Was the "bomb suitcase" in PA103 a fabrication or mistake? [Archive]

Rolfe

24th September 2009, 05:46 AM

Longtabber's next post, and I think we can take it from there.

If anyone has said anything about this aspect earlier in the other thread and wants to copy it over, please do that.

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

Rolfe.

Rolfe

24th September 2009, 06:06 AM

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.

I believe there was at least one trial done where an actual 747 was blown up on a runway to see exactly what happened when the assumed amount of Semtex was detonated in the assumed place.

I'm afraid there's so much information here that I haven't read everything in detail. I didn't pay a huge amount of attention to the evidence that the bomb was in a Toshiba in a suitcase with Gauci's clothes in luggage container AVE 4041 in the forward hold, because I didn't think it was disputed.

Obviously, your observations seem to suggest this evidence needs closer scrutiny.

Rolfe.

Guybrush Threepwood

24th September 2009, 06:38 AM

There are several possible scenarios here, none of which I find compelling:

The bomb was in the cargo container, but in another suitcase:

Then faking the whole Maltese connection/babygro stuff seems like a very stupid and complex way to blame Libya

The bomb was in the container but not in a suitcase:

I'm not a terrorist, but this seems like a dodgy way to put a bomb on a plane, anything that isn't a suitcase in a cargo container is likely to be looked at closely and removed, so unless you suborn all the heathrow baggage handlers it's very risky

The bomb was outside the baggage container, and closer to the skin of the plane.

This means the AAIB report is fake, again you would have to get an unfeasibly large number of people in on the conspiracy.

The weaknesses with the official version are, as far as I can see:

Too much survived the blast unvapourised:

As Longtabber has pointed out, explosions are complex. If there is any rigourous analysis out there demonstrating that no cloth or paper can ever survive within ~30cm of 1lb of exploding Semtex or TNT then that would be significant.

That much Semtex couldn't blow a hole in a plane from 60cm away

De Braekeleer is the only source for this, and the key part of his proof is in a paper behind a paywall.

The AAIB report got their sums wrong when calculating the bomb's distance from the plane skin

This looks like a fair cop, but a simpler possibility is that they did not account for enough variables in the Mach Stem analysis, I didn't see any error bars on their estimate.

None of the alternatives seems to present a better solution to what brought the plane down, and it seems the simplest intelligence fit up would be to accurately analyse the cause of the explosion, then use a couple of key pieces of fake evidence; bought or co-erced identifications and a piece of pcb to get the guilty party you want.

The official story isn't watertight by any means, but I think it takes the CT mindset of "If the official story has even one punctuation error, then what really happened must have been a hugely complex CT", to really doubt it.

Rolfe

24th September 2009, 06:41 AM

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.

I'm not entirely certain this is inconsistent with the suitcase theory, but it does raise again the question of placing, which is obviously crucial, but which I hadn't given much thought to previously. It was always acknowledged by the investigators that the suitcase had been placed exactly where it would do most damage, and this was attributed to "bad luck" (that pesky coincidence again).

However, if it's correct that 450g Semtex wouldn't breach a plane's hull unless it were close to the skin, then would you just send your suitcase off on a three-hop journey, trusting to luck that the baggage handlers at Heathrow would fortuitously put it exactly where you wanted it? When in fact the higher probability was that it would end up quite some way from the hull, with most of the explosion absorbed by other people's pyjamas?

The Official Version has the bag arriving on PA103A from Frankfurt, unaccompanied, and being loaded with the rest of that luggage into Maid of the Seas at Heathrow.

The bags on PA103A were loose-loaded, and they were transferred to PA103 on some sort of conveyor system. However, the luggage on PA103 wasn't loose-loaded, it was loaded in pre-packed containers. The container we're talking about was this baby, AVE 4041.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/1120000/images/_1120218_baggagecontainer150.jpg

At Heathrow this container had about half a dozen bags already in it before PA103A landed. These were from other airlines' flights which had arrived earlier, with passengers booked on PA103. However, there were also two mystery suitcases which appeared in the container while the baggage handler was on his break, one of which was a brown Samsonite hardshell, corresponding to the description of the (alleged) bomb suitcase.

Here is the description of that from the court judgement (http://www.labelletrial.de/lockerbie/2.html). (The subsequent paragraphs are also relevant.)

[22] On 21 December 1988 the x-ray operator was Sulkash Kamboj. John Bedford, a loader-driver employed by PanAm, and Mr Parmar, another PanAm employee were working in the interline shed. Mr Bedford set aside container AVE 4041 to receive interline baggage for PA103. The container was identified as the container for PA103 by Mr Bedford who wrote the information on a sheet which was placed in a holder fixed to the container. A number of items were placed in that container. Later Mr Bedford drove the container to a position near the baggage build-up area and left it there. From there, the container was taken out to stand K16, and baggage for New York unloaded from PA103A was loaded into it. The incoming plane carried baggage loose in its hold, not in containers. The evidence of Mr Bedford together with that of Peter Walker, a supervisor in the baggage build-up area, and Darshan Sandhu, a chief loader, and with the container build-up sheet (production 1217), shows that container AVE 4041 contained both interline baggage which had been placed in it in the interline shed, and baggage unloaded from PA103A. When it was full, container AVE 4041 was driven directly to stand 14 and loaded into the hold. The evidence of Terence Crabtree, another driver-loader employed by PanAm, who was the crew chief for the loading of PA103, together with the load plan (production 1183), shows that the container was loaded in position 14 left, which corresponds to the position established by the forensic evidence. The plan also shows that container AVN 7511 was loaded in the adjacent position 21 left, again corresponding to the forensic evidence. There was also some baggage from PA103A which was loaded loose into the hold of PA103.

[23] Mr Bedford said that he recalled that on 21 December 1988 he had set aside container AVE 4041 for baggage for PA103. He recalled also that he had placed a number of suitcases in the container. These cases were placed on their spines in a row along the back of the container. He said that he had left the interline shed to have a cup of tea with Mr Walker in the build-up area. On his return, he saw that two cases had been added to the container. These cases were laid on their sides, with the handles towards the interior of the container, in the way that he would normally have loaded them. The arrangement of these cases was shown in a set of photographs (production 1114) taken in early January 1989 in Mr Bedford's presence. Mr Bedford said that he had been told by Mr Kamboj that he had placed the additional two suitcases in the container during his absence. Mr Kamboj denied that he had placed any suitcases in the container and denied also that he had told Mr Bedford that he had done so. Both witnesses were referred to a number of police statements which they gave at various times and to their evidence at the Fatal Accident Inquiry into the disaster, and it appears that each of the witnesses has consistently given the same account throughout. Mr Kamboj eventually conceded in evidence, in a half-hearted way, that what Mr Bedford said might be correct, but the contradiction is not resolved. Mr Bedford was a clear and impressive witness and he had no reason to invent what he said. Mr Kamboj was a less impressive witness, and he might have been anxious to avoid any possible responsibility. In our view, the evidence of Mr Bedford should be preferred on this point. The difference between the witnesses is not, however, material since for the purposes of this case what is important is that there is evidence that when the container left the interline area it had in it the two suitcases positioned as described above. Mr Bedford agreed that in statements to police officers and in evidence at the Fatal Accident Inquiry he had described one of the two cases lying on their sides as a brown or maroony-brown hardshell Samsonite-type case. He could not recollect that when he gave evidence in this case, but said that he had told the truth in his statements and earlier evidence. Mr Bedford also said that he had arranged with Mr Walker that because the incoming flight PA103A was a little delayed, and to wait for it would take him beyond his normal finishing time, he should take the container to the baggage build-up area and leave it there, and that he did so before leaving work soon after 5.00pm. Mr Walker could not recall what had happened, but accepted that he had told investigating police officers soon after the event that he recalled seeing Mr Bedford at about 5.00pm and that Mr Bedford had said that he was going home, but that there was no conversation about leaving a container at the build-up area. Mr Walker's evidence at the FAI in regard to whether or not he was aware of a container being brought to the build-up area differed from his original police statement and he was unable to explain the difference. There is, however, no reason to doubt Mr Bedford's evidence that he did take AVE 4041 to the build-up area and leave it there.

[24] It emerges from the evidence therefore that a suitcase which could fit the forensic description of the primary suitcase was in the container when it left the interline shed. There is also a possibility that an extraneous suitcase could have been introduced by being put onto the conveyor belt outside the interline shed, or introduced into the shed itself or into the container when it was at the build-up area. To achieve that, the person placing the suitcase would have had to avoid being detected, but the evidence indicates that a person in possession of a pass for the airside area would not be likely to be challenged, and there were a very large number of passes issued for Heathrow, a substantial number of which were not accounted for. The person placing the suitcase would also have required to know where to put it to achieve the objective.

You may wonder, given this evidence, why the judges determined that the bomb suitcase had been introduced at Luqa and come in on PA103A - I wonder that myself. In addition, there was additional evidence not presented at the trial (and there is some dispute as to whether it was deliberately withheld) that a break-in occurred at Heathrow on the evening of 20th December, giving access to the airside area in question - a padlock was discovered sawn through.

Rolfe.

Rolfe

24th September 2009, 06:58 AM

The bomb was outside the baggage container, and closer to the skin of the plane.

This means the AAIB report is fake, again you would have to get an unfeasibly large number of people in on the conspiracy.

[....]
The AAIB report got their sums wrong when calculating the bomb's distance from the plane skin

This looks like a fair cop, but a simpler possibility is that they did not account for enough variables in the Mach Stem analysis, I didn't see any error bars on their estimate.

I may be misunderstanding here, perhaps you can clarify.

I think de Braeckeleer is suggesting that the bomb was outside the container, closer to the skin of the aircraft. I think he's concluding that from the sums the AAIB report got wrong, in that the correct sums placed the explosion only (I think) 10 inches from the skin, which is outside the confines of the baggage container. He's suggesting that the entire chain of inference was based on the incorrect calculation, and that if they'd done the sums right in the first place, they would have realised that the bomb could not have been loaded in a suitcase.

I would like to know what Longtabber thinks of that theory. I can see from the first post above that he's favouring the "placed charge" version.

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.

However, in this context there's quite a bit of difference between 10 inches and 2 to 3 feet. The former is difficult to locate in the baggage container, while the latter is not. My suggestion is that the suitcase wasn't randomly chucked in the container by the crew unloading PA103A, but was deliberately placed in the container at an earlier stage by someone who knew exactly where to put it, who then only had to hope it didn't get moved, or moved too muich, after that.

I think the collected luggage debris was analysed very carefully indeed, and at the moment I think it unlikely that a mistake was made when coming to the conclusion that the bomb was in the radio in the suitcase as described. While I'm very interested in what Longtabber has to say, I think we have too look at the entirety of the primary evidence and the conclusions drawn from it before asserting that the conclusions are impossible.

Rolfe.

Guybrush Threepwood

24th September 2009, 07:10 AM

The bomb was outside the baggage container, and closer to the skin of the plane.

This means the AAIB report is fake, again you would have to get an unfeasibly large number of people in on the conspiracy.

[....]
The AAIB report got their sums wrong when calculating the bomb's distance from the plane skin

This looks like a fair cop, but a simpler possibility is that they did not account for enough variables in the Mach Stem analysis, I didn't see any error bars on their estimate.

I may be misunderstanding here, perhaps you can clarify.

I think de Braeckeleer is suggesting that the bomb was outside the container, closer to the skin of the aircraft. I think he's concluding that from the sums the AAIB report got wrong, in that the correct sums placed the explosion only (I think) 10 inches from the skin, which is outside the confines of the baggage container. He's suggesting that the entire chain of inference was based on the incorrect calculation, and that if they'd done the sums right in the first place, they would have realised that the bomb could not have been loaded in a suitcase.

My reading of the AAIB report, including the appendices is that all their analysis pointed to the bomb being in a suitcase in the luggage container, e.g. bits of Toshiba in the plane skin, luggage container blown up from the inside out etc. Appendix G then says that Mach Stem analysis shows the bomb was 25" from the skin, exactly the same distance as their other evidence placed the bomb, everything ties up nicely. If the Mach Stem analysis disagrees with the rest, that's a problem, but it could just mean the Mach Stem analysis is wrong.

I would like to know what Longtabber thinks of that theory. I can see from the first post above that he's favouring the "placed charge" version.

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.

However, in this context there's quite a bit of difference between 10 inches and 2 to 3 feet. The former is difficult to locate in the baggage container, while the latter is not. My suggestion is that the suitcase wasn't randomly chucked in the container by the crew unloading PA103A, but was deliberately placed in the container at an earlier stage by someone who knew exactly where to put it, who then only had to hope it didn't get moved, or moved too muich, after that.

I think the collected luggage debris was analysed very carefully indeed, and at the moment I think it unlikely that a mistake was made when coming to the conclusion that the bomb was in the radio in the suitcase as described. While I'm very interested in what Longtabber has to say, I think we have too look at the entirety of the primary evidence and the conclusions drawn from it before asserting that the conclusions are impossible.I agree with the italics, if the bomb was outside the container, all the investigators would have had to agree to ignore evidence showing that, as well as the fact you would need a plausible way for someone to attach a bomb to the inside of the plane without anyone noticing.

LONGTABBER PE

24th September 2009, 07:41 AM

I would like to know what Longtabber thinks of that theory. I can see from the first post above that he's favouring the "placed charge" version.

However, in this context there's quite a bit of difference between 10 inches and 2 to 3 feet. The former is difficult to locate in the baggage container, while the latter is not. My suggestion is that the suitcase wasn't randomly chucked in the container by the crew unloading PA103A, but was deliberately placed in the container at an earlier stage by someone who knew exactly where to put it, who then only had to hope it didn't get moved, or moved too muich, after that.

While I'm very interested in what Longtabber has to say, I think we have too look at the entirety of the primary evidence and the conclusions drawn from it before asserting that the conclusions are impossible.

Rolfe.

he's favouring the "placed charge" version.

At the moment yes but its a 51-49%- hardly something to stand on. What I'm hunting for is more information on this hole.

Bear in mind, to me the term "placed charge" probably has a different meaning- what I think you are talking about is just a charge put in a specific place.

However, in this context there's quite a bit of difference between 10 inches and 2 to 3 feet.

Thats what she said

My suggestion is that the suitcase wasn't randomly chucked in the container by the crew unloading PA103A, but was deliberately placed in the container at an earlier stage by someone who knew exactly where to put it,

The question is- is the suspect location a place where luggage just couldnt have gotten to randomly

Rolfe

24th September 2009, 07:54 AM

I'm trying to reconcile de Braeckeleer with Longtabber here, and I don't think it's too difficult. I think de Braekeleer's conclusions are suspect.

Just for a bit of ad-hom, de Braeckeleer has also asserted that an ice-cube timer triggered device would never explode if placed in the baggage hold, which I believe is nonsense, and that an airliner flying from Frankfurt to Heathrow would not ascend to 34,000 feet, or high enough to trigger an ice-cube timer, which I also believe to be nonsense. So I wouldn't find it surprising if his conclusions from the Mach Stem Effect calculations were faulty.

The distance of 10 inches favoured by de Braeckeleer really does put the whole thing in the melting point, because it would pretty much have to be outside the baggage container. And yet, the rest of the evidence supporting the theory that the bomb was among the luggage is so strong, it would take a lot to knock it down as far as I can see.

