guess...

Another two things about the circled photo is that no scoring/lines are visible. Resolution's not great but I thin lines this bold would show up.The scratches are there not present in the later shots. The top's there. And it's not a blue-tinted photo, and the board looks not so much blue as near black. Brown? More similar to the color I got correcting the PT35b photo to natural paper color - dark dull reddish brown - than to either Thurman's or the trial photo as presented by deBrackeleer, where it look pretty green in the Mebo sense...

[Rolfe]

OK, discrepancies.

The first picture is a detail from the larger shot, with the shirt and the other fragments and the "mystery fragment". I still don't know that this is the actual Feraday polaroid (it's Foot who says Feraday took the polaroid in September because Hayes hadn't photographed it in May), but let's assume it is. I take photographs for possible evidential use all the time, and I agree I'd definitely have taken one like that with all the elements visible, but I'd also try to get a close-up of the interesting fragment itself.

The presence of the circle, apparently drawing attention to which piece is the interesting bit (if it's original), kind of suggests that might not have been done. Also, the narrative always refers to "a" polaroid. It could be because the Polaroid camera didn't have a macro lens and couldn't go in any closer than this. Oh dear. Dammit, how long does it take to scare up a photographer to get this done properly, and then develop the shots? In a place like RAERDE? This is extremely peculiar. It had been lying there for four months, allegedly, since Hayes logged it in May. Would another couple of days make so much difference?

I'm theorising a conspiracy here, between Williams and Thurman, with the active co-operation of Hayes and Feraday, to seed the evidence trail retrospectively with indications that the fragment, actually introduced in June 1990, had been sitting there for a lot longer. You understand I'm not accusing anyone, just trying to see if this hypothesis might fly at all.

If this is the famous polaroid, then I guess the "I didn't have time to do any better" might be a handy cover for not having too sharp a shot. On the other hand, if this was fabricated at a later date, presumably when the fabricated fragment became available, I don't see any special reason for keeping it fuzzy. Odd.

As you say, what's going on at the top of the shot? The fragment seems to have lost an appreciable bit of height by the second and third photos, and the shape of the "1" is also different. It looks more like the third than the second picture, so I suppose it could just be a feature of the angle of the light so far as that goes.

However, if that's the case, and we're picking up the relatively faint detail at the top visible in the third picture, why is there no sign at all of the two quite deep straight cuts visible lower down in the other pictures? Just another trick of the light? Dammit, that's why you take more than one picture from more than one angle, even if all you have is a cruddy Polaroid! And what are those extra lines at the bottom right?

Even just the shape of the top of the fragment, seems to show that they're not exactly the same thing. Could it have been so much diminished while in custody? Where did the cuts/scores come from?

And by the way, the photo with the fragment circled does not appear to be a straight vertical shot of the thing. It's slightly angled. That would actually obscure the discrepancy in height rather than create it.

Very curious.

Rolfe.

[Rolfe]

Second picture, allegedly taken by Thurman in America.

Remember, at the end of Lockerbie Revisited the cops were absolutely adamant that the actual fragment had never left Britain. Except that earlier, Marquise just casually said it had. I note Foot also says the fragment went to America, taken there by Williamson, though I did wonder if he had misunderstood. I note the Court judgement does not state the fragment was taken to the USA.

The Official Story seems to be that someone (Feraday? Williamson?) at some point sent a picture of the fragment to Thurman, who recognised it in June 1990 as part of an MST-13 timer similar to one he had in his possession, recovered from a Libyan agent, and informed Williamson. Williamson and Feraday then went to the USA to examine Thurman's timer board, and agreed it was the same. However, we're being told they did not take the actual fragment with them. Any picture Thurman showed of the fragment would have had to have been the (or a) picture sent to him, not one he took himself, unless he took one when he travelled to England, as I think he did at a later date.

If that picture wasn't shown publicly until 1991, I don't think it can prove anything about what they had in June 1990, quite honestly. If it was a picture dating from June 1990, then if the Official Story is correct, Thurman didn't take it.

Rolfe.

[LONGTABBER PE]

Longtabber, No I cant see how this fragment survived, but I have no knowledge of explosives.

Longtabber what kind of temp would you expect this board to be subjected to if it was at close proximity to the explosives?


David

This is why I love having another electronics guy here.

I dont know if the temp of the bubble has ever been measured but we judge it by what it takes to cut steel ( one of the main demolition uses of these type explosives) so its a close guess but I cant swear its dead on accurate.

The white temp of this family is between 5000 and 7000 degrees F.

In theory ( according to the state) this board has the semtex packed all around it so not only was it in direct contact with this heat but was mechanically held in place and packed inside another case ( which is polystyrene itself)

Its like hitting it and the case with a plasma cutter- thats why my mind wont allow me to accept it.