In contrast, Longtabber seems to be assigning that 450g of Semtex a lot more destructive power than de Braeckeleer is, and thus allowing a greater distance between the charge and the skin of the plane. This would allow the charge to be inside the luggage container. His objections to the suitcase theory seem to be different, essentially that there was too much evidence to be compatible with stuff that was so close to such a powerful explosion.

My suggestion as regards the "placed charge" observation is that the charge could well have been placed, by the person who placed the suitcase in the baggage container. Remember, these containers where shaped to fit closely to the curvature of the hull of the plane (to maximise the use of space), therefore it would indeed be possible to predict pretty exactly where in the plane a case placed in a particular part of a container would go.

(I can't believe the judges ignored all this evidence, in contrast to their blithe assertion that the case "must" have gone on at Luqa even though there wasn't the slightest bit of evidence of anything untoward in their unusually secure luggage loading system. But they did.)

[25] It was argued on behalf of the accused that the suitcase described by Mr Bedford could well have been the primary suitcase, particularly as the evidence did not disclose that any fragments of a hard-shell Samsonite-type suitcase had been recovered, apart from those of the primary suitcase itself. It was accepted, for the purposes of this argument, that the effect of forensic evidence was that the suitcase could not have been directly in contact with the floor of the container. It was submitted that there was evidence that an American Tourister suitcase, which had travelled from Frankfurt, fragments of which had been recovered, had been very intimately involved in the explosion and could have been placed under the suitcase spoken to by Mr Bedford. That would have required rearrangement of the items in the container, but such rearrangement could easily have occurred when the baggage from Frankfurt was being put into the container on the tarmac at Heathrow. It is true that such a rearrangement could have occurred, but if there was such a rearrangement, the suitcase described by Mr Bedford might have been placed at some more remote corner of the container, and while the forensic evidence dealt with all the items recovered which showed direct explosive damage, twenty-five in total, there were many other items of baggage found which were not dealt with in detail in the evidence in the case.

:confused:

A point I'd really like to get clear is, given the assumptions about the amount of Semtex and so on, how close to the skin of the plane would it actually have to be to produce the desired effect? There was a previous incident where a plane limped home despite damage, because the charge wasn't in the right place. If the charge was sufficient to have a good chance of downing the plane no matter where it happened to be placed in the hold, then the random loading in a baggage transfer isn't unfeasible, I suppose. However, if it really had to be right next to the hull to achieve the effect, I would have thought that was a very strong argument for the bag being loaded at Heathrow, the only place where anyone could possibly influence its placement in the hold.

So really, I think we need Longtabber to look at the detail of the evidence that places the bomb in the Toshiba in the suitcase with Gauci's clothes, and try to reconcile that with his belief that the pieces are too large and insufficiently vaporised to have been so close to the Semtex.

Rolfe.

LONGTABBER PE

24th September 2009, 08:10 AM

I believe there was at least one trial done where an actual 747 was blown up on a runway to see exactly what happened when the assumed amount of Semtex was detonated in the assumed place.

I'm afraid there's so much information here that I haven't read everything in detail. I didn't pay a huge amount of attention to the evidence that the bomb was in a Toshiba in a suitcase with Gauci's clothes in luggage container AVE 4041 in the forward hold, because I didn't think it was disputed.

Obviously, your observations seem to suggest this evidence needs closer scrutiny.
Rolfe.

I most certainly do ( remember what my professional career is)

Let me tell you about "tests" ( I know you dont know this- but researching and refuting these "tests" professionally is one of the more enjoyable parts of my career- its challenging) I have reviewed them, conducted them, custom designed them.

First, "a" test is wholly and universally USELESS it meets the following criteria:( short list)

It has to match the questioned circumstances

Be inline with any external information

It has to duplicate the CONDITIONS

It must match the SPECIFICS

Lastly, a test must be matched to a QUESTION and that question MUST be relevant of you dont know what you are looking for with the test or result

or it aint worth a damn

Since you dont have all of those- at best these "tests" are speculative hearsay.

Heres an example to illustrate the point ( similar to this plane test) but one I've done in years past for training

You have 1 piece of plate steel. 2' square and .125 thick and 1 stick of TNT

Assume everything is 100% identical and no variables

If you place the TNT on it, it on the TNT, turn it broadside, put the end of the TNT against it, the primed end, lay it(the stick) broadside, roll the plate in a bender( alter physical properties) and so forth

Each one of those will give you different results because you changed critical forces.

So, for anyone to tell me a bright boy decided to pack anough pallets of boom sticks inside of a plane on the ground to watch it pop doesnt "prove" anything other than you have a good sized budget and get to play with fun stuff.

Did they compensate for air frame stress and plug in the information of the plane in question?

Duplicate the internal/externam temps and pressures?

the harmonics of flight

stresses from loading and fuel?

every other condition?

My whole point is- ALL tests are suspect UNTIL you know for certain what they were testing for, how they did and all the factors they plugged in.

You can have a case where the test is valid but doesnt address your specific question

Rolfe

24th September 2009, 08:34 AM

Did they compensate for air frame stress and plug in the information of the plane in question?

Duplicate the internal/externam temps and pressures?

the harmonics of flight

stresses from loading and fuel?

every other condition?

My whole point is- ALL tests are suspect UNTIL you know for certain what they were testing for, how they did and all the factors they plugged in.

You can have a case where the test is valid but doesnt address your specific question

I think a lot of the evidence is now in the public domain. The evidence that came out at the trial and the AAIB report certainly contain a lot of stuff.

The thing is, the people who did all this investigation weren't amateurs either. They were pros too. They could be wrong, they could be incompetent, but they weren't playing at it. I've been wrong often enough in my own field when I shot from the hip when examining someone else's conclusions to be very wary of declaring another professional to have dropped their rifle, until I've had a very good look at all the facts. (I told you I was a biochemist - my profession is as a diagnostician. Very different so far as the basic science goes, but not too dissimilar in actual thought processes.)

As I say, I haven't looked closely at the evidence placing the bomb where it was alleged to be, as I thought that was a part which was more or less undisputed. Nevertheless, I don't think it's reasonable to declare that this is all wrong without actually looking at it.

Rolfe.

LONGTABBER PE

24th September 2009, 08:48 AM

I think a lot of the evidence is now in the public domain. The evidence that came out at the trial and the AAIB report certainly contain a lot of stuff.

The thing is, the people who did all this investigation weren't amateurs either. They were pros too. They could be wrong, they could be incompetent, but they weren't playing at it. I've been wrong often enough in my own field when I shot from the hip when examining someone else's conclusions to be very wary of declaring another professional to have dropped their rifle, until I've had a very good look at all the facts. (I told you I was a biochemist - my profession is as a diagnostician. Very different so far as the basic science goes, but not too dissimilar in actual thought processes.)

As I say, I haven't looked closely at the evidence placing the bomb where it was alleged to be, as I thought that was a part which was more or less undisputed. Nevertheless, I don't think it's reasonable to declare that this is all wrong without actually looking at it.

Rolfe.

I think a lot of the evidence is now in the public domain. The evidence that came out at the trial and the AAIB report certainly contain a lot of stuff.

yeah and its going to take a while to chew thru

The thing is, the people who did all this investigation weren't amateurs either. They were pros too. They could be wrong, they could be incompetent, but they weren't playing at it.

I'm not saying they were. Something of this size to reconstruct and test is beyond super human. Lots of room for innocent error.

That said- once you develop a theory and have key evidence to evaluate- theres little excuse for not running proper tests since these are common in industry everywhere. Custom or exotic tests- yeah, I can excuse them easy.

As I say, I haven't looked closely at the evidence placing the bomb where it was alleged to be, as I thought that was a part which was more or less undisputed. Nevertheless, I don't think it's reasonable to declare that this is all wrong without actually looking at it.

assume nothing-test everything,

Guybrush Threepwood

24th September 2009, 08:49 AM

I think a lot of the evidence is now in the public domain. The evidence that came out at the trial and the AAIB report certainly contain a lot of stuff.

I disagree slightly with this. The conclusions drawn from the evidence might be public domain, the evidence isn't. Leaving aside the fact that the physical evidence itself is long gone, even something like the AAIB report is a summary of thousands of pages of photographs, measurements, drawings and calculations. You would need access to these to be able to say with any confidence that the investigators had dropped the ball.
I don't think there is much chance of these being posted on a website for us investigooglers to chew over.

Rolfe

24th September 2009, 08:52 AM

Fair comment. Still, how far can we go with what there is?

Rolfe.

LONGTABBER PE

24th September 2009, 08:57 AM

I disagree slightly with this. The conclusions drawn from the evidence might be public domain, the evidence isn't. Leaving aside the fact that the physical evidence itself is long gone, even something like the AAIB report is a summary of thousands of pages of photographs, measurements, drawings and calculations. You would need access to these to be able to say with any confidence that the investigators had dropped the ball.
I don't think there is much chance of these being posted on a website for us investigooglers to chew over.

That unfortunately is painfully but absolutely correct.

Probably the best you can hope for barring an "ah ha" moment is a strong circumstantial case shored up by reasonable support

LONGTABBER PE

24th September 2009, 09:14 AM

I'm trying to reconcile de Braeckeleer with Longtabber here, and I don't think it's too difficult. I think de Braekeleer's conclusions are suspect.

Just for a bit of ad-hom, de Braeckeleer has also asserted that an ice-cube timer triggered device would never explode if placed in the baggage hold, which I believe is nonsense, and that an airliner flying from Frankfurt to Heathrow would not ascend to 34,000 feet, or high enough to trigger an ice-cube timer, which I also believe to be nonsense. So I wouldn't find it surprising if his conclusions from the Mach Stem Effect calculations were faulty.

The distance of 10 inches favoured by de Braeckeleer really does put the whole thing in the melting point, because it would pretty much have to be outside the baggage container. And yet, the rest of the evidence supporting the theory that the bomb was among the luggage is so strong, it would take a lot to knock it down as far as I can see.

In contrast, Longtabber seems to be assigning that 450g of Semtex a lot more destructive power than de Braeckeleer is, and thus allowing a greater distance between the charge and the skin of the plane. This would allow the charge to be inside the luggage container. His objections to the suitcase theory seem to be different, essentially that there was too much evidence to be compatible with stuff that was so close to such a powerful explosion.

My suggestion as regards the "placed charge" observation is that the charge could well have been placed, by the person who placed the suitcase in the baggage container. Remember, these containers where shaped to fit closely to the curvature of the hull of the plane (to maximise the use of space), therefore it would indeed be possible to predict pretty exactly where in the plane a case placed in a particular part of a container would go.

(I can't believe the judges ignored all this evidence, in contrast to their blithe assertion that the case "must" have gone on at Luqa even though there wasn't the slightest bit of evidence of anything untoward in their unusually secure luggage loading system. But they did.)

:confused:

A point I'd really like to get clear is, given the assumptions about the amount of Semtex and so on, how close to the skin of the plane would it actually have to be to produce the desired effect? There was a previous incident where a plane limped home despite damage, because the charge wasn't in the right place. If the charge was sufficient to have a good chance of downing the plane no matter where it happened to be placed in the hold, then the random loading in a baggage transfer isn't unfeasible, I suppose. However, if it really had to be right next to the hull to achieve the effect, I would have thought that was a very strong argument for the bag being loaded at Heathrow, the only place where anyone could possibly influence its placement in the hold.

So really, I think we need Longtabber to look at the detail of the evidence that places the bomb in the Toshiba in the suitcase with Gauci's clothes, and try to reconcile that with his belief that the pieces are too large and insufficiently vaporised to have been so close to the Semtex.

Rolfe.

I think de Braekeleer's conclusions are suspect.

probably but I think he is on the right track ( so far anyway)

Just for a bit of ad-hom, de Braeckeleer has also asserted that an ice-cube timer triggered device would never explode if placed in the baggage hold, which I believe is nonsense, and that an airliner flying from Frankfurt to Heathrow would not ascend to 34,000 feet, or high enough to trigger an ice-cube timer, which I also believe to be nonsense.

he said what? Say it aint so. Thats just plain stupid if true.

So I wouldn't find it surprising if his conclusions from the Mach Stem Effect calculations were faulty.

They are pretty standard- the question is, did he apply it correctly

The distance of 10 inches favoured by de Braeckeleer really does put the whole thing in the melting point, because it would pretty much have to be outside the baggage container. And yet, the rest of the evidence supporting the theory that the bomb was among the luggage is so strong, it would take a lot to knock it down as far as I can see.

Something about his proximity based on the available information doesnt quite fit with me yet. I wish they had X rayed that hole.

In contrast, Longtabber seems to be assigning that 450g of Semtex a lot more destructive power than de Braeckeleer is, and thus allowing a greater distance between the charge and the skin of the plane.

probably because I've used it ( C4 but for discussion purposes, they are 1:1) a lot more. The thing is the quantity and thats speculation. Explosive calculations vary greatly depending on that. You cant say 2 lbs does twice the damage of 1. You get a slightly larger zap zone and a more intense one but as distance increases- force drops off close to the same.

I would think that if 1 lb was 10 inches away- it would have taken out the whole section- not just blow such a small hole. That "hole" bothers me too because if it was in the baggage well with all the tamping from other baggage and internal structure- that "hole" really shouldnt have been there- it should have been more or a general rupture then peel back.

They just dont match

His objections to the suitcase theory seem to be different, essentially that there was too much evidence to be compatible with stuff that was so close to such a powerful explosion.

To quote a famous robot- that part does not compute

(I can't believe the judges ignored all this evidence, in contrast to their blithe assertion that the case "must" have gone on at Luqa even though there wasn't the slightest bit of evidence of anything untoward in their unusually secure luggage loading system. But they did.)

was it brought up properly and emphasized?

Guybrush Threepwood

24th September 2009, 09:16 AM

Fair comment. Still, how far can we go with what there is?

Rolfe.

I'm not sure we can go anywhere. What I was trying to say in my first post on this thread is that any alternative explanation for the bomb raises as many problems as it solves.

The bomb in a suitcase scenario gives a (actually several) simple way of getting the bomb onto the plane. It ties in mostly well with the AAIB report (Longtabbers doubts, de Braekeleers sums, and the disputed status of the condition of the instructions and babygro excepted).

A bomb anywhere else needs an explanation for how it got there, and who faked up the AAIB report to make it look like the bomb was in the Samsonite suitcase.

LONGTABBER PE

24th September 2009, 09:25 AM

I'm not sure we can go anywhere. What I was trying to say in my first post on this thread is that any alternative explanation for the bomb raises as many problems as it solves.

The bomb in a suitcase scenario gives a (actually several) simple way of getting the bomb onto the plane. It ties in mostly well with the AAIB report (Longtabbers doubts, de Braekeleers sums, and the disputed status of the condition of the intstructions and babygro excepted).

A bomb anywhere else needs an explanation for how it got there, and who faked up the AAIB report to make it look like the bomb was in the Samsonite suitcase.

Also, you have to put this in context with the time then. Security was nowhere near what it is today.

Guybrush Threepwood

24th September 2009, 09:28 AM

Also, you have to put this in context with the time then. Security was nowhere near what it is today.

Perhaps not in the way you think. The UK in the late '80s was not unfamiliar with terrorist bombs.

Rolfe

24th September 2009, 09:41 AM

he said what? Say it aint so. Thats just plain stupid if true.

I might have trouble finding it, but I did read that in one of his reports.

Something about his proximity based on the available information doesnt quite fit with me yet. I wish they had X rayed that hole.

Are we sure they didn't?

probably because I've used it ( C4 but for discussion purposes, they are 1:1) a lot more. The thing is the quantity and thats speculation. Explosive calculations vary greatly depending on that. You cant say 2 lbs does twice the damage of 1. You get a slightly larger zap zone and a more intense one but as distance increases- force drops off close to the same.

I would think that if 1 lb was 10 inches away- it would have taken out the whole section- not just blow such a small hole. That "hole" bothers me too because if it was in the baggage well with all the tamping from other baggage and internal structure- that "hole" really shouldnt have been there- it should have been more or a general rupture then peel back.

They just dont match

There's clearly more stuff available. Here's a link to the court judgement (http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/library/lockerbie/docs/lockerbiejudgement.pdf) as a single 82-page pdf.

The conclusion reached by Dr Hayes and Mr Feraday as to the position of the explosive device coincided with that of Mr Claiden, and in addition Mr Feraday was present at tests in the USA. These tests involved the use of luggage filled metal containers and the placing of plastic explosives within Toshiba radio cassette players in a garment filled suitcase. The tests confirmed the opinion he expressed as to the position of the explosive device and the quantity of explosive involved.

There's a lot more where that came from. It's not primary evidence but it does demonstrate what evidence was put before the trial.

was it brought up properly and emphasized?

Well, what I quoted was from the actual court judgement, written by the judges, so it does appear that they noticed. They just hand-waved it away by saying that the cases might have been rearranged when the Frankfurt luggage was being loaded later.

The official UN observer to the trial was horrified, and issued a very scathing report (http://i-p-o.org/lockerbie-report.htm).

On the basis of the above observations and evaluation, the undersigned has − to his great dismay − reached the conclusion that the trial, seen in its entirety, was not fair and was not conducted in an objective manner.

He got even more critical in his report on the first appeal (http://i-p-o.org/koechler-lockerbie-appeal_report.htm).

16. [....] If the evidence presented during the trial and the additional evidence made available during the appeal is analyzed in its entirety, it becomes clear to any rational observer that the theory of ingestion of the luggage containing the explosive device in Malta needs considerably more assumptions and is based on much lower probability than the theory of ingestion at Heathrow. In an entirely circumstantial case like the present one, this means that a determination “beyond a reasonable doubt” cannot honestly be made if one bases one’s argumentation and inferences upon reason and common sense. The trial verdict, confirmed by the appeal judges, would not stand a plausibility test in a scientific context defined by the rules of logic and reason.

17. Furthermore, the unanimous decision by the Appeal Court is incomprehensible if one takes into consideration the often highly critical, very precise and inquisitive questions and comments by some of the appeal judges in the course of the appeal hearings. On day 96 (7 February 2002) Lord Osborne, in a debate with the Prosecution on the question of the insertion of the luggage containing the explosive device at Luqa airport in Malta, said: “But is it not a different matter to say, on the basis of these features of the situation, that the bomb passed through Luqa Airport, standing that there is considerable and quite convincing evidence that that could not have happened.” He further stated: “Now, it’s quite difficult rationally to follow how the Court take the step of saying, ‘Well, we don’t know how it got onto the flight. We can’t say that. But it must have been there.’ On the face of it, it may not be a rational conclusion.” And in response to a remark of the Prosecution, he went on: “Well, all sorts of irrational conclusions may have a basis in fact, but … the problem is that they don’t logically relate to the facts.”

18. It is impossible to understand why Lord Osborne finally was able to consent to the rejection of all grounds of appeal and why he did not follow the line of rational scrutiny of the trial judges’ reasoning. The unanimity of the decision of the Appeal Court is not plausible at all if one looks carefully at arguments such as those put forward by Lord Osborne in the course of the appeal hearings. What caused the appeal judges to make this rather drastic sacrificium intellectus of ignoring reason and common sense by rejecting each and every ground of appeal unanimously?

19. The Appeal Court furthermore failed to deal adequately with the substantial new evidence that was presented in the course of the appeal. In view of the many inferences and of the arbitrary, often contradictory argumentation of the trial court, the additional evidence would have had special significance for an honest reevaluation of the trial court’s argument. For unexplained reasons, the Appeal Court refused to deal with any other theory than that advanced by the Prosecution – which is all the more incomprehensible if one considers the evidence originally presented at the trial concerning the possibility of a bag (a brown Samsonite suitcase) having been ingested at Heathrow.

20. In the course of the hearings it became quite clear that the judges were not at ease with this situation in which they had to review a verdict that was not sound by the basic standards of logic and common sense [....]

He has since become a campaigner for a proper appeal and an independent inquiry.

I need to take time to read more primary sources such as the court judgement and the AAIB report, as opposed to reading other people's theories, which sometimes contain incomplete or mistaken information.

Rolfe.

LONGTABBER PE

24th September 2009, 09:51 AM

I might have trouble finding it, but I did read that in one of his reports.

Are we sure they didn't?

There's clearly more stuff available. Here's a link to the court judgement (http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/library/lockerbie/docs/lockerbiejudgement.pdf) as a single 82-page pdf.

There's a lot more where that came from. It's not primary evidence but it does demonstrate what evidence was put before the trial.

Well, what I quoted was from the actual court judgement, written by the judges, so it does appear that they noticed. They just hand-waved it away by saying that the cases might have been rearranged when the Frankfurt luggage was being loaded later.

The official UN observer to the trial was horrified, and issued a very scathing report (http://i-p-o.org/lockerbie-report.htm).

He got even more critical in his report on the first appeal (http://i-p-o.org/koechler-lockerbie-appeal_report.htm).

He has since become a campaigner for a proper appeal and an independent inquiry.

I need to take time to read more primary sources such as the court judgement and the AAIB report, as opposed to reading other people's theories, which sometimes contain incomplete or mistaken information.

Rolfe.

I might have trouble finding it, but I did read that in one of his reports.

Well, if he did- he needs to stick with physics and leave electronics to us engineers.

Are we sure they didn't?

All I can say right now is that there is no expert listed with those qualifications and no mention of any Xray or heat effected zone inquiry- but I'm nowhere near thru either.

Rolfe

24th September 2009, 09:51 AM

Also, you have to put this in context with the time then. Security was nowhere near what it is today.

That's not necessarily entirely true, when Europe and in particular the British Isles are concerned. We were very used to a lot of pretty elaborate security procedures at airports, in theatres and cinemas, and indeed everywhere, in the 1980s. When I moved to England in 1982 I was startled by all the bag searches and so on that I'd never experienced in Scotland - at first, naively, I assumed the security guards at the doors of the opera house were looking for illicit recording equipment!

The point was, actually, that the IRA never targeted Scotland, so we never had to put up with all that stuff. It was SOP in England, and doubly so in airports.

Heathrow would have been on normal IRA alert in 1988. Frankfurt was more specifically alert because it had been notified of what Khreesat had been found to be doing in October, and specifically that bombs disguised as Toshiba radio-cassette players were to be looked for. The same warning was lying on someone's desk at Heathrow, waiting for better photographs, when PA103 went down.

We were all shocked to our socks in 2001 when we realised how lax US airport security was until that time. I think the US has kind of caught up since though.

Rolfe.

Rolfe

24th September 2009, 10:06 AM

Well, if he did- he needs to stick with physics and leave electronics to us engineers.

Here you go (http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=6786).

Contrary to Jibril’s statement, and surely he must know better, a bomb triggered by a gauge pressure set at 11,000 meters would not have detonated during the Frankfurt to London flight as the airliner does not reach cruising altitude on such short flight.

Then again, such device would not have detonated at all if it had been located in the luggage area as the hold is at the pressure of the passengers’ zone and never drops below the pressure equivalent to 2,400 meters.

I'm not quite sure if I got what he was saying quite right, but I still think he's wrong.

Rolfe.

LONGTABBER PE

24th September 2009, 10:13 AM

The conclusion reached by Dr Hayes and Mr Feraday as to the position of the explosive device coincided with that of Mr Claiden, and in addition Mr Feraday was present at tests in the USA. These tests involved the use of luggage filled metal containers and the placing of plastic explosives within Toshiba radio cassette players in a garment filled suitcase. The tests confirmed the opinion he expressed as to the position of the explosive device and the quantity of explosive involved.

I would love to see those tests and the details of all their testing parameters and conditions.

Rolfe

24th September 2009, 10:32 AM

LONGTABBER PE

24th September 2009, 11:16 AM

Here you go (http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=6786).

I'm not quite sure if I got what he was saying quite right, but I still think he's wrong.

Rolfe.

Thats even worse coming from a professional- thats blind unsupported speculation

First theres no proof such a pressure switch was even a trigger ( makes sense but it could have been a straight timer or any number of things)

Then there are hundreds of such devices and literally an infinite number of ways to set them. He could just have easily set it to engage the switch during pressurization at take off ( 1-2 kpa differential) and forget this flying height stuff altogether ( one has to wonder if a terrorist wants to blow up a plane- does he really give a damn what height its at? You are just as dead at 1000ft as you are at 10,000)

I hate professionals that make such statements with nothing to support them- a professional knows his words carry more weight because of his expertise- nobody should do that.

LONGTABBER PE

24th September 2009, 11:24 AM

Well, Hayes and Feraday are two of the three people right there in the firing line for suspicions of double-dealing as regards the MST-13 fragment. (The third is Thurman, of course.)

Their general credibility has been seriously questioned in the course of investigations into the timer fragment, which might of course be relevant to any of the evidence they gave.

Rolfe.

Theres a lot of room for legitimate suspicions here- maybe more than most people are aware because they dont design such tests.

I would need to know the exact parameters, what the instruments showed ( they should have had high speed cameras, pressure/temp sensors and strain gauges all over the place taking readings)

How many theories did they test? ( that makes a BIG difference)

I certainly hope their test didnt soley consist of seeing how much stuff they could stuff in the belly of a jet and make a big hole in it.

This is what I was talking about earlier regarding the anatomy of testing- if they dont have all these datapoints to build a case while establishing a legitimate probability or what may ( or may not) have happened and why- then the test was a farce.

That alone makes me suspicious.

Show me the data- NOT your conclusion, if your data is sound, you wont need to tell me the conclusion because I'm going to see the same thing. If not- we have a problem ( thats how you examine expert witness testimony)

Rolfe

24th September 2009, 12:00 PM

Thats even worse coming from a professional- thats blind unsupported speculation

First theres no proof such a pressure switch was even a trigger ( makes sense but it could have been a straight timer or any number of things)

Then there are hundreds of such devices and literally an infinite number of ways to set them. He could just have easily set it to engage the switch during pressurization at take off ( 1-2 kpa differential) and forget this flying height stuff altogether ( one has to wonder if a terrorist wants to blow up a plane- does he really give a damn what height its at? You are just as dead at 1000ft as you are at 10,000)

I hate professionals that make such statements with nothing to support them- a professional knows his words carry more weight because of his expertise- nobody should do that.

I don't think it's quite as bad as that. Remember, he was talking about Jibril, and the specific devices found in the possession of Jibril's group. These seem to have been all the same, set to be triggered by a pressure equivalent to (IIRC) 940mB, and to explode 30 minutes later. We all know what Jibril had, and he knows we know, so to speak.

It would have taken an airliner approximately 7 minutes to reach the height that would trigger these devices, and PA103 exploded 38 minutes after takeoff.

Where I think he is mistaken is in believing that the pressure setting related to the actual atmospheric pressure at cruising height, rather than to the cabin pressure at that height. Also, in thinking that PA103A wouldn't reach cruising height on the Frankfurt to Heathrow hop. Which is bad enough.

Rolfe.

LONGTABBER PE

24th September 2009, 12:30 PM

I don't think it's quite as bad as that. Remember, he was talking about Jibril, and the specific devices found in the possession of Jibril's group. These seem to have been all the same, set to be triggered by a pressure equivalent to (IIRC) 940mB, and to explode 30 minutes later. We all know what Jibril had, and he knows we know, so to speak.

It would have taken an airliner approximately 7 minutes to reach the height that would trigger these devices, and PA103 exploded 38 minutes after takeoff.

Where I think he is mistaken is in believing that the pressure setting related to the actual atmospheric pressure at cruising height, rather than to the cabin pressure at that height. Also, in thinking that PA103A wouldn't reach cruising height on the Frankfurt to Heathrow hop. Which is bad enough.

Rolfe.

Its worse than I thought ( read the link now)- I'm of the opinion now this dude has mental issues and he is an "expert"? He is either a damn idiot, ego maniac or is following an agenda.

From the article

No terrorist would ever attempt to bomb an airliner with a timer triggered bomb, and definitely not during the winter season, let alone Christmas time, where the time tables are absolutely useless as delays are the norm rather than the exception.

That is the mother of all stupid statements. He is doing a sales pitch. ( that really alarms me) "All" timetables arent useless and a few minutes delay on a 3 hr flight if you set it at the 2 hour mark wont make a bit of difference unless the terrorist's real goal is to play "I want to drop my blown up plane in grid zone 3" and missed his mark by 200 km. That is just so idiotic.

Don’t take my word for it. Terrorists such Ahmed Jibril and counter-terrorists such Noel Koch have stated that much.

Theres a good one. I know its true because thats what terrorists tell me.

"Explosives linked to an air pressure gauge, which would have detonated when the plane reached a certain altitude or to a timer would have been ineffective," Jibril said.

I would like to see him explain why to me. I could build one

Plus he is tainting his case- just because Jibril makes his bombs this way doesnt mean Habib does. Unless you know for certain this guy was involved with THIS bombing- thats also baseless speculation.

Rolfe

24th September 2009, 12:55 PM

I think I understand this a bit better now you've pointed this out.

Bear in mind that Jibril was #1 suspect pretty much from the get-go. He was known to be heading a group based in Frankfurt which was making bombs which would blow up an airliner approximately 38 minutes after take-off. There's a lot more about Iran desiring revenge for the shooting down of the Airbus in the Persian Gulf earlier the same year, and the Ayatollah having paid Jibril's group to hit US airliner(s) in retaliation. Khreesat (the bomb-maker) even had a brown Samsonite suitcase.

Approximately 50% of the Lockerbie CT theorising is aimed at showing that this theory was right all along, and it still seems the most probable explanation to me too. This is the "received wisdom" of the subject.

De Braeckeleer on the other hand seems to have a different theory, which does not involve Jibril's group having done it, or even a suitcase being involved at all. Therefore he is trying to shoot down the idea that Jibril's devices could possibly have done it. Jibril, of course, is perfectly happy for him to take that line, and to feed him further "information" to help him on his way.

He's completely ignoring that Jibril's group did actually blow up airliners in exactly that way.

Rolfe.

LONGTABBER PE

24th September 2009, 01:05 PM

LONGTABBER PE

24th September 2009, 01:15 PM

Approximately 50% of the Lockerbie CT theorising is aimed at showing that this theory was right all along, and it still seems the most probable explanation to me too. This is the "received wisdom" of the subject.

De Braeckeleer on the other hand seems to have a different theory, which does not involve Jibril's group having done it, or even a suitcase being involved at all. Therefore he is trying to shoot down the idea that Jibril's devices could possibly have done it. Jibril, of course, is perfectly happy for him to take that line, and to feed him further "information" to help him on his way.

Rolfe.