Even if it did get blown apart- they STILL are in the bubble and totally enveloped, picking up velocity ( melting as they go) so if anything, all you should find is globs of goo

The pieces of that board and radio show no physical evidence of being exposed to such temperature and pressure.

They should of at LEAST been charred, all edges/angles melted, discolored, ashed and all screening and fixturing on the board ripped off.

[Rolfe]

Third picture, the trial exhibit. Is it the same thing as the second picture?

It's certainly a lot more similar than the first and second pictures are to each other. The straight-line scores look identical. However, the top of the pictures show quite striking discrepancies - in some ways, the third picture is more like the first than the second in that particular area. There's also something a bit funny going on at the right-hand side, lower half, as well.

This is extremely confusing. It's difficult to convince myself that it's definitely the same thing. It's possible the discrepancies are caused by different lighting of a reflective surface, but it seems to be a stretch. On the other hand, the similarities are also striking. It could be a very good copy, concentrating on the two straight-line scores, but not quite making it in other respects.

I'm inclined to give lighting the benefit of the doubt here, and day it's the same thing. I wish, though, that we could see the colours properly.

Rolfe.

[Rolfe]

How does all this fit with what Bollier is saying (http://www.lockerbie.ch)?

The crucial evidence for the indictement of Libya, Megrahi and Fhimah; the MST-13 timer planted in Lockerbie originates from Eng. Lumpert's handmade prototype MST-13 timer printed circuit board (PC-board) given via the Swiss police, without Bollier's knowing, to the Scottish police. This handmade brown coloured prototype timer circuit board was not yet operable because no electronic parts were soldered on!

When the Scottish police noticed, after Bollier's personal interview, that they had planted a brown coloured timer (not delivered to Libya), they exchanged one part of Lumpert's MST-13 timer fragment by a fragment fabricated from a machine made green coloured Thüring board, confiscated in Zurich at Thüring. Thüring had delivered green coloured MST-13 timer circuit boards to MEBO which were later installed in the MST-13 timers sold to Libya. All these manipulations can be traced back and are provable beyond any doubt by MEBO, the manufacturer of MST-13 timers.


He's barking, but that doesn't mean he's wrong.

ETA: However, the rest of what he says carries on into the "placed charge" theory, which in the other thread, most of us are finding hard to swallow.

Rolfe.

[LONGTABBER PE]

How does all this fit with what Bollier is saying (http://www.lockerbie.ch)?

He's barking, but that doesn't mean he's wrong.

ETA: However, the rest of what he says carries on into the "placed charge" theory, which in the other thread, most of us are finding hard to swallow.

Rolfe.

Heres the thing ( part of how you set up a review of an expert opinion to start)

There are in fact elements of both present.

The problem here obviously is the lack of the physical evidence to independantly review and the actual tests and their results so you are forced to "wing it". I can assure you that "pictures" ( no matter how good they are) are all but worthless when it comes to examining physical remains unless all you need it a "yeah, thats what it looks like" confirmation.

There are other possibilities as well.

This "hole" could be an anomoly as a result of a solid object ( like maybe a fire extinguisher) becoming a projectile and physically punching thru.

The technology exists now ( and then) to confirm or eliminate both possibilities. I see no indication it was fully utilized. ( yet anyway but still reading)

Then when I read further- things alarm me. Those comments on the comparison tests and the completely ignoring the MS effect ( which is present in every explosion- its not a rogue theory- I used it many times in the Chemical Corps as an instructor in the Nuclear phase doing blast assessments and determining fallout patterns and plotting effects)

[LONGTABBER PE]

This From Robert Black QC blog


Thursday, 24 September 2009
Crown challenged to prove semtex link to Pan Am 103



[A] campaign initiated by the Lockerbie Justice Group ... challenges the Lord Advocate to openly demonstrate that Pan Am 103 could have been brought down by a semtex bomb, under controlled laboratory conditions.

The group state that fabric and circuit board fragments cannot survive a semtex explosion, and accordingly the entire Crown case against Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi falls. In 2007 Ulrich Lumpert of timer company MEBO released an affidavit stating he had manufactured the circuit board “evidence” relied upon by the Crown at the Zeist trial. Earlier this year a report by Dr Ludwig de Braeckeleer concluded that the Crown’s case was “scientifically implausible”.

“The Crown theory utterly depended upon Judges believing that this white-hot sphere with a temperature of 6,800F, travelling in all available directions at 20,000mph did not scorch, never mind totally annihilate, a printed circuit board and a fabric label, which it was able to wholly detach from the shirt. Our group finds this utterly incredible,” the group said.
“We, as members of the concerned Scottish public, invite the Crown to openly demonstrate their theory under controlled laboratory conditions. Either the circuit board survives with its legible ID and soft solder, or it is annihilated in a white-hot gas. In the event of PCB annihilation, we demand a proper and independent committee of inquiry into ‘What brought this plane down?’ Will you please publicly demonstrate your theory, ... Lord Advocate?”