What gives DB's theory its horsepower is the ( albiet very weak) marriage of the theory with its physics and that hole ( thats physical evidence)

I presume they are calling it a "hole" because the edge indicates it was violently ripped at one time and tore a chunk out and not a clean hole like a projectile from the explosion compromised it. ( the petaling leads me to believe it was violently ripped- thats usually what happens)

Thats very consistent with a charge being in close proximity or either tamped to blow in that direction.

Rolfe

24th September 2009, 01:52 PM

This is what makes me still believe theres a 3rd story there ....

A third story?? Get in line, bud! There are at least five distinct stories already. (I might have missed something, I haven't been keeping a master list.)

Jibril and the PFLP-GC
Gadaffi and Libya, by way of Megrahi
Rogue US operation to eliminate Charles McKee
South African operation to eliminate Bernt Carlsson
Accidental detonation of illegally-transported US munitions

Have I missed any? And that's just the very basic ones, not counting the variants, and the ones which combine theories such as Jibril's group being used by rogue US agents to eliminate McKee....

So if you want something original, you're at least #6.

Rolfe.

LONGTABBER PE

24th September 2009, 03:46 PM

A third story?? Get in line, bud! There are at least five distinct stories already. (I might have missed something, I haven't been keeping a master list.)

Jibril and the PFLP-GC
Gadaffi and Libya, by way of Megrahi
Rogue US operation to eliminate Charles McKee
South African operation to eliminate Bernt Carlsson
Accidental detonation of illegally-transported US munitions

Have I missed any? And that's just the very basic ones, not counting the variants, and the ones which combine theories such as Jibril's group being used by rogue US agents to eliminate McKee....

So if you want something original, you're at least #6.

Rolfe.

Let me take some pot shots at them

Jibril and the PFLP-GC

Possible but unlikely simply because nothing against them was ever pursued after the fact

Gadaffi and Libya, by way of Megrahi

LOL, I dont think this theory but Daffy KaDaffy wasnt the principal- just the conduit

Rogue US operation to eliminate Charles McKee
South African operation to eliminate Bernt Carlsson

Nah, its too easy to take out 1 single individual- it wouldnt justify the effort,expense and risk of something like this

Accidental detonation of illegally-transported US munitions

Thats not even realistic

Rolfe

24th September 2009, 04:14 PM

Possible but unlikely simply because nothing against them was ever pursued after the fact

The lack of pursuit of the PFLP-GC is quite startling, as it happens. Nearly as startling as the way the judges ignored all the evidence presented at Camp Zeist that would have made a better circumstantial case against them than against Megrahi.

It doesn't even occur to you that this might be part of the CT, rather than a refutation of it?

LOL, I dont think this theory but Daffy KaDaffy wasnt the principal- just the conduit

Well, he was in the business of supplying wholesale Semtex, that's for sure. You know what? While I have zero respect for the guy, I'd have more respect for you as a debater if you would just stop mangling his name. It brings you down to the same level as Cicero and his persistent, puerile, "MacAsskill".

Nah, its too easy to take out 1 single individual- it wouldnt justify the effort,expense and risk of something like this

That's what I thought too.

Thats not even realistic

No. An awful lot of sewing-machine needles (oh hey, they're contaminated medical waste, don't pick them up!!) to be sending by transatlantic air freight though....

Sometimes I wonder if people have been out there dragging red herrings around deliberately.

Rolfe.

Rolfe

24th September 2009, 06:38 PM

What do you think of this bit? (Par 6 of the court judgement).

[6] Technical evidence relating to the effects of explosives was given by Dr Cullis and Professor Peel. Dr Cullis is an expert on the effects of blast and the development of computer codes to simulate the effects of blast in particular different situations, and has been employed at the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency (“DERA”) since 1978. Professor Peel is the chief scientist for DERA, specialising in materials and structures used in aircraft, and leader of a team conducting research into inter alia the assessment of the effect of detonation of explosives in aircraft. They confirmed that 6 the presence of pitting and carbon deposits which would look like a very fine soot indicated a chemical explosion. The areas in which this would occur would have to be in line of sight with the explosive, and in particular, as far as pitting was concerned, there would have to be no intervening structure of sufficient mass to prevent explosive fragments impacting on the pitted area. The nature of the cracking in the floor panel of the container is typical of the sort of deformation which would be seen from blast loading, but the absence of pitting or sooting in that area would indicate that there must have been something such as another suitcase situated between the explosive device and the floor panel. On the other hand the pitting and sooting seen on the inner aspect of the horizontal base frame member of the container combined with downward deformation of that member confirms the view that the explosive device was situated above and in direct line of sight of that member and thus was likely to be situated partly at least in the overhang where the presence of a suitcase on the floor of the container would not inhibit the explosive products from striking that member. Further confirmation of the position of the explosive device came from the observation of crushing to the upper surface of the aircraft fuselage frame 700 and pitting and sooting of the two neighbouring frames, this being the area adjacent to the lower after end of the container. Professor Peel's evidence also included a substantial complex section on the nature of impulse loading, the critical level of impulse for failure of aluminium alloy sheet of the type used for the fuselage skin, and the calculation of both the stand-off distance and the size of the explosive charge from the size of the shattered zone and the petalled zone. These calculations indicated a charge of about 450 grammes and a stand-off distance of 610 millimetres, which would take the explosion 200 millimetres inside the container. We do not consider it necessary to go into detail about these complex calculations, as the physical evidence of damage to the hull, the container, and, as we shall see later, the contents of the container satisfies us beyond any doubt that the explosion occurred within the container, and the calculations serve merely to confirm that view. We should add that this section of his evidence also dealt with the effect, if any, of the concept of Mach stem formation, but we do not consider it necessary to go into any detail about that, as we accept his evidence that although that concept was considered as a means of assessing stand-off distance, it was not actually used.

Rolfe.

Guybrush Threepwood

25th September 2009, 01:13 AM

Thanks for finding that, I don't have your patience for trawling through long documents.
That confirms my opinion earlier in the thread that there were multiple strands of evidence pointing to the bomb being in a suitcase in the container, in the location specified. If the bomb wasn't really there, then a lot of people must have agreed to fake up evidence that it was, which is where it all gets too CT for me.
I just can't see any strong evidence that the bomb location is incorrect, nor can I see any questions that would be answered by having the bomb elsewhere, except "See, see!!! it's a cover up, they were trying to frame Libya all along!!OMG eleventy"

NB I do agree there is a lot wrong with the whole investigation and conviction of Megrahi, I just don't think this is one of the wrong bits.

Rolfe

25th September 2009, 03:24 AM

Thanks for finding that, I don't have your patience for trawling through long documents.

The Court judgement is actually quite readable, and although it's over 80 pages, it's double-spaced and you get through it quite quickly. Also, although it's a digest of the evidence, it is close to being a primary source.

That confirms my opinion earlier in the thread that there were multiple strands of evidence pointing to the bomb being in a suitcase in the container, in the location specified. If the bomb wasn't really there, then a lot of people must have agreed to fake up evidence that it was, which is where it all gets too CT for me.

That's still my opinion. I can see where Longtabber is coming from. Sometimes you see a case which on the face of it just stands out as being quite obviously X. When you hear that someone else has diagnosed Y, you immediately declare, "no way!". Then you look at all the evidence they were looking at, and finally have to agree that, even though the superficial presentation is putting up an amazing imitation of X, an actual diagnosis of Y is pretty much inescapable.

I actually do this in educational presentations. I present a case with a clinical history and a selected few laboratory results. I ask the audience what they think. They always go for the misdirect - at least for the first one or two cases, then they start getting wary of the trick. Then I reveal the full set of results, and point out both why the real diagnosis is far more compelling than the knee-jerk assumption, and how the "misleading" results do in fact fit into the pattern of the real diagnosis.

The object of the exercise is to educate clinicians that they can jump to premature conclusions if they like, however they must never restrict their testing requests merely to a few tests they imagine will confirm their assumption. This is the run-up to explaining how to use tailored diagnostic profiling to ensure that you keep an open mind and acquire the information that will prevent you missing a diagnosis you didn't consider in your initial assessment.

I just can't see any strong evidence that the bomb location is incorrect, nor can I see any questions that would be answered by having the bomb elsewhere, except "See, see!!! it's a cover up, they were trying to frame Libya all along!!OMG eleventy"

I would have thought that if there was any intent to frame anyone all along, it was the PFLP-GC who were being framed, particularly as regards the timing of the explosion. I just can't see how all that mountain of reconstructive evidence could have been planted. I mean, they re-built the bloody plane in a hangar from the bits they found scattered around the countryside. It's not just about the pattern of damage to the plane's hull, it's about the findings relating to the baggage containers and the other luggage. This seems to me impossible to fabricate.

In addition, this stuff was all found and seen by a lot of people very early. If fabrication was carried out, it's inevitable that it was underway from pretty much the moment the plane went down. To plan and execute such an exercise, involving the manufacture of particular bits of damaged baggage container and substituting them for the originals.... sorry, this is 9/11 twooferism territory.

NB I do agree there is a lot wrong with the whole investigation and conviction of Megrahi, I just don't think this is one of the wrong bits.

Agreed. I don't think this could possibly have been fabricated. There's a big difference in plausibility between a single tiny fragment of circuit board only seen by a small handful of people having been introduced into the evidence trail at a later date, and the wholesale manufacture of bent, scorched and pitted luggage containers.

I can't explain why Longtabber's opinion that any radio involved in such a blast would inevitably have been completely vaporised differs so sharply from the opinions of the explosives experts who looked at the Lockerbie debris, but as we can see, it wasn't just Hayes, Feraday and Thurman involved here, it was a number of highly-qualified experts, none of whom seem to have considered that a significant sticking-point.

Rolfe.

LONGTABBER PE

25th September 2009, 09:37 AM

I can't explain why Longtabber's opinion that any radio involved in such a blast would inevitably have been completely vaporised differs so sharply from the opinions of the explosives experts who looked at the Lockerbie debris, but as we can see, it wasn't just Hayes, Feraday and Thurman involved here, it was a number of highly-qualified experts, none of whom seem to have considered that a significant sticking-point.

Rolfe.

Several reasons- first the term "expert" doesnt impress or intimidate me because my credentials are in the same league as theirs and I routinely engage/challenge experts. They are human just like I am and there is no exact set of standards or protocols that universally apply. They "guess" just like the rest of us.

Also, I've probably done more real world demolitions ( training and combat) than they have and seen it from the observer perspective even down to policing the area looking for any possible UXO remnants after the shot was fired.

Plus, I do this for a living ( on the DT/NDT part)

completely vaporised differs so sharply from the opinions of the explosives experts

I'll tell you what should have happened ( I would have done this myself and it wouldnt have cost more than a few thousand dollars)

I would have built 3 identical bombs to whatever specs. ( wouldnt have to be exact just have boards and stuff)

3 controlled fires- 1 with just the radio, 1 in a suitcase in the open ( packed etc) and 1 with the suitcase in the center of others.

High speed cameras and sensors everywhere.

That would have sealed the deal- the fact it wasnt done but instead they just "ignored" or "discounted" it trying to push their opinion with no legitimate testing or verification really alarms me.

I have a strong suspicion why they DONT want to have their theory tested.

Rolfe

25th September 2009, 10:25 AM

LONGTABBER PE

25th September 2009, 10:39 AM

So how do you account for all the other evidence that the explosion occurred inside the luggage container? They reconstructed the plane and the luggage containers from debris found on the ground. I have great difficulty seeing how it would be possible or indeed on anyone's agenda to fabricate blast-damaged luggage containers in the very early weeks of the investigation.

Rolfe.

As of this post, I'm still of the opinion the greatest likelihood is that the bomb was in the luggage container and I more of opinion #3- but its a developing hypothesis and not one I'm going to promote or defend at this point ( and may disregard altogether depending on what else I read)

You already know my suspicions regarding the board and states story and some of their testing ( so far)

You also cannot ignore the physical evidence either ( assuming its portrayed correctly)

There are also other variables which independantly or combined can radically affect the outcome that so far I havent seen addressed and confirmed or discarded.

So, when you remove the impossible ( my thoughts on the timer and such) whatever remains must be the truth.

I'm leaning toward a much different bomb and probably stronger in the compartment. I think thats whats being steered away from.

That would fit both sides of the physical evidence and not be outside legitimate possibility.

What really points me there ( so far) is the way they ( the state) has tried to sell rather than establish by process of elimination their theory. ( the tests to do it are simply and pretty cheap and commonly known)

I'm starting to think they DID run them and found something else and this isnt a "lie" in the conventional sense but more of a deliberate "steering away" from something else.

Rolfe

25th September 2009, 12:24 PM

LONGTABBER PE

25th September 2009, 12:52 PM

I'm finding it problematic enough to postulate the fabrication of that one little bit of MST-13 timer, and the concept of fabricating two luggage containers with blast damage on them seems to me a bridge too far.

Also, while it's always a consideration that nothing was fabricated but the evidence was innocently misinterpreted byt the investigators, I also find that quite hard to believe. If it's really so blindingly obvious that the Official Version can't be right, just by looking at pictures and diagrams of the fuselage, how did well-qualified and experienced people make that mistake, and how come nobody else spotted the anomaly for all these years?

That leaves deliberate misinterpretation, and again, it's all getting a but twooferish for me.

Rolfe.

As you said earlier- its not "twooferish" when theres some support for it and governt entities do lie and cover up for a variety of reasons.

There is also ignorance, a simple botched investigation and good old human error.

concept of fabricating two luggage containers with blast damage on them seems to me a bridge too far.

Everything in close proximity to it SHOULD have had the same damage. Explosives detonate in spheres equally. Unless this lone bag was shanging by a rope 10' above everything- any bag beside it should be in the same condition- thats another piece I dont see. You always need to be suspicious of "1".

Where is the green samsonite make up case ( making that up as an example) sitting right beside it or under it with the EXACT same types of damage?

How did they distinguish what cloth was in what case?

What about electronics in a bag right beside it?

There should have been chunks of all kinds of things- then you need to figure out what was where.

I dont think Megrah sent along a packing list of his trunk

These are the things that flag me

Also, while it's always a consideration that nothing was fabricated but the evidence was innocently misinterpreted byt the investigators, I also find that quite hard to believe.

Dont- all you have to do is google "Duke Rape Case" ( one I had a level of personal involvement in) and Nifong and the DPD's conduct. Thats not as rare as i wish it was- they just got caught.

If it's really so blindingly obvious that the Official Version can't be right, just by looking at pictures and diagrams of the fuselage, how did well-qualified and experienced people make that mistake, and how come nobody else spotted the anomaly for all these years?

same reasons I said earlier

The casual observer doesnt have the skills to properly examine the case to begin with

The professional isnt going to stick his neck out without physically examining it himself

There are anomalies here and all the pieces do not fit together.

Then you look at some of the overt suspicious conduct and all these page alterations and different accounts of who found what and when.

Rolfe

25th September 2009, 05:09 PM

Unless this lone bag was shanging by a rope 10' above everything- any bag beside it should be in the same condition- thats another piece I dont see. You always need to be suspicious of "1".

Where is the green samsonite make up case ( making that up as an example) sitting right beside it or under it with the EXACT same types of damage?

How did they distinguish what cloth was in what case?

What about electronics in a bag right beside it?

There should have been chunks of all kinds of things- then you need to figure out what was where.

A summary of that is in the Court judgement.

[9] During the course of the massive ground search, a large quantity of luggage and clothing was collected and labelled. Within a few days of the disaster it was established that an explosion had occurred, and accordingly the searchers were asked in particular to recover any items which appeared to be scorched or blackened or otherwise had the appearance of having been involved in an explosion. Any such items were then submitted to the Forensic Explosives Laboratory at RARDE for detailed examination, the principal forensic scientists involved being Dr Hayes and Mr Feraday. Fifty-six fragments which showed various signs of explosives damage were identified as forming part of what had been a brown hardshell Samsonite suitcase of the 26" Silhouette 4000 range (“the primary suitcase”). The nature of the damage indicated that it had been inflicted from within the suitcase. A further twenty-four items of luggage were identified by their characteristic explosives damage as having been in relatively close proximity to the explosive device. Within many of these items there were found fragments of what appeared to be parts of the primary suitcase, and also fragments of what appeared to have been a radio cassette player. Other similar fragments were found in clothing which from their charred appearance were considered to have been contained in the primary suitcase. [....]

[10] As we have noted, a substantial quantity of clothing was examined at RARDE. The primary concern was to ascertain what clothing showed signs of explosion damage, and then, if possible, to differentiate between clothing likely to have been contained within the suitcase that contained the explosive device and clothing in adjacent suitcases. The method adopted by the forensic scientists was to treat as a high probability that any explosion damaged clothing which contained fragments of the radio cassette player, the instruction manual, and the brown fabric-lined cardboard partition from within the suitcase to the exclusion of fragments of the outer shell, was within the primary suitcase. Where clothing carried neither fragments of the explosive device nor of one or more of the suitcase shells that would have surrounded it, or where it variously carried fragments of the suitcase shells with or without fragments of the explosive device, its specific location was problematic, although the possibility that it was contained in the primary suitcase could not be discounted. There were twelve items of clothing and an umbrella of which fragments were recovered and examined which fell within the first category and accordingly in their opinion had been contained within the primary suitcase. [....]

5 [....] Because of the distribution of the areas of sooting and pitting, and in particular the absence of any such signs on the base of the container, it appeared to Mr Claiden that, assuming that an explosive device was contained in a piece of luggage in the container, the likelihood was that that piece of luggage was not lying on the floor of the container but was lying probably on top of a case on the floor and projecting into the overhang of the container. [....]

25 [....] It was accepted, for the purposes of this argument, that the effect of forensic evidence was that the suitcase could not have been directly in contact with the floor of the container. It was submitted that there was evidence that an American Tourister suitcase, which had travelled from Frankfurt, fragments of which had been recovered, had been very intimately involved in the explosion and could have been placed under the suitcase spoken to by Mr Bedford [....]

I haven't read the AAIB report in detail, but I believe there is more detailed information available in that.

If this is all wrong, you have three possibilities.

The evidence was fabricated. Within "a few days" of the crash? Motive, means and opportunity seem a bit wanting.
The evidence was deliberately misinterpreted. Again, within a few days of the crash? Or even a few weeks? (Remember, most of this was pieced together during January and February 1989.) I can't see it.
The evidence was accidentally misinterpreted on a grand scale by people who should have known better, and when this was finally realised it was deemed better to continue with this massive deception than to revise the scenario? OK, I give you Shirley McKie here, absolutely, but it's still a stretch on this sort of scale, with three countries' law enforcement and forensics involved.

I still find this all extremely unlikely, and suspect the existence of a simpler explanation for the apparent anomalies.

Having said that, have you seen Bollier's diagrams (http://www.lockerbie.ch/)? I think Bollier isn't quite the full shilling I have to say, but he does have these pictures....

http://www.lockerbie.ch/jpg/lockerbie.jpg
The MEBO Inc.-defence team
http://www.lockerbie.ch/jpg/lockerbie-2.jpg The MEBO Inc.-defence team and Edwin Bollier, VR

Crazy or not, Bollier is in the arms industry.

Rolfe.

LONGTABBER PE

25th September 2009, 05:53 PM

A summary of that is in the Court judgement.

I haven't read the AAIB report in detail, but I believe there is more detailed information available in that.

If this is all wrong, you have three possibilities.

The evidence was fabricated. Within "a few days" of the crash? Motive, means and opportunity seem a bit wanting.
The evidence was deliberately misinterpreted. Again, within a few days of the crash? Or even a few weeks? (Remember, most of this was pieced together during January and February 1989.) I can't see it.
The evidence was accidentally misinterpreted on a grand scale by people who should have known better, and when this was finally realised it was deemed better to continue with this massive deception than to revise the scenario? OK, I give you Shirley McKie here, absolutely, but it's still a stretch on this sort of scale, with three countries' law enforcement and forensics involved.

I still find this all extremely unlikely, and suspect the existence of a simpler explanation for the apparent anomalies.

Having said that, I think Bollier isn't quite the full shilling I have to say, but he does have these pictures.
Crazy or not, Bollier is in the arms industry.

Rolfe.

Heres where my questions lie- from the quote

asked in particular to recover any items which appeared to be scorched or blackened or otherwise had the appearance of having been involved in an explosion. Any such items were then submitted to the Forensic Explosives Laboratory at RARDE for detailed examination, the principal forensic scientists involved being Dr Hayes and Mr Feraday. Fifty-six fragments which showed various signs of explosives damage were identified as forming part of what had been a brown hardshell Samsonite suitcase of the 26" Silhouette 4000 range (“the primary suitcase”). The nature of the damage indicated that it had been inflicted from within the suitcase. A further twenty-four items of luggage were identified by their characteristic explosives damage as having been in relatively close proximity to the explosive device. Within many of these items there were found fragments of what appeared to be parts of the primary suitcase, and also fragments of what appeared to have been a radio cassette player. Other similar fragments were found in clothing which from their charred appearance were considered to have been contained in the primary suitcase. [....]

They make lots of statements such as "signs of an explosion" and such- thats fine for any summary report ( they arent supposed to be technical)- but that doesnt mean a damn thing in forensics or in a US Court by our rules of evidence UNLESS they can show residue from an explosive- it would be hearsay at worst- circumstantial at best.

There is no way to realistically determine whether a case contained the explosion or was sitting right beside the one that did.

Burning is burning- the question is how did the state determine the burning was from the explosion, a secondary fire or swallowed by an engine on the way down? All ignitions leave the same physical evidence and it would be almost impossible to distinguish between the detonation versus hull rupture decompression as force.

Thats why if they dont have those tests to back their very bold claims up- they wouldnt be considered valid over here.

I want to know specifically and exactly how they determined what was what.

In a US court, being an extrapolation of expert analysis- each and every bit of this testing would have to be given to the defense for their expert to review.

Are you aware of all these tests? I see no evidence of any specific tests or their conclusive results. ( but aint thru reading) I see these articles make all kinds of "claims" but I see no reference to tests backing it up.

If they dont have these tests to back up their assertions- their claims would not only be invalid but they would either be incompetent or criminal in their work.

Unless theres a lot more than what I'm seeing- I would have literally destroyed their case with reasonable doubt.

As to bollier- his claim is both valid and invalid depending on what type of charge he says did it.

If he is assuming the same size charge, he is totally wrong because if it had been placed there it would have penetrated the hull during the detonation process and the explosive decompression would have blown most of the force out the hole ( much bigger hole) and there would be almost no damage from the blast in the luggage because it would have equalized toward the lower pressure ( outside the plane- one of those force taking the path of least resistance things)

Rolfe

25th September 2009, 05:58 PM

They did test an awful lot for explosives. Just not the MST-13 fragment.

It's in the AAIB report. It'll still be a summary, but there is more of that sort of detail there.

Rolfe.

LONGTABBER PE

25th September 2009, 06:30 PM

They did test an awful lot for explosives. Just not the MST-13 fragment.

It's in the AAIB report. It'll still be a summary, but there is more of that sort of detail there.

Rolfe.

I read that ( already) but there are holes in it I could drive a truck thru.

Of course they did- but they didnt show how they determined what was where in relation.

That blast vaporized/shredded every case in about a 10 ft radius and mixed it together in a 20,000+ mph hurricane. That tore up everything else.

Then theres the turbulence from the ride down and all that.

Out of all that and no way to know what was where and what was in what individual piece of luggage- I want to know how they did?

I'll go ahead and tell you how they did. I see it clearly now. ( still developing tho) They either are the worst keystone kops in history or they cooked their investigation.

Heres why

They found 55 odd pieces with residue, charring etc because they were OUTSIDE the "zap zone" ( maybe 5-10ish foot radius for a single stick) of the detonation and all that WAS LEFT as they were ancillary damage. ( in literal terms, that force of detonation is not much less than the temperatures and pressures in an atomic bomb) They were hit by the blast wall and expanding fireball- NOT in the bubble.

if the bomb didnt have enough force to obliterate everything as I said- it couldnt have taken out the plane in the first place. ( they cant have it both ways- enough force to punch thru the wall and pepper it with debris and such yet not destroy everything in the path the same way)

Now, they want me to believe all this force somehow just "charred" some odd remnant pieces? and left pieces of all surrounding bags?

Rolfe

25th September 2009, 07:14 PM

OK, I'm with you. I'd like to see a coherent scenario developed, including motive, means and opportunity, though. Given that all this emerged within about the first 8 to 10 weeks after the crash, including the time for the gathering up and sorting and piecing together.

Rolfe.

Rolfe

26th September 2009, 03:13 PM

I'm copying this post in from the MST-13 thread, because I think it's relevant here and I'd be interested to see it addressed.

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.

Rolfe.

LONGTABBER PE

29th September 2009, 05:37 AM

I'm copying this post in from the MST-13 thread, because I think it's relevant here and I'd be interested to see it addressed.

Rolfe.

Sorry for the delay- it takes days to move around here.

I'll be glad to explain

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.

Thats a misnomer and nobody will for several reasons.

1) nothing is impossible

2) there are too many variables depending on the type and configuration of the charge set up.

For example, if I took a stick of C4 and did the textbook set up ( charge in the case unwrapped) and stuck the timer on the END where it normally goes- theres a good chance pieces will survive because of the detonation from the primed end.

Thats not what allegedly happened here- this charge was unwrapped and molded inside the case presumably in 100% contact and even overlapping ( encasing) it as the charged was packed all around.

So the question you have to ask ( to be relevant to this SPECIFIC application) is how many detonators survive that are encased by the explosive which is a military grade white explosive ( at least 75% since they obviously didnt pack the front side) Your answer will be zero.

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.

Another misnomer because its a general statement

The number of "bombs" ( defined as anything other than civilian or military applications) detonated are NOT with military grade high explosives. ( expensive and VERY hard to get) so you are dealing with commercial grade dynamite, TNT and Black Powder and most of those explosives are stacked or made in pipes.

TNT being the standard is a red explosive and that family burns from around .6 to TNT MOST CERTAINLY will leave remnants.

So, if 90+% of "bombs" are made from those materials- 90+% of bombs will leave parts. A no brainer.

Also, in most cases the "detonator" isnt there ( usually wire fire) except for remote and times detonations.

Also, depending on what it is you are blowing- you will have multiple charges hooked to a central detonator which can be several feet from the charge.

Also, you need to define "detonator" because in textbook lingo- the detonator is the power source that ignites the cap,squib, primer or whatever- the timer would be the "trigger".

Thats important because in jargon, a "detonator" is also the "detonator charge" ( cap,fuze, primer charge)

These are almost always ( except for the special ones) made out of hermetically sealed stainless ( for chemical and magnetic inertness) that is scored ( blows from all sides for immediate detonation) or end capped ( blows out of the end like a rifle so the charge "ramps" from one end to the other making like a tidal wave) depending on how you want the charge to fire. ( like which way you want the debris to blow)

These often blow OUT of the charge before they are fully detonated ( especially the end capped ones)- Thats why I said upthread we look for UXO ( unexploded ordinance) after a fire because they will often be half blown ( put out by the main charge) and still explosive and VERY dangerous.

So, when laypeople read things like that without the background- they need to understand all the scenarios and are talking apples to apples.

Like I said earlier, I can take 4 identical scenarios and place the charge several ways and get several results depending on what I want it to do.

Its very simple to test what I'm saying- Get Mythbusters ( mentioned from the other thread) to take a generic board from Radio Shack and pack a pound of C4 on it and around it ( say put it on a saucer)- see what you get then.

Guybrush Threepwood

29th September 2009, 06:38 AM

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. Thats a misnomer and nobody will for several reasons.

1) nothing is impossible

2) there are too many variables depending on the type and configuration of the charge set up.

OK, I'm with you so far (although you should look up 'misnomer' in a dictionary, as it doesn't mean what you think it does).

Then the rest of your post seems to be trying to do exactly that. Given that all the data you have access to is public domain, why are you the only 'explosives expert' who has claimed that it is not possible for the timer fragment to survive?

Thats not what allegedly happened here- this charge was unwrapped and molded inside the case presumably in 100% contact and even overlapping ( encasing) it as the charged was packed all around.Where did you get this information? As far as I'm aware the exact arrangement of the bomb components is unknown, as they blew up 30,000 feet above Scotland.

The number of "bombs" ( defined as anything other than civilian or military applications) detonated are NOT with military grade high explosives. ( expensive and VERY hard to get) so you are dealing with commercial grade dynamite, TNT and Black Powder and most of those explosives are stacked or made in pipes.In 2001 the IRA was estimated as being in posession of 2.5 tonnes of Semtex (5000 Lockerbies worth), this was what was left after they had spent 20+ years blowing things up all over England and Northern Ireland. The UK authorities were quite familiar with high explosive devices and their effects

Its very simple to test what I'm saying- Get Mythbusters ( mentioned from the other thread) to take a generic board from Radio Shack and pack a pound of C4 on it and around it ( say put it on a saucer)- see what you get then.I'm sure it is possible to arrange an explosion with 1lb of Semtex that will completely obliterate a small circuit board. That is not where the burden of proof lies. In order to demonstrate that the timer fragment could not survive you need to show (not just state as an opinion) that it is impossible, or nearly impossible to arrange such an explosion without totally destroying the board. I haven't seen anyone credible attempt to do this yet.

Rolfe

29th September 2009, 06:51 AM

I read somewhere that the MST-13 couldn't have been put inside the Toshiba while still inside its case - the case would have had to be discarded to get it to fit. Presumably that strengthens your case there? I agree, the geometry of the Toshiba case suggests very close contact between Semtex and timer.

However, even given that observation, how confident would you be that such a fragment wouldn't have survived? 90%? 95% 99%? 99.9%?

Also, does this theory apply equally to the fragments of the Toshiba itself? These have a much more robust provenance within the evidence train than the timer fragment.

Fifty-six fragments which showed various signs of explosives damage were identified as forming part of what had been a brown hardshell Samsonite suitcase of the 26" Silhouette 4000 range (“the primary suitcase”). The nature of the damage indicated that it had been inflicted from within the suitcase. A further twenty-four items of luggage were identified by their characteristic explosives damage as having been in relatively close proximity to the explosive device. Within many of these items there were found fragments of what appeared to be parts of the primary suitcase, and also fragments of what appeared to have been a radio cassette player. Other similar fragments were found in clothing which from their charred appearance were considered to have been contained in the primary suitcase. In addition, when examining a data plate which had been attached to AVE 4041, Mr Claiden recovered a piece of debris which appeared to be a small piece of circuit board. The number of fragments associated with the clothing in close contact with the explosion and the extent of the shattering of these fragments indicated that the explosive charge had in all probability been located within the radio.

I find it a lot more difficult to postulate fabrication or error concerning all this evidence than I do concerning the single piece of MST-13 circuit board.