The challenge has been backed by Dr Hans Koechler, who observed the trial [as a UN-appointed observer] and called for a full public inquiry afterwards.

“It is highly important to address this question to the Scottish prosecutor’s office and I shall add my name to such an initiative,” he said.

“It is equally important that an explosives expert with impeccable academic credentials, ideally a University professor from a European country, endorses this initiative or confirms the basic physical facts in writing. Under this condition I can join the initiative.”

De Braeckeleer and researchers at the Centre of Explosives Technology Research in Socorro, New Mexico estimated that up to thirty pounds of explosive was needed to destroy a Boeing 747, if the explosion had occurred in the hold as the Crown claimed

“As the explosion of one pound of Semtex H inside the luggage container does not generate a blast wave sufficiently powerful to fracture the skin of the fuselage, we have little choice but to conclude that the verdict appears scientifically very implausible,” they said.

The group’s initiative is bolstered by the new testimony of former Ferranti electrical engineer Aitken Brotherston, experienced in testing circuitry for use in military applications.

“Although no doubt there have been some advances in the construction of circuit boards the predominance of boards in current use are the same as those I tested. In most cases the boards would happily catch light with a flame source similar to that of a Swan Vesta (...)

“While we did not test them to the 3000 plus degrees C temperatures of a Semtex explosion bright spot, even as an apprentice electronics engineer with Ferranti, my experience at much lower temperatures would persuade me that nothing of the circuit boards would survive that environment.

“The proposal that fragments of the board, of sufficient size to permit identification, packed with the bomb had survived a temperature environment of more than 3000 degree C in the explosion is to me just not credible.

“What it does demonstrate is the extent to which anyone promulgating that theory believes us out here in the real world to be completely stupid.”

I agree 100%

[LONGTABBER PE]

The link is this:
http://lockerbiecase.blogspot.com/2009/09/crown-challenged-to-prove-semtex-link.html
I'd tell you you can insert spaces to circumvent the URL rule, and that's usually allowed. But you'll be past 15 anytime anyway. On first blush, I feel that questioning whether Semtex could do it seems silly. If not, then why did the crown and FBI ever decide on an impossible story? What they seem to be saying is a Semtex bomb would be too strong for the timer to survive but too weak for the plane to die, an alleged epic double-fail of the comedic proportions regularly proposed by 9/11 Truther types. Seems like a wrong track, but the finer points could be argued and should, outside of this thread.



Sadly, it happens all the time for various reasons.

Let me reword the bolded part regarding what they are saying.

They arent saying it wouldnt take the plane out- they are saying the amount and type of explosive believed to be used wouldnt take it out in the manner of all the physical evidence suggests and the state is trying to sell.

Thats a totally different animal.

[Rolfe]

Could we take this to the other thread? I realise it's all linked, but doubts about the suitcase bomb in the baggage container are really best discussed in the other thread.

Rolfe.

[Caustic Logic]

It was a brief derail. :) On Bollier's story, he said it was the photo Thurman showed onTV that made it clear it was Lumpert's brown prototype, and we an see that's "green." And it has solder in it (that is the light stuff in the lines, right?) But, the original circled photo is more brownish/black it seems. Maybe this was shown too in the whole program? BUT, it's the same exact shape as the later shots, AFAICT, other than the hacked top and scores and tint. I know just enough there to be confused, perhaps will sort that out...

As for the circle photo angle, yeah it had to be perspectived and skewed multiple times to fit into the outline. I'm going on the presumption that so long as it's a planar surface, once the corners match up the internal details should too, or vice-versa, so I'm quite confident it's got more at the top than later shots, and a bit less sure the scoring isn't there.

Your theory seems like a good explanation all-in-all. For this part, I wonder if someone investigating realized what a sham this was (unauthorized private swab reveals no residue, etc.) and cut a piece off and hid it away for blackmail. Perhaps scored the corner, pre-perforated to go next 'if you bring this POS back to me again...' They couldn't find an adequate replacement so just shot it like that and hoped no one would notice. That's a pretty wild line of though, just tossing it out there.

I think that's all I'll have time for today. Too bad, tis is sooo interesting now, but I must be good. Family gathering tomorrow and much prep today. Someone Punch me if I come back on here today.

[LONGTABBER PE]

Longtabber, No I cant see how this fragment survived, but I have no knowledge of explosives.


David

David, let me put this into a different perspective

This board is roughly 7cm square- thats roughly 2.750 inches for us metrically challenged people.

A 1lb better bar stick is about the same mass as 1lb of butter at the grocery store.( little bit more)

The explosive was packed in the back of the radio allegedly so its totally reasonable for this board ( assuming it was back up so you didnt pack all in the components soldered to it) was not only covered 100% in physical contact with it but actually enveloped as it was packed in. ( puts it partially INSIDE the whole of the detonation)

Now- in what amounts to 1-2 milli seconds of time at 100% force at all points it was subjected to a fireball between 5000 to 7000 degreesF and engulfed.