Rolfe.

LONGTABBER PE

29th September 2009, 09:04 AM

OK, I'm with you so far (although you should look up 'misnomer' in a dictionary, as it doesn't mean what you think it does).

Then the rest of your post seems to be trying to do exactly that. Given that all the data you have access to is public domain, why are you the only 'explosives expert' who has claimed that it is not possible for the timer fragment to survive?

Where did you get this information? As far as I'm aware the exact arrangement of the bomb components is unknown, as they blew up 30,000 feet above Scotland.

In 2001 the IRA was estimated as being in posession of 2.5 tonnes of Semtex (5000 Lockerbies worth), this was what was left after they had spent 20+ years blowing things up all over England and Northern Ireland. The UK authorities were quite familiar with high explosive devices and their effects

I'm sure it is possible to arrange an explosion with 1lb of Semtex that will completely obliterate a small circuit board. That is not where the burden of proof lies. In order to demonstrate that the timer fragment could not survive you need to show (not just state as an opinion) that it is impossible, or nearly impossible to arrange such an explosion without totally destroying the board. I haven't seen anyone credible attempt to do this yet.

OK, I'm with you so far (although you should look up 'misnomer' in a dictionary, as it doesn't mean what you think it does).

Its a misrepresentation- thats more than enough

Then the rest of your post seems to be trying to do exactly that. Given that all the data you have access to is public domain, why are you the only 'explosives expert' who has claimed that it is not possible for the timer fragment to survive?

I can give you several possible reasons

none of them give a damn being the first

who would they "claim" it to? No expert is going to publically claim anything without examining the actual reports and tests ( thats not the summary)- the only reason I am is because this is a discussion forum)

none were contracted to relook at it ( I wouldnt be commenting if I hadnt looked at all the inforemation out there myself)
And no its not "impossible" but I wouldnt bet on 100,000,000 to 1 as my only chance

In 2001 the IRA was estimated as being in posession of 2.5 tonnes of Semtex (5000 Lockerbies worth), this was what was left after they had spent 20+ years blowing things up all over England and Northern Ireland. The UK authorities were quite familiar with high explosive devices and their effects

your point? Thats another paramilitary group- not the "average" bomber. Then again, you know how much those "estimates" are worth? I'm also not the only one claiming it couldnt. ( link posted upthread somewhere)

Where did you get this information? As far as I'm aware the exact arrangement of the bomb components is unknown, as they blew up 30,000 feet above Scotland.

pictures of the alleged set up on links in the threads and the description of how the state claims it had to be stuffed combined with my own experience playing with radios and knowing how big a stick is

I'm sure it is possible to arrange an explosion with 1lb of Semtex that will completely obliterate a small circuit board.

so am I

That is not where the burden of proof lies. In order to demonstrate that the timer fragment could not survive you need to show (not just state as an opinion) that it is impossible, or nearly impossible to arrange such an explosion without totally destroying the board. I haven't seen anyone credible attempt to do this yet.

Thats not how it works. The burden is on those who claim it can since the science and probability support it being obliterated in the described configuration. You want it done? I'm licensed so all you have to do is pay for the test and I'll personally conduct it for you and give you all rights to it. You are looking around $10,000. That will purchase the permits,charge, detonator, fake bomb, film and report. I have a merchants acccount so PM me a visa,MC or amex and info # and where you want it sent. You will own it lock,stock and barrel.

LONGTABBER PE

29th September 2009, 09:19 AM

I read somewhere that the MST-13 couldn't have been put inside the Toshiba while still inside its case - the case would have had to be discarded to get it to fit. Presumably that strengthens your case there? I agree, the geometry of the Toshiba case suggests very close contact between Semtex and timer.

However, even given that observation, how confident would you be that such a fragment wouldn't have survived? 90%? 95% 99%? 99.9%?

Also, does this theory apply equally to the fragments of the Toshiba itself? These have a much more robust provenance within the evidence train than the timer fragment.

I find it a lot more difficult to postulate fabrication or error concerning all this evidence than I do concerning the single piece of MST-13 circuit board.

Rolfe.

I read somewhere that the MST-13 couldn't have been put inside the Toshiba while still inside its case - the case would have had to be discarded to get it to fit. Presumably that strengthens your case there? I agree, the geometry of the Toshiba case suggests very close contact between Semtex and timer.

That would depend on the size of the components on the board and any other stuff. I would think the actual toshiba board would almost have to be removed because otherwise it would be stuffed like a Christmas Turkey.

However, even given that observation, how confident would you be that such a fragment wouldn't have survived? 90%? 95% 99%? 99.9%?

99+%

Also, does this theory apply equally to the fragments of the Toshiba itself? These have a much more robust provenance within the evidence train than the timer fragment.

same because in terms of thermal and elactic properties ( being polystyrene) they are weaker than the actual board. Also, if they survived- logic dictates that STRONGER parts such as the metal components, speaker magnets, frame pieces "should" be in there too.

Sorry, i forgot- this is a "miracle" bomb that disintegrates 8 oz solid iron magnets 5" away from it and all metal from carriages leaving no trace but allows plastics and fiberboard in direct contact with it to survive. It also puts trace on components inside the case but on nothing else touching it. It leaves shirts but vaporizes metal. Amazing damn device.

I find it a lot more difficult to postulate fabrication or error concerning all this evidence than I do concerning the single piece of MST-13 circuit board.

I think they blew up a different radio with a stick of dynamite and called it evidence.

Why? we can debate and all theories are on the table- there just aint no way for it to have gone down the way the state claims leaving what they said they found.

Guybrush Threepwood

29th September 2009, 09:42 AM

who would they "claim" it to? No expert is going to publically claim anything without examining the actual reports and tests ( thats not the summary)- the only reason I am is because this is a discussion forum)

Well council for the defence for starters, it wouldn't be unheard of for an expert to contact them and make an offer to examine the evidence as he finds it implausible at first glance.

pictures of the alleged set up on links in the threads and the description of how the state claims it had to be stuffed combined with my own experience playing with radios and knowing how big a stick is
That is an alleged set up, not the actual one, there is no way of knowing how close it was to the real thing. As Rolfe has also pointed out in another post, fragments of Radio pcb and casing also survived, so either they are all fake, or some things close to the explosion survived.

Thats not how it works. The burden is on those who claim it can since the science and probability support it being obliterated in the described configuration.Then provide the science, all you have done so far is make unsupported assertions and claim special knowledge.

You want it done? I'm licensed so all you have to do is pay for the test and I'll personally conduct it for you and give you all rights to it. You are looking around $10,000. That will purchase the permits,charge, detonator, fake bomb, film and report. I have a merchants acccount so PM me a visa,MC or amex and info # and where you want it sent. You will own it lock,stock and barrel.:rolleyes:

I'm pretty sure it's been done many times, if anyone has access to the results I'd be very interested in seeing them.

LONGTABBER PE

29th September 2009, 09:58 AM

Well council for the defence for starters, it wouldn't be unheard of for an expert to contact them and make an offer to examine the evidence as he finds it implausible at first glance.

That is an alleged set up, not the actual one, there is no way of knowing how close it was to the real thing. As Rolfe has also pointed out in another post, fragments of Radio pcb and casing also survived, so either they are all fake, or some things close to the explosion survived.

Then provide the science, all you have done so far is make unsupported assertions and claim special knowledge.

:rolleyes:

I'm pretty sure it's been done many times, if anyone has access to the results I'd be very interested in seeing them.

Well council for the defence for starters, it wouldn't be unheard of for an expert to contact them and make an offer to examine the evidence as he finds it implausible at first glance.

Thats assuming one paid attention to the trial and cared. It would have had to have been post trial as the actual evidence wouldnt be public until then. But, if you want circumstantial evidence supporting a conspiracy- WHERE was the defense expert to rebut the state? Just the fact they didnt have one tells me something is fishy because under the best of circumstances this case was weak as water.

That is an alleged set up, not the actual one, there is no way of knowing how close it was to the real thing. As Rolfe has also pointed out in another post, fragments of Radio pcb and casing also survived, so either they are all fake, or some things close to the explosion survived.

I know its a mock up ( i said that) but there is only so much volume in that case and only so many ways to stuff a turkey and no, they are ALL fake.

Then provide the science, all you have done so far is make unsupported assertions and claim special knowledge.

I did - its upthread. I dont "claim it" i have it- the fact that the masses dont understand it is why they pay me and not the general public for it. Thats why we are the SME's and the general public isnt. if it was that easy, a caveman could do it.

Rolfe

29th September 2009, 10:50 AM

Sorry, i forgot- this is a "miracle" bomb that disintegrates 8 oz solid iron magnets 5" away from it and all metal from carriages leaving no trace but allows plastics and fiberboard in direct contact with it to survive. It also puts trace on components inside the case but on nothing else touching it. It leaves shirts but vaporizes metal. Amazing damn device.

Mmm, it's not quite that simple. Have you seen the area the debris covered? It's high heather moor and forest, and there's a helluva lot of it. It was searched by hand as carefully as possible, but there's only so much you can do. All the big stuff was picked up, and a lot of bits of clothing. It's notable though that all the (alleged) parts of the Toshiba, and the timer fragment, were discovered lodged in fragments of clothing. Small, heavier stuff that didn't lodge in clothing but perhaps fell to earth independently would have a much smaller chance of being picked up by the searchers, especially as it would tend to fall through the heather rather than lie on top of it. Speaker coil is however mentioned as being found, again caught in fabric.

There was some evidence led about stuffing the Toshiba, though I can't remember where I read it. I saw something about how much Semtex you could get into something like that before it would be visible to someone inspecting the radio from outside.

It was Bollier who said that the timer casing would have had to be removed, but I don't think anyone has disagreed with him about that. However, a fragment of the Toshiba circuit board was found among the debris.

The story of the Golfer (http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com/lockerbie/Golfer-tells-of-plot-to.3298354.jp) might be relevant here, although we should remember that the SCCRC rejected his evidence as confused and contradictory.

Golfer alleges pieces of supposedly bomb-damaged clothing, parts of a timer circuit board and an instruction manual for a Toshiba radio-cassette recorder were added to the evidence to lay a trail that would lead to the 'bomber'.

In a damning indictment of Scottish justice, he claims senior members of the Lockerbie investigating team agreed to manufacture and manipulate evidence to help secure a suspect and conviction.

He is definitely alleging that more was planted than just the MST-13 board, and that the Scottish police were a party to it. However, this would have had to be done at such an early stage that I have a great deal of difficulty in seeing how its supposed to have worked.

Rolfe.

Guybrush Threepwood

29th September 2009, 12:40 PM

But, if you want circumstantial evidence supporting a conspiracy- WHERE was the defense expert to rebut the state? Just the fact they didnt have one tells me something is fishy because under the best of circumstances this case was weak as water.
I'm not sure there was one, for some odd reason the defence did not dispute the prosecution's assertion that a 747 blew up and fell out of the sky over Scotland. They only disputed that the two accused were involved.

I know its a mock up ( i said that) but there is only so much volume in that case and only so many ways to stuff a turkey and no, they are ALL fake.
I sometimes almost start to believe that the MST-13 timer is a plant, but if the NWO is capable of organising the faking of all the results of the investigation in the middle of nowhere in Scotland 3 days before Christmas, then all I have left to say is; I for one welcome our new Reptilian Overlords.

Then provide the science.I did - its upthread. No, it isn't. Plenty of wild assertions, no science.

Rolfe

29th September 2009, 01:12 PM

Thats assuming one paid attention to the trial and cared. It would have had to have been post trial as the actual evidence wouldnt be public until then.

I'm a bit startled Jim Swire didn't notice, if it's so obvious. He certainly paid attention to the trial and cared.

But, if you want circumstantial evidence supporting a conspiracy- WHERE was the defense expert to rebut the state? Just the fact they didnt have one tells me something is fishy because under the best of circumstances this case was weak as water.

What tells me the defence weren't trying is the report of the official UN observer to the trial (http://i-p-o.org/koechler-lockerbie-appeal_report.htm). (This from his report on the appeal proceedings.)

9.One of the most serious shortcomings of the appeal proceedings (as of the trial proceedings) was that the appellant did not have adequate defense – a circumstance that weighs heavily in an adversarial judicial system where the fairness of the trial depends mainly on the equality of arms between prosecution and defense. Because of this situation, the requirements of Art. 6 (“Right to a fair trial”) of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms were not met.

24.In addition to that, the appellant was deprived of his right to adequate legal representation (in the many respects described above in regard to the conduct of the appeal proceedings on the part of the defense team). Furthermore, he did not have the possibility of choosing the defense team on his own. The team was chosen for him by the former Libyan defense lawyer, Mr. Maghour, who at the same time was acting as Libya’s representative in the cases Libyan Arab Jamahiriya v. United Kingdom and Libyan Arab Jamahiriya v. United States respectively at the International Court of Justice. The official role of the Libyan defense lawyer as agent of the Libyan state was incompatible with his duty to give adequate legal assistance to his client in a case of personal criminal responsibility such as the one before the Scottish Court in the Netherlands. In view of the Defense’s decision not to make use of many of the means available to it for the adequate defense of the appellant, the original choice of the defense team (made without the participation of the appellant) may have negatively impacted on the rights of the appellant. That the defense team was “out of tune” with the appellant – whom it was supposed to represent – became clear in the rather strange fact that the Defense refused to meet with the undersigned or to answer any of his questions, while the appellant, through the prison administration and the Scottish Court Service, asked for a meeting with the undersigned.

25.In the meeting of 12 February 2002, requested by the appellant, he disclosed to the undersigned that he was made aware of only 3 out of 16 joint minutes agreed upon by the Prosecution and the Defense in the course of the trial. He also stated that his instructions were not always followed by the Defense (as for instance in the case of the x-ray machine which the appellant had asked to have brought into the courtroom for inspection) and that he did not give instructions to the Defense to drop the “special defense” during the trial (see Par. 9 of the undersigned’s report of 3 February 2001); he further said that he did not understand why no submission of “no case to answer” was made in his case by the Defense (while they made such a step in regard to the co-accused), etc. All of these details underline the basic fact that the appellant did not get adequate legal representation and suggest that the defense strategy may not have been genuine and authentic (as required under European standards). The suspicions raised by the undersigned in his trial report were confirmed by the information obtained during the aforementioned meeting with the appellant.

Nevertheless, the only people I see declaring that no fragment of a timer could possibly have survived that explosion are Bollier and de Braeckeleer, and there seems to be a distinct lack of a stampede of other explosives experts to agree with them.

Rolfe.

LONGTABBER PE

29th September 2009, 08:22 PM

Mmm, it's not quite that simple. Have you seen the area the debris covered? It's high heather moor and forest, and there's a helluva lot of it. It was searched by hand as carefully as possible, but there's only so much you can do. All the big stuff was picked up, and a lot of bits of clothing. It's notable though that all the (alleged) parts of the Toshiba, and the timer fragment, were discovered lodged in fragments of clothing. Small, heavier stuff that didn't lodge in clothing but perhaps fell to earth independently would have a much smaller chance of being picked up by the searchers, especially as it would tend to fall through the heather rather than lie on top of it. Speaker coil is however mentioned as being found, again caught in fabric.

There was some evidence led about stuffing the Toshiba, though I can't remember where I read it. I saw something about how much Semtex you could get into something like that before it would be visible to someone inspecting the radio from outside.