Then it expanded at a speed in excess of 20,000 miles per hour.

you tell me

[Rolfe]

David, let me put this into a different perspective

This board is roughly 7cm square- thats roughly 2.750 inches for us metrically challenged people.

A 1lb better bar stick is about the same mass as 1lb of butter at the grocery store.( little bit more)

The explosive was packed in the back of the radio allegedly so its totally reasonable for this board ( assuming it was back up so you didnt pack all in the components soldered to it) was not only covered 100% in physical contact with it but actually enveloped as it was packed in. ( puts it partially INSIDE the whole of the detonation)

Now- in what amounts to 1-2 milli seconds of time at 100% force at all points it was subjected to a fireball between 5000 to 7000 degreesF and engulfed.

Then it expanded at a speed in excess of 20,000 miles per hour.

you tell me


This does lend weight to the suspicion that the bloody thing was a plant. (It's only when the same reasoning starts to declare that there should have been no trace of the Toshiba either that I feel we should be in the other thread.)

Remember the OP? We know Jibril's group have a bunch of ice-cube timers that were (for whatever reason) pre-set to go bang about 38 minutes after a plane took off. So assuming he doesn't really care whether or not he totals Sherwood Crescent, and he's prepared to take the risk that something traceable might be found in the wreckage, it's a logical scenario. At least the barometric portion will ensure that the device will be airborne at cruising altitude when it goes off, regardless of any delays.

However, switch that to a scenario where the perpetrator, whoever he is, finds himself in possession of an MST-13. Completely variable time within about a six-week window. However, no barometric component that we know about.

The target flight is transatlantic. About 8 hours in the air. By the end of the first hour it will just be clearing the British Isles. It then has (guessing here) four or five hours over the Atlantic before again passing over land, and seven before landing. You've lost the barometric component, so you have to be smart with the timer. Planes are never early - or no more than perhaps half an hour they might pick up with a favourable wind. They're often late, especially in winter, and at the rush hour.

The plane is set to leave the stand at 6 o'clock. Might actually take off at ten past. When do you set the timer to go off? Seven o'clock? When it has a foreseeable chance of still being on the ground! Really?

Or maybe you've retained the barometer in the device, so you can at least be sure the plane will be airborne? Would you still fail to take advantage of the possibility of having the plane and all the evidence vanish into the briny, by exploiting the longer time available to you with the digital timer? Oops, that's a moot point if we're still going with the Official Version, because you just exploded the thing over the Med, or maybe Italy, and it's Air Malta who are all upset.

Unless you're getting stupidly complicated, a barometric device must have been loaded at Heathrow, which blows the Official Verson out of the water immediately. And anyone with half a brain using a timer-only device (which could in fact be loaded in Malta or Frankfurt) would set it for several hours later than 7pm, to allow for delays which are far from unlikely.

Which is why that bloody timer fragment simply should not be there.

Rolfe.

[LONGTABBER PE]

This does lend weight to the suspicion that the bloody thing was a plant. (It's only when the same reasoning starts to declare that there should have been no trace of the Toshiba either that I feel we should be in the other thread.)

Remember the OP? We know Jibril's group have a bunch of ice-cube timers that were (for whatever reason) pre-set to go bang about 38 minutes after a plane took off. So assuming he doesn't really care whether or not he totals Sherwood Crescent, and he's prepared to take the risk that something traceable might be found in the wreckage, it's a logical scenario. At least the barometric portion will ensure that the device will be airborne at cruising altitude when it goes off, regardless of any delays.

However, switch that to a scenario where the perpetrator, whoever he is, finds himself in possession of an MST-13. Completely variable time within about a six-week window. However, no barometric component that we know about.

The target flight is transatlantic. About 8 hours in the air. By the end of the first hour it will just be clearing the British Isles. It then has (guessing here) four or five hours over the Atlantic before again passing over land, and seven before landing. You've lost the barometric component, so you have to be smart with the timer. Planes are never early - or no more than perhaps half an hour they might pick up with a favourable wind. They're often late, especially in winter, and at the rush hour.

The plane is set to leave the stand at 6 o'clock. Might actually take off at ten past. When do you set the timer to go off? Seven o'clock? When it has a foreseeable chance of still being on the ground! Really?

Or maybe you've retained the barometer in the device, so you can at least be sure the plane will be airborne? Would you still fail to take advantage of the possibility of having the plane and all the evidence vanish into the briny, by exploiting the longer time available to you with the digital timer? Oops, that's a moot point if we're still going with the Official Version, because you just exploded the thing over the Med, or maybe Italy, and it's Air Malta who are all upset.

Unless you're getting stupidly complicated, a barometric device must have been loaded at Heathrow, which blows the Official Verson out of the water immediately. And anyone with half a brain using a timer-only device (which could in fact be loaded in Malta or Frankfurt) would set it for several hours later than 7pm, to allow for delays which are far from unlikely.

Which is why that bloody timer fragment simply should not be there.

Rolfe.

Here is a question I hit on earlier but I think the significance was overlooked by those who dont work in electronics. I'm going to be a little vague here as not to give workable instructions on how to build such a device so dont call my hand on that part.

First, a timer is just a timer- the entire term is a colloquial inaccuracy


Timers just time- nothing more. You need a timer CIRCUIT to do anything.

That would HAVE to include an INPUT to tell it when to start ( be it an on/off switch, sensor of any kind)- then you have to tell it when to TIME OUT. ( it has to know to do "something" as some setpoint or it will time to infinity) then you have to have some kind of trigger relay the timer sends the output signal to to trigger detonation voltate to the detonator. ( usually 1.5 VDC min)

Thats the detonation circuit whish is usually much higher voltate/current than the control circuit. ( it usually throws full voltage as its DC to account for resistance over run to ensure the detonator fires)

I want to know ( preferably the builder print or schematic) of this board to know EXACTLY what its DESIGN purpose was and inputs/outputs were.

The electronics people here know what I'm asking and why. I dont see the complete circuit in that picture or enough I/O. ( dont hold me to that because the pic is very fuzzy)

Whats this talk of an "icecube" timer? this device is NOT an icecube device. ( google icecube relay or timer and see- those are normally analog deviced with contact points and sometimes pots)

This whole board theory could be a red herring IF this complete circuit wasnt capable of all that. I want to know what that EPROM chip was or was it hard coded.

Certainly this information was requested by the experts to substantiate the device in question was even capable of doing what its claimed without extreme modification.

If it required so much modification ( other side of the coin)- it wouldnt have been used in the first place. ( too much effort to result ratio when simpler an untracable devices are everywhere)

[Rolfe]

Also, the narrative always refers to "a" polaroid. [....] why is there no sign at all of the two quite deep straight cuts visible lower down in the other pictures? Just another trick of the light? Dammit, that's why you take more than one picture from more than one angle, even if all you have is a cruddy Polaroid!


OK, I've read the primary memo now. He does say "some polaroids".

Even assuming the photo with the shirt collar and other debris is one of them, I wish we could see the others to ascertain if there is any evidence of these scores, and if the top of the "1" really is so different from the later pictures.

I note that Feraday is very clear that the item is GREEN, at the time of the polaroids. The Court judgement also implies that Hayes recorded it as being green on that infamous page 51, back in May.

However, that's the picture Caustic Logic thinks actually shows a brown board. Bollier and Lumpert both insist that the original planted version was brown. They also say the edges of the cut-out corners were rougher than in the green versions.

I'm not too concerned by the detail in Bollier's accounts, which picture he thinks he saw first and so on. However, is there any mileage in the claim that the fragment was substituted at some stage? I'm honestly not sure.

Here's de Braeckeleer's account of what Lumpert is alleging (http://www.firmmagazine.com/features/546/Lockerbie:_J%27accuse__-_by_Dr_Ludwig_de_Braeckeleer.html). Here's another of his articles (http://english.ohmynews.com/articleview/article_view.asp?menu=c10400&no=380264&rel_no=1), which goes into more detail about what Bollier thinks he saw.

My head hurts. There's evidence suggestive in both directions. And Bollier is not a reliable witness.

Rolfe.

[Rolfe]

Whats this talk of an "icecube" timer? this device is NOT an icecube device. ( google icecube relay or timer and see- those are normally analog deviced with contact points and sometimes pots)


I'm sorry I haven't made myself clear about the ice cube timer. Of course that device is not an ice cube timer. That is the actual point.

I'm not sure I can make myself any clearer. Perhaps it would be worth while your reading the other commentary sources who have explained why, if any timing device were (perhaps miraculously) to be recovered from this explosion, it would have been expected to be an ice-cube timer connected to an aneroid barometer, set to trigger the bomb 30 minutes after the atmospheric pressure had dropped to 940Mb, and not an MST-13.

You are saying the presence of the MST-13 is anomalous because you would have expected the entire board to have been vaporised. I am saying the presence of an MST-13 is anomalous because the timing of the explosion (and other pieces of information) would lead one to expect any fragment of timer which miraculously survived to have been an ice-cube device, not an MST-13.

ETA: OK, it's de Braeckeleer again (http://english.ohmynews.com/articleview/article_view.asp?menu=c10400&no=384524&rel_no=1), I couldn't find the picture I was originally looking for (the one in Paul Foot's report), but it's the same thing.

http://image.ohmynews.com/down/images/1/todd_384524_1%5B673869%5D.jpg

This is the sort of device which would have triggered the bomb if the attack had been carried out by Jibril's group. This would have incorporated a barometer, to ensure that the countdown didn't start until the plane had reached cruising altitude (so eliminating problems relating to late take-offs), but then it would have exploded about 30 minutes later.