It was Bollier who said that the timer casing would have had to be removed, but I don't think anyone has disagreed with him about that. However, a fragment of the Toshiba circuit board was found among the debris.

The story of the Golfer (http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com/lockerbie/Golfer-tells-of-plot-to.3298354.jp) might be relevant here, although we should remember that the SCCRC rejected his evidence as confused and contradictory.

He is definitely alleging that more was planted than just the MST-13 board, and that the Scottish police were a party to it. However, this would have had to be done at such an early stage that I have a great deal of difficulty in seeing how its supposed to have worked.

Rolfe.

Mmm, it's not quite that simple. Have you seen the area the debris covered?

It really is that simple. Since 04, I have done well over 100 assessments and recovery ops regarding IED's and other ordinance on AH64's, hummers, 5 tons and a host of other NTV's. I have seen explosions do many weird things. I have been on the revovery sites looking for debris, body parts, sensitive/classified electronics and the whole bit. Thats all the more reason to suspect it.
Its hard to find that level of parts in a desert thats 100% open with metal detectors. Even when you KNOW its suposed to be there and deliberately searching for it.

Speaker coil is however mentioned as being found, again caught in fabric.

Didnt see that but why ( i wonder) isnt it part of the debris as well as the plastic pieces. I have a theory on that.

There was some evidence led about stuffing the Toshiba, though I can't remember where I read it. I saw something about how much Semtex you could get into something like that before it would be visible to someone inspecting the radio from outside.

I read it and I'm not sure what he was talking about being "visible" unless he is referring to it being a black case and Semtex is red/orange. Thats easily fixed by spray paint and if you are concerned about the fumes giving you away just use black electrical tape on the inside of the vents. ( its not like you are going to play the radio again)

It was Bollier who said that the timer casing would have had to be removed, but I don't think anyone has disagreed with him about that. However, a fragment of the Toshiba circuit board was found among the debris.

I could see it either way- theres plenty of "air" room to stuff the explosive. ( I've packed a many a hole with a wood dowel)- the question is "can you fit the timer,trigger and electronic stuff in there with the OEM stuff still present and close the case?"

I dont see why not with some selective packing but it would be tight. If it were me, I would have removed the board just to make it easy. The only reason I would see to leave it would be if your objective was to give it to someone and let them actually play it before detonation.

LONGTABBER PE

29th September 2009, 08:46 PM

I'm a bit startled Jim Swire didn't notice, if it's so obvious. He certainly paid attention to the trial and cared.

What tells me the defence weren't trying is the report of the official UN observer to the trial (http://i-p-o.org/koechler-lockerbie-appeal_report.htm). (This from his report on the appeal proceedings.)

Nevertheless, the only people I see declaring that no fragment of a timer could possibly have survived that explosion are Bollier and de Braeckeleer, and there seems to be a distinct lack of a stampede of other explosives experts to agree with them.

Rolfe.

I'm a bit startled Jim Swire didn't notice, if it's so obvious. He certainly paid attention to the trial and cared.

I guess you need to ask him- it really is that obvious

What tells me the defence weren't trying is the report of the official UN observer to the trial (http://i-p-o.org/koechler-lockerbie-appeal_report.htm). (This from his report on the appeal proceedings.)

That really has to be the answer. I find it personally impossible to believe any element would attempt to influence a defense team. ( states case- yes)

Granted, I have zero knowledge of the UK legal system but I do a good bit of it here.

Lawyers know law- they dont know all the technical nuances of all kinds of evidence, thats why they hire people like me. Its very possible they didnt grasp or realize the importance of it. ( seen it happen)

Also, I can partially buy sub theory #6214.3 that I have read in your links where many people believed it may not make it to trial and even then almost certainly not a conviction.

I'm not finished reading yet but if this case had been tried in a US Federal court ( under Federal rules of evidence) theres a very strong possibility it never would have made it to trial because there would be a hearing for cause and I'm not convinced the state could fully point the finger at the accused.

Even if they did- an average defense lawyer ( not even a good one) should have been able to shoot the bomb theory of the state out of the sky.

Granted this is at best a weak circumstantial case ( but winnable) but the evidence is tainted.

I'm doubtful there would have been a conviction here.

Nevertheless, the only people I see declaring that no fragment of a timer could possibly have survived that explosion are Bollier and de Braeckeleer, and there seems to be a distinct lack of a stampede of other explosives experts to agree with them.

What do you expect? Explosives Union Local # 69 to strike and protest?

How many were asked? How many people were contracted to independantly review the evidence?

Thats the opposite of the bigfooters claiming "all these sightings must mean something- they cant all be false". Just because everyone working in demolitions didnt take up arms and rail against the verdict ( assuming they even followed the case) doesnt mean a thing.

Rolfe

30th September 2009, 01:45 PM

It really is that simple. Since 04, I have done well over 100 assessments and recovery ops regarding IED's and other ordinance on AH64's, hummers, 5 tons and a host of other NTV's. I have seen explosions do many weird things. I have been on the revovery sites looking for debris, body parts, sensitive/classified electronics and the whole bit. Thats all the more reason to suspect it.
Its hard to find that level of parts in a desert thats 100% open with metal detectors. Even when you KNOW its suposed to be there and deliberately searching for it.

Are you saying that the amount of evidence recovered was improbable per se, irrespective of whether certain items should have been vaporised?

Didnt see that but why ( i wonder) isnt it part of the debris as well as the plastic pieces. I have a theory on that.

I'm anticipating this theory with bated breath, but take your time....

I read it and I'm not sure what he was talking about being "visible" unless he is referring to it being a black case and Semtex is red/orange. Thats easily fixed by spray paint and if you are concerned about the fumes giving you away just use black electrical tape on the inside of the vents. ( its not like you are going to play the radio again)

I could see it either way- theres plenty of "air" room to stuff the explosive. ( I've packed a many a hole with a wood dowel)- the question is "can you fit the timer,trigger and electronic stuff in there with the OEM stuff still present and close the case?"

I dont see why not with some selective packing but it would be tight. If it were me, I would have removed the board just to make it easy. The only reason I would see to leave it would be if your objective was to give it to someone and let them actually play it before detonation.

I gathered he was talking about a security inspection spotting that there was more in the case than there ought to be, but not sure if he meant on a x-ray or by direct inspection.

I know British airports have been in the habit of asking passengers with electronic items in their baggage to switch them on and demonstrate that they work. I've been asked to do that myself. It seemed to be a standard assumption that a radio rigged up as a bomb wouldn't work. It's not impossible the bomb maker might have tried to construct the device so that it would pass that test.

Rolfe.

Rolfe

30th September 2009, 02:15 PM

I guess you need to ask him- it really is that obvious

Well, I'm not personally acquainted with him, but I would have expected him to have caught on to that one considering he's convinced the MST-13 fragment is a plant and sat through the entire trial.

Having said that, he currently has a book about the case (http://www.lockerbietruth.com/ForFloraDetails.html) which nobody wants to risk publishing because it's too hot to handle. Given that we have titles like The Trail of the Octopus in the public domain, and there are serious allegations of just about everything up to and including a MIHOP scenario readily accessible, I have a bit of a boggle about what he can possibly have to say that he can't publish. (And why he doesn't just self-publish the thing and be done with it.)

That really has to be the answer. I find it personally impossible to believe any element would attempt to influence a defense team. ( states case- yes)

Granted, I have zero knowledge of the UK legal system but I do a good bit of it here.

Lawyers know law- they dont know all the technical nuances of all kinds of evidence, thats why they hire people like me. Its very possible they didnt grasp or realize the importance of it. ( seen it happen)

First, there's no such thing as UK law. This trial was under the law of Scotland. Second, it was highly unusual. There was an agreement to waive trial by jury. The defendant was not allowed to choose his own defence team, or instruct them freely. Both prosecution and defence teams had representatives of foreign governments breathing down their necks and instructing them how to conduct their case. And that's before you even notice that the judges appeared to be bending over backwards to convict.

Also, I can partially buy sub theory #6214.3 that I have read in your links where many people believed it may not make it to trial and even then almost certainly not a conviction.

I think few people believed it would come to trial. However, over the ten years, with sanctions being applied to Libya, political pressure mounted to extradite the accused. Once the trial was on, though, it seems that a conviction was a foregone conclusion - until we actually got to see the nature of the "irrefutable evidence" the Crown said it had.

I'm not finished reading yet but if this case had been tried in a US Federal court ( under Federal rules of evidence) theres a very strong possibility it never would have made it to trial because there would be a hearing for cause and I'm not convinced the state could fully point the finger at the accused.

Even if they did- an average defense lawyer ( not even a good one) should have been able to shoot the bomb theory of the state out of the sky.

Granted this is at best a weak circumstantial case ( but winnable) but the evidence is tainted.

I'm doubtful there would have been a conviction here.

I'd have said the same as regards Scots law, but this was no normal trial. Hans Kochler's reports are worth reading in detail.

What do you expect? Explosives Union Local # 69 to strike and protest?

How many were asked? How many people were contracted to independantly review the evidence?

Thats the opposite of the bigfooters claiming "all these sightings must mean something- they cant all be false". Just because everyone working in demolitions didnt take up arms and rail against the verdict ( assuming they even followed the case) doesnt mean a thing.

Well, I'd expect the police and army explosives experts who have a lot of experience with the IRA's little games to notice that something's not right, in such a high profile and widely reported case.

I'd have imagined that even if Jim Swire didn't spot it, some of his army explosives expert mates might have mentioned it to him.

Of course it's not inevitable, but it's something I take note of. I hesitate to pull the "you're just some guy on the internet" line, because I'm always reluctant to do that when a poster is self-evidently talking the talk. However, I don't have any way to tell exactly how expert you really are, obviously. So I don't have any easy way to decide whether to trust what you're saying and open a can of CT worms that makes the individual timer fragment issue look like an open-and-shut case, or to stick with current received wisdom that the fragments are not intrinsically impossible.

So I continue to keep an open mind. And argue Devil's Advocate when I see a relevant point.

Rolfe.

Rolfe

30th September 2009, 02:44 PM

Additionally, I've come across another commentary by Hans Kochler (http://www.i-p-o.org/Koechler-Lockerbie-statement-Aug2003.htm).

12. It is to be noted further that the defense teams for the two accused Libyan nationals – and in particular for the sentenced Libyan national – were not chosen by the two Libyan individuals, but by the Libyan government. Mr. Al-Megrahi’s defense team was chosen by the Libyan authorities and paid for by them, not by Mr. Al-Megrahi who has no funds. It did not act in defense of its client in a professional manner, but may have acted according to the instructions of the Libyan authorities whose interests are not necessarily directed towards establishing the truth in this particular matter of criminal justice, but towards reaching a political settlement with the United States and the United Kingdom for the removal of the sanctions and for unhindered economic cooperation.

13. In view of the above considerations, Mr. Al-Megrahi may well be the scapegoat in a comprehensive political arrangement, which allows the parties to the Lockerbie dispute, including Libya, a face-saving way out of the impasse that prevailed for more than a decade. Agreeing on putting the blame on a lone individual (as irrational and improbable as this may be) absolves the parties to the Lockerbie dispute from entering into delicate and highly embarrassing investigations of the potential role of the intelligence services (including advance knowledge of the crime and the question why they have done nothing to prevent it) of the countries involved in the Lockerbie dispute. Because Mr. Al-Megrahi’s guilt has not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, further investigations would have to be conducted by the Scottish judicial authorities so as to find out the truth.

This might accord with your own thinking. I also note that in his references to advance warnings, Kochler may be closer to alleging a LIHOP than I realised.

Rolfe.

Rolfe

30th September 2009, 05:15 PM

Well, I'm not personally acquainted with him, but I would have expected him to have caught on to that one considering he's convinced the MST-13 fragment is a plant and sat through the entire trial.

OK, I concede. Swire has noticed, I just didn't pick it up.

This is him (http://lockerbiecase.blogspot.com/2009/04/dutch-tv-documentary-and-reactions.html) commenting on the Dutch film Lockerbie Revisited, where he apparently did voice this opinion. First he pointed out the mistake with regard to the picture of the circuit board fragment shown on a fingertip, then he continued....

Otherwise it gave excellent support to the idea that the PT35B fragment has a very suspicious history, lacking the confirmed freedom from interference required of any significant item of 'evidence' for use in a murder trial.

I was able to point out at the end that PT35B also appeared to be something that could hardly have survived such close proximity to the Semtex charge, and that at least two independent explosives firms have confirmed this. Also that its police evidence bag had had its label interfered with, while its entry into the UK forensic report appeared to have been a hasty afterthought, requiring renumbering of the subsequent pages.

You definitely win on that one. I still don't hear him suggesting that the fragments of Toshiba were all planted too, though, unless I missed a lot more.

Rolfe.

LONGTABBER PE

30th September 2009, 09:51 PM

Well, I'm not personally acquainted with him, but I would have expected him to have caught on to that one considering he's convinced the MST-13 fragment is a plant and sat through the entire trial.

Having said that, he currently has a book about the case (http://www.lockerbietruth.com/ForFloraDetails.html) which nobody wants to risk publishing because it's too hot to handle. Given that we have titles like The Trail of the Octopus in the public domain, and there are serious allegations of just about everything up to and including a MIHOP scenario readily accessible, I have a bit of a boggle about what he can possibly have to say that he can't publish. (And why he doesn't just self-publish the thing and be done with it.)

First, there's no such thing as UK law. This trial was under the law of Scotland. Second, it was highly unusual. There was an agreement to waive trial by jury. The defendant was not allowed to choose his own defence team, or instruct them freely. Both prosecution and defence teams had representatives of foreign governments breathing down their necks and instructing them how to conduct their case. And that's before you even notice that the judges appeared to be bending over backwards to convict.

I think few people believed it would come to trial. However, over the ten years, with sanctions being applied to Libya, political pressure mounted to extradite the accused. Once the trial was on, though, it seems that a conviction was a foregone conclusion - until we actually got to see the nature of the "irrefutable evidence" the Crown said it had.

I'd have said the same as regards Scots law, but this was no normal trial. Hans Kochler's reports are worth reading in detail.

Well, I'd expect the police and army explosives experts who have a lot of experience with the IRA's little games to notice that something's not right, in such a high profile and widely reported case.

I'd have imagined that even if Jim Swire didn't spot it, some of his army explosives expert mates might have mentioned it to him.

Of course it's not inevitable, but it's something I take note of. I hesitate to pull the "you're just some guy on the internet" line, because I'm always reluctant to do that when a poster is self-evidently talking the talk. However, I don't have any way to tell exactly how expert you really are, obviously. So I don't have any easy way to decide whether to trust what you're saying and open a can of CT worms that makes the individual timer fragment issue look like an open-and-shut case, or to stick with current received wisdom that the fragments are not intrinsically impossible.

So I continue to keep an open mind. And argue Devil's Advocate when I see a relevant point.

Rolfe.

Well, I'm not personally acquainted with him, but I would have expected him to have caught on to that one considering he's convinced the MST-13 fragment is a plant and sat through the entire trial.

Having said that, he currently has a book about the case (http://www.lockerbietruth.com/ForFloraDetails.html) which nobody wants to risk publishing because it's too hot to handle. Given that we have titles like The Trail of the Octopus in the public domain, and there are serious allegations of just about everything up to and including a MIHOP scenario readily accessible, I have a bit of a boggle about what he can possibly have to say that he can't publish. (And why he doesn't just self-publish the thing and be done with it.)