The timing of the crash makes sense within this scenario. However, an ice-cube device was not found (perhaps unsurprisingly, given the nature of the explosion). An MST-13 was, however. The timing of the crash does not make sense within the scenario of the bombers having used an MST-13.

Rolfe.

[Dan O.]

From what I can see of the relay shown on the MST-13, it looks like a little version of a standard coil and plate relay. This is not something I would expect any terrorist into self preservation would use. It wouldn't take much shock at all to close the contacts. Maybe it's just a poor photo of a much better relay.


Someone asked about the inputs/outputs of the MST-13: That "1" pad and the horizontal pad under it are the NO and NC contacts on the relay. The horizontal bar on the left is the common terminal. One side of the relay coil connects to the small pad just right of the common pad. The other side of the coil is the right most pad in the group of three directly below. Power input to the board is on the heavy traces below the slide switch on the right. Of interest though, one side of the relay doesn't connect directly to the timer but goes to an isolated pad. This would be where a safety device such as a barometric switch could be installed without telling the manufacturer what the intended use would be. This would then connect to the switched power on the left of the set of three pads.

[Dan O.]

To explain the condition of the fragment, it may have been folded against the body of the relay by the initial blast wave. The relay body would then protect the face of the chip during the blast while the heat rises enough to melt the solder. When the chip releases from the relay leads, the subsequent sudden deceleration upon impact with other objects would dislocate any solder remaining on the pad.

As for those scratches mysteriously appearing on the chip after the initial photo, these are much deeper than you have imagined. In order to examine the cross section of the piece for identification of the material, it must be cleanly cut through a good part of the board. They need to make two cuts at right angles to map the orientation of the fibers in the epoxy board. Obviously some of the documentation for this chip is not present or this would have been explained.

BTW, Here's a book that might be usefull for the class: Forensic Investigation of Explosions By Alexander Beveridge (http://books.google.com/books?id=pZFrU_JFRZsC) (Especially chapter 13: "Evidence of Explosive Damage to Materials in Air Crash Investigations")

[Rolfe]

From what I can see of the relay shown on the MST-13, it looks like a little version of a standard coil and plate relay. This is not something I would expect any terrorist into self preservation would use. It wouldn't take much shock at all to close the contacts. Maybe it's just a poor photo of a much better relay.


Um, you realise the photo of the complete board all made up with components (and its corners still on) is just a similar board from somewhere else being shown for comparison? I don't think we know what might or might not have been soldered to the board recovered at Lockerbie.

Someone asked about the inputs/outputs of the MST-13: That "1" pad and the horizontal pad under it are the NO and NC contacts on the relay. The horizontal bar on the left is the common terminal. One side of the relay coil connects to the small pad just right of the common pad. The other side of the coil is the right most pad in the group of three directly below. Power input to the board is on the heavy traces below the slide switch on the right. Of interest though, one side of the relay doesn't connect directly to the timer but goes to an isolated pad. This would be where a safety device such as a barometric switch could be installed without telling the manufacturer what the intended use would be. This would then connect to the switched power on the left of the set of three pads.


So it would have been possible to have incorporated a barometer if the bombers had wanted to do that? Incorporation of a barometer would solve one problem (timing of the explosion) but create another (point of entry into the baggage handling system).

If the complete device had a barometer (and we're not surprised nobody found one because it's a miracle that fragment of circuit board survived), then the time of detonation isn't senseless. It wouldn't have mattered how long the plane was delayed, it woudln't have exploded until it was airborne. (We know that's the game Jibril's group were playing, because a number of their devices were seized.)

However, if it had a barometer, it's almost inescapable that the device was introduced to the system at Heathrow. Otherwise, it would simply have exploded at the pre-set time after the Air Malta flight left Luqa.

OK, I'm sure someone can figure out some way it might be possible to rig a device to remain inert during the first two legs of the flight, and only to be activated after the take-off from Heathrow. A BBC article which seems to be entirely mistaken and operating from a number of wrong premises does postulate a barometric device which can count how many times it has taken off, however such a modus operandi has never been postulated by anyone investigating Lockerbie, and I'm not aware of any record of a terrorist group possessing or using such a device.

I can't get past the logic. Timer-only device, may have been introduced anywhere in the system, with any number of preliminary legs, but would have been set to explode much later than 7pm. Barometric device (irrespective of the model of timer used), may have been set to explode early in the flight, but almost inevitably would have had to be introduced at Heathrow.

Rolfe.

[Rolfe]

As for those scratches mysteriously appearing on the chip after the initial photo, these are much deeper than you have imagined. In order to examine the cross section of the piece for identification of the material, it must be cleanly cut through a good part of the board. They need to make two cuts at right angles to map the orientation of the fibers in the epoxy board. Obviously some of the documentation for this chip is not present or this would have been explained.


Now that's making a lot of sense. Looking at Caustic Logic's three pictures last night, I was coming to the conclusion that the most elegant and rational way to explain it all was that it was all the same chip, but it had been defaced/altered by the forensic examination.

You are allowed to mess with the evidence. I do forensic post mortem work, and I might as well pack up and go home if nobody will let me cut up the body! The key is first, to photograph everything before you start, and second, to keep all the bits, no matter how dismembered they may be by the time you've finished. I wouldn't expect a layman to know the difference between a stab wound and a cut I made myself, but another pathologist would know. I suspect all this was done, but not all the sequence of photographs, or the explanation, has made it into the public domain.

The doubts about the timer fragment in no way depend on the Bollier/Lumpert assertion that the fragment was switched. Lumpert's "confession" actually just makes it all far too complicated. If they really found a fragment in the wreckage, but it was brown (which would not be traceable to Libya), then one might just possible suggest that someone did a switcheroo at some stage with a fabricated green fragment faked up to look like the original brown one. However, suggesting that they (Thurman?) stupidly used the wrong colour of board when constructing the original fabrication, then had to substitute this with another one of the right colour, again faked up to look like the real fake, is a bridge too far for me.

There were quite a few of the green boards, and they were known to be traceable to Libya. That's what this is all supposed to be about. Thurman had (at least) one of the green boards, obtained from a Libyan agent. Even Bollier's theory suggests that he got hold of another green one later, to create the second fake. The idea that all he could get his hands on in June 1990 was a brown one that he'd obtained from Lumpert via Fluckiger seems quite far-fetched to me.

Rolfe.

[Guybrush Threepwood]

BTW, Here's a book that might be usefull for the class: Forensic Investigation of Explosions By Alexander Beveridge (http://books.google.com/books?id=pZFrU_JFRZsC) (Especially chapter 13: "Evidence of Explosive Damage to Materials in Air Crash Investigations")

Well, Google and the publishers have clearly been got at, since you actually have to buy the book to read that chapter. The NWO is oppressing our investigation!!

Of the bits you can read for free, pp 109-110 are interesting, it describes investigation protocols, and comments that parts of the original device are key pieces of evidence to find, although they may be small and may not look exactly like they did before the explosion. What he doesn't say is that there is no point looking for these if the bomb was a high explosive, because they would have been vapourised.

Assuming that the book is reputable, and coupled with the fact no explosives expert has come out in the past 20 years and said that nothing can survive within x cm of a high explosive detonation, I'm still stuck with the opinion that it is plausible that the timer fragment as well as other fragments are genuine.
It doesn't mean the timer fragment couldn't have been planted. But it does mean it didn't have to be.

[Dan O.]

Google is still giving me access to all of chapter 13 and some other pages. Check the Chapter link at the top of the preview page. You might also try clearing any cookies from that Google site and search for the chapter title.


I remember from one episode of Mythbusters where they blew something up with high explosives, they discovered part of the detonator. The expert said that it was common to find such parts.


Other references to explosive demolition talk about the steel being shattered and not melted[link (http://oai.dtic.mil/oai/oai?verb=getRecord&metadataPrefix=html&identifier=AD0479244)]. There is the Monrow effect (mentioned in this thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=103638)) that causes some melting but not for large objects. Although the detonation temperature is quite high, the contact time is very short (measured in micro-seconds) so there is little heat transfered, For small objects, the object itself is accelerated away from the blast faster than it can be melted by the heat.

[Dan O.]

There were quite a few of the green boards, and they were known to be traceable to Libya. That's what this is all supposed to be about. Thurman had (at least) one of the green boards, obtained from a Libyan agent. Even Bollier's theory suggests that he got hold of another green one later, to create the second fake. The idea that all he could get his hands on in June 1990 was a brown one that he'd obtained from Lumpert via Fluckiger seems quite far-fetched to me.

I thought he was able to get the brown prototypes and the artwork (need to check that to be sure). From that, any number of boards in any color you want could be produced at any time.

The MST-13 timer fragment is the perfect plantable evidence. You have a device that you can pinpoint when and where it was manufactured and who it was sold to. With such a limited run, There is no possibility of any other agency identifying the piece until you decide to play it. It could be planted any time as a hole card to be played when the need arises. It's discovery in the debris can be dismissed as just another unidentified foreign object until it is positively identified as a piece of a Libyan timer.

[LONGTABBER PE]

Guys, this is what happens when one quotes google and does wiki-chun when they dont know all the ins and outs. Its the details that make the difference.

If you want to compare them- you have to make sure the differences and conditions match

I'm not sure I can make myself any clearer. Perhaps it would be worth while your reading the other commentary sources who have explained why, if any timing device were (perhaps miraculously) to be recovered from this explosion, it would have been expected to be an ice-cube timer connected to an aneroid barometer, set to trigger the bomb 30 minutes after the atmospheric pressure had dropped to 940Mb, and not an MST-13.

That chip was the timer ( standard 555 set up) so the entire idea of an icecube anything is a red herring

A barometer is a SWITCH. Its either NO or NC and does whatever when its presseure is reached. Thats all it does- thats all it can do.

Thats why it cant be analog from the information claimed.

Read above and understand it

[Dan O.]

So it would have been possible to have incorporated a barometer if the bombers had wanted to do that? Incorporation of a barometer would solve one problem (timing of the explosion) but create another (point of entry into the baggage handling system).

With a barometric switch in series with the relay coil, the device will not trigger until after the preset time AND the device is at altitude. It can be injected into the system anywhere. The greatest risk is if one of the flights is late it could have gone off on the earlier hop but not on the ground.

However, if it had a barometer, it's almost inescapable that the device was introduced to the system at Heathrow. Otherwise, it would simply have exploded at the pre-set time after the Air Malta flight left Luqa.

A typical barometric switch would reset itself once it dropped below the set altitude. Otherwise there would be no way to test the calibration.


OK, I'm sure someone can figure out some way it might be possible to rig a device to remain inert during the first two legs of the flight, and only to be activated after the take-off from Heathrow. A BBC article which seems to be entirely mistaken and operating from a number of wrong premises does postulate a barometric device which can count how many times it has taken off, however such a modus operandi has never been postulated by anyone investigating Lockerbie, and I'm not aware of any record of a terrorist group possessing or using such a device.

Possible and actually quite easy. Although it looks like the barometric switch is in series with the relay coil and therefore passively connected to the timer, that configuration can actually provide an input to the timer micro-controller. In the world of micro-controllers, the distinction between input and output is often just a convention for a given usage. There are also programmable replacements for special function chips that are used by the engineers to prototype new designs. From there it is simply a little programming to count the ups and downs.

We don't have the actual chips from the timer so there is no way to say for certain what it was programmed to do. But the simple timer with a series pressure switch is sufficient for the task so it's not necessary to speculate about anything more complex.

[LONGTABBER PE]

With a barometric switch in series with the relay coil, the device will not trigger until after the preset time AND the device is at altitude. It can be injected into the system anywhere. The greatest risk is if one of the flights is late it could have gone off on the earlier hop but not on the ground.



A typical barometric switch would reset itself once it dropped below the set altitude. Otherwise there would be no way to test the calibration.




Possible and actually quite easy. Although it looks like the barometric switch is in series with the relay coil and therefore passively connected to the timer, that configuration can actually provide an input to the timer micro-controller. In the world of micro-controllers, the distinction between input and output is often just a convention for a given usage. There are also programmable replacements for special function chips that are used by the engineers to prototype new designs. From there it is simply a little programming to count the ups and downs.

We don't have the actual chips from the timer so there is no way to say for certain what it was programmed to do. But the simple timer with a series pressure switch is sufficient for the task so it's not necessary to speculate about anything more complex.

The problem is, they are all speculation and all correct unless the original board/circuit is known ( there are infinite ways to do this)

[Rolfe]

That chip was the timer ( standard 555 set up) so the entire idea of an icecube anything is a red herring


Er, could I draw your attention to the title of the thread? Was the MST-13 timer fragment planted?

If you've decided that the MST-13 timer was the timer that triggered the explosion, you've already answered that in the negative.

I'm speculating that the MST-13 timer fragment was planted, and something else actually triggered the explosion. Like an ice-cube timer.

Rolfe.

[Rolfe]

I thought he was able to get the brown prototypes and the artwork (need to check that to be sure). From that, any number of boards in any color you want could be produced at any time.

The MST-13 timer fragment is the perfect plantable evidence. You have a device that you can pinpoint when and where it was manufactured and who it was sold to. With such a limited run, There is no possibility of any other agency identifying the piece until you decide to play it. It could be planted any time as a hole card to be played when the need arises. It's discovery in the debris can be dismissed as just another unidentified foreign object until it is positively identified as a piece of a Libyan timer.


I'm just commenting that this is a very interesting observation. Come back to it later.

Rolfe.

[LONGTABBER PE]

Er, could I draw your attention to the title of the thread? Was the MST-13 timer fragment planted?

If you've decided that the MST-13 timer was the timer that triggered the explosion, you've already answered that in the negative.

I'm speculating that the MST-13 timer fragment was planted, and something else actually triggered the explosion. Like an ice-cube timer.

Rolfe.

If you want to get that literal and black and white- I agree

The alleged timer fragment was planted- I'm very comfortable with that now ( for many reasons)

That destroys the states case right there ( and it should)