I can well see how things get overlooked and I understand not talking about things as I have a similar issue with 2 US events that I personally know were set up but cant say because thats too dangerous.

First, there's no such thing as UK law. This trial was under the law of Scotland. Second, it was highly unusual. There was an agreement to waive trial by jury. The defendant was not allowed to choose his own defence team, or instruct them freely. Both prosecution and defence teams had representatives of foreign governments breathing down their necks and instructing them how to conduct their case. And that's before you even notice that the judges appeared to be bending over backwards to convict.

And you dont find this suspicious? I do.

I think few people believed it would come to trial. However, over the ten years, with sanctions being applied to Libya, political pressure mounted to extradite the accused. Once the trial was on, though, it seems that a conviction was a foregone conclusion - until we actually got to see the nature of the "irrefutable evidence" the Crown said it had.

Sounds to me like this entire trial was a set up

Well, I'd expect the police and army explosives experts who have a lot of experience with the IRA's little games to notice that something's not right, in such a high profile and widely reported case.

They probably did but its a dangerous thing to speak against the establishment

Of course it's not inevitable, but it's something I take note of. I hesitate to pull the "you're just some guy on the internet" line, because I'm always reluctant to do that when a poster is self-evidently talking the talk. However, I don't have any way to tell exactly how expert you really are, obviously. So I don't have any easy way to decide whether to trust what you're saying and open a can of CT worms that makes the individual timer fragment issue look like an open-and-shut case, or to stick with current received wisdom that the fragments are not intrinsically impossible.

I understand

LONGTABBER PE

30th September 2009, 10:39 PM

Are you saying that the amount of evidence recovered was improbable per se, irrespective of whether certain items should have been vaporised?

I'm anticipating this theory with bated breath, but take your time....

I gathered he was talking about a security inspection spotting that there was more in the case than there ought to be, but not sure if he meant on a x-ray or by direct inspection.

I know British airports have been in the habit of asking passengers with electronic items in their baggage to switch them on and demonstrate that they work. I've been asked to do that myself. It seemed to be a standard assumption that a radio rigged up as a bomb wouldn't work. It's not impossible the bomb maker might have tried to construct the device so that it would pass that test.

Rolfe.

Are you saying that the amount of evidence recovered was improbable per se, irrespective of whether certain items should have been vaporised?

exactly- I have seen hummers and MRAP's that entire transaxles and other major components have literally "disappeared" that were big and dense enough to have survived.

I'm anticipating this theory with bated breath, but take your time....

Its nothing secret since now I'm 99.99% convinced the entire states case is a complete fabrication along with the "claimed" evidence.

Speakers are normally subbed out to speaker manufacturers and have their codes stamped in them. I'm of the opinion those codes and housing survived the "dummy explosion" that created these debris but could be traced thru those codes that would point to another model radio or maybe even manufactured after the incident. Kinda difficult to sell the idea that a speaker made in 90 was in a crash in the 80's.

Otherwise, why not say "lookey here" at all the radio fragments we found.

I gathered he was talking about a security inspection spotting that there was more in the case than there ought to be, but not sure if he meant on a x-ray or by direct inspection.

I know British airports have been in the habit of asking passengers with electronic items in their baggage to switch them on and demonstrate that they work. I've been asked to do that myself. It seemed to be a standard assumption that a radio rigged up as a bomb wouldn't work. It's not impossible the bomb maker might have tried to construct the device so that it would pass that test.

Thats kinda where i was going. A glob of semtex certainly WOULD show up on an Xray. Thats a hell of a risk to take. The only way to effectively hide it would be to profile it against the tape carriage and OEM board. That would take some sculpting and removal/installation of the components.

Even then, now theres the space issue- unless they were very creative- a good X Ray operator SHOULD have noticed this great big glob. Why didnt they?

Option 1 is the bomb was physically installed on the plane

Option 2 is there never was a radio bomb ( in something else)

Rolfe

1st October 2009, 03:33 AM

And you dont find this suspicious? I do.

Sounds to me like this entire trial was a set up

Er, hasn't the entire thrust of what I've been saying been that the trial was rigged, a set-up, a kangaroo court, a show trial, all the rest of it? (You were the one who joined the discussion saying you were familiar with the evidence and believed Megrahi to be guilty, not me!)

The behaviour of the defence has always been a bit of a mystery to me, because they did a great job of demolishing Giaka as a credible witness and I wonder in retrospect why they pushed so hard on that one. However, there was a big falling-out in the defence team early on, with the original Scottish advocate leaving the team because of interference from the Libyan lawyers he was forced to work with. After that, substantial chunks of the defence were dropped, including the "special defence of incrimination" against Abu Talb and the PFLP-GC.

It appears that it was in Libya's interests also that at least one of the defendants should be convicted. The trial was a central plank of the negotiations to get the sanctions lifted. It was all arranged that Libya was going to accept responsibility, pay the relatives of the victims eye-watering sums of money, and everybody would move on. (Including the law enforcement authorities, who would stop investigating who did it, or who else might have been involved in what was undoubtedly a large conspiracy with high-up government backing whoever did it.)

I think it was becoming so obvious that Giaka wasn't credible, that it was decided to sacrifice him and his evidence (and so inevitably acquit Fhimah) on the altar of defence credibility, while retaining Gauci's testimony and a lot of the tittle-tattle coming from Bollier and his mates, so as to convict Megrahi.

So the defence had Libyan lawyers breathing down their necks manipulating the case, with their national interest vested in getting Megrahi convicted as a scapegoat. The prosecution had the CIA breathing down their necks telling them what they could and couldn't bring forward in evidence, and feeding them fairly-tales invented by Giaka.

Received wisdom says the judges were swayed by indirect political pressure to convict someone after all these years of international hard-ball, Nelson Mandela's intervention, the wildly expensive three-ring circus at Camp Zeist, and all the media attention. Whether there was any more to it and they had been directly leaned on with instructions to bring in a guilty verdict I couldn't say. Scrutiny of the evidence presented, and their stated reasons for their decision, does however bear that interpretation.

They probably did but its a dangerous thing to speak against the establishment

Well, Jim Swire doesn't seem scared. However, as I said in a later post, I note now that he has indeed stated that the survival of that fragment would have been close to impossible.

Rolfe.

LONGTABBER PE

1st October 2009, 03:56 AM

Er, hasn't the entire thrust of what I've been saying been that the trial was rigged, a set-up, a kangaroo court, a show trial, all the rest of it? (You were the one who joined the discussion saying you were familiar with the evidence and believed Megrahi to be guilty, not me!)

Rolfe.

Come on now, thats not exactly correct.

I said I did ( and still do) believe he is guilty ( at some level but probably not directly) based on other things i had heard. I have never examined the evidence or trial.

Funny thing- now that I am looking at it, I'm almost open to the idea that he might have been legitimately framed.

Rolfe

1st October 2009, 05:36 AM

Come on now, thats not exactly correct.

I said I did ( and still do) believe he is guilty ( at some level but probably not directly) based on other things i had heard. I have never examined the evidence or trial.

Funny thing- now that I am looking at it, I'm almost open to the idea that he might have been legitimately framed.

I don't believe he put the suitcase on the plane, which is what he was convicted of. The evidence is laughable.

First, the securiity evidence at Luqa was as tight as a duck's arse; it's the only one of the three airports with no apparent opportunity for an unaccompanied suitcase to be introduced. (And yet the judges decided it must have gone on there, capitalising on a tiny shred of "well you can never be 100% sure" in the general manager's evidence. An amazing contrast to the way they hand-waved away Bedford's highly suggestive evidence with, "well, the case could have been moved within the container before it was put on the plane.")

Second, the original indictment had Fhimah, who had changed jobs but stll had an air-side pass for Luqa, as the essential accomplice to get this done. It was always understood that Megrahi could not possibly have done what was alleged without an accomplice. But Fhimah was acquitted (there was no evidence he was even there on that day), and no other evidence was presented that there might have been another accomplice present.

So, if the bomb was not introduced at Luqa, and Megrahi was definitely at Luqa that day, looks like an alibi to me.

There was also no evidence led whatsoever to show that he had even been involved with explosives or bomb-making, nobody was able to say where this bomb had been made or who made it, and basically there was little in his record to support the suggestion that he was involved in terrorism - depending on how you view the JSO, I suppose, but certainly not linking him with hands-on terrorism.

Yes, I think he was in the JSO, certainly while he worked for Libyan Arab Airlines. He denies any JSO connection after he left that job and went to work in the Centre for Strategic Studies, however I take that with a pinch of salt. He was involved in military procurement almost certainly - otherwise, why the connection with MEBO.

I think that, together with the fact he happened to be in Malta on the right day (and the investigators were obsessed with the idea the suitcase went on at Malta because the clothes had been bought there) made him eminently frameable. But it's so thin, when you really get down to it, that I can't make any deduction that he was actually involved in the bombing.

So, he was involved in the Libyan security services and military procurement. He wasn't a Sunday School teacher, and it's perfectly possible he was involved in "stuff". However, I don't think it's anywhere near proved he even knew about the plot to bomb PA103, and then again, I don't necessarily think awareness of such a plot is the same thing as actually carrying it out of being involved in carrying it out.

If you really think he was materially involved in the operation, I'd be interested to know why. Also "stuff I heard" doesn't really cut it with this one. The rumour mill has been so active you could have heard apparently reliable information to pin it on anyone from Abu Talb to the CIA.

Wrong thread probably, but [/end derail].

Rolfe.

Rolfe

1st October 2009, 05:46 AM

exactly- I have seen hummers and MRAP's that entire transaxles and other major components have literally "disappeared" that were big and dense enough to have survived.

Of course, remember that you're not just saying it could all have been vaporised, but that it's 99.9% certain it would all have been vaporised. If there's even a 10% chance these fragments could have survived as described, that's the interpretation I'd go for.

Its nothing secret since now I'm 99.99% convinced the entire states case is a complete fabrication along with the "claimed" evidence.

Speakers are normally subbed out to speaker manufacturers and have their codes stamped in them. I'm of the opinion those codes and housing survived the "dummy explosion" that created these debris but could be traced thru those codes that would point to another model radio or maybe even manufactured after the incident. Kinda difficult to sell the idea that a speaker made in 90 was in a crash in the 80's.

Otherwise, why not say "lookey here" at all the radio fragments we found.

I thought they did say "lookie here at all the radio fragments we found."

1) A charred fragment of white cotton material which from the details of the stitching and method of assembly appeared most likely to have originated from a white T-shirt of Abanderado brand. Contained within this fragment there were found a piece of loudspeaker mesh and eleven plastic fragments which could have come from a Toshiba radio, and some blue/white fragments consistent with having come from a Babygro (see item 5).

2) Explosion damaged fragments of brown tartan patterned material two of which still retained parts of labels which identified them as having formed part of a pair of Yorkie brand trousers size 34. Contained within one of these fragments there were found fragments of the lining and internal divider of the primary suitcase, five black plastic fragments which could have come from a Toshiba radio, four fragments of an RT-SF 16 owner’s manual, and five clumps of blue/white fibres consistent with having come from a Babygro.

3) Four charred and disrupted fragments of grey cloth.... [the disputed item, which contained the alleged fragment of MST-13, but also fragments of plastic thought to be from the Toshba, and five scraps of the Toshiba owner's manual].

4) Six charred fragments of white material with a fine blue pin-stripe. Although there were no identifying marks on any of these fragments, their colour, weave, texture and construction indicated that their origin was from a shirt closely similar to a Slalom brand shirt. Contained within these fragments there were found sixteen fragments of black plastic and four fragments of loudspeaker mesh which could have come from a Toshiba radio and fragments of an RT-SF 16 owner’s manual.

[And so on to more than ten items.]

Of course it's always theoretically possible that all this could have been fabricated. However, I question the practicality of being able to do that without this being discovered, and in particular the suggestion that it was done after 1990, when to my recollection the basic stuff about fragments of a cassette player and a suitcase was made public early in the investigation.

If you want to make the case that this was all planted evidence, I could even see where they might have got it from.

Mr Feraday was present at tests in the USA. These tests involved the use of luggage filled metal containers and the placing of plastic explosives within Toshiba radio cassette players in a garment filled suitcase.

However, the probability that this could or would have been done (especially without any sign of falsification of documents except in the case of the timer fragment) in the time scales apparently involved seems to me to be remote.

Thats kinda where i was going. A glob of semtex certainly WOULD show up on an Xray. Thats a hell of a risk to take. The only way to effectively hide it would be to profile it against the tape carriage and OEM board. That would take some sculpting and removal/installation of the components.

Even then, now theres the space issue- unless they were very creative- a good X Ray operator SHOULD have noticed this great big glob. Why didnt they?

Option 1 is the bomb was physically installed on the plane

Option 2 is there never was a radio bomb ( in something else)

I'm currently reading The Trail of the Octopus, and the suggestion there seems to be that the suitcase was put on the luggage conveyor at Frankfurt after the security checks. I'm not sure how well that fits with the rest of the evidence, but it's something to consider.

Also, there have been questions raised as to the sensitivity of the x-ray checks at Frankfurt and Heathrow. Frankfurt airport had had the security warning about bombs in Toshiba radio-casette players, and the x-ray technician was confident he would have pulled out anything that looked like such a radio for hand-searching, but the Court managed to dismiss his evidence anyway.

It was submitted that that examination would have revealed the presence of the radio cassette player and its contents, particularly in view of the fact that there had been a warning to look out for explosive devices hidden in radio sets. The x-ray operator, Kurt Maier, was not fit through illness to give evidence, but reference was made to statements by him to the investigators from which it appeared that he had x-rayed the consignment in question. One statement was spoken to by Naomi Saunders, one of the FAA investigators, the other by Hans Fuhl of the BKA. In both, Mr Maier explained that he had had some limited training in the use of the machine, but said that in the course of using it he had taught himself to distinguish various sorts of electrical equipment, and that he knew how to tell if explosives were present, from their appearance. Neither statement directly dealt with the question whether, and if so how, Mr Maier would detect explosives hidden in a radio cassette player. What he said was that the approach in dealing with electrical equipment was to see whether it presented a normal appearance, for example whether it had a plug. Other evidence, however, particularly that given by the witness Oliver Koch, Alert’s trainee manager at the time, shows that the standard of training given to Alert employees was poor. That was also the view of the FAA investigators who visited Frankfurt in 1989. Mr Maier’s description of what he looked for does not suggest that he would necessarily have claimed to be able to detect explosives hidden in a radio cassette player. There was no expert evidence as to the ease or difficulty of detecting such hidden devices.

It's possible the Court's view on this is correct, or that the bag was introduced at Frankfurt after the security checks. Of course that still leaves the x-ray checks at Heathrow, however the Toshiba bomb warning hadn't been circulated there (it was still lying on someone's desk), so it's more likely that it could have got past there.

Then we have the possibility of the bag being introduced at Heathrow, the "Bedford suitcase". No matter what The Trail of the Octopus alleges, or how persuasive the theory may be that the MST-13 timer fragment is genuine thus pointing to introduction elsewhere than at Heathrow, this still seems the likeliest point of introduction.

He [John Bedford] said that he had left the interline shed to have a cup of tea with Mr Walker in the build-up area. On his return, he saw that two cases had been added to the container. These cases were laid on their sides, with the handles towards the interior of the container, in the way that he would normally have loaded them. The arrangement of these cases was shown in a set of photographs (production 1114) taken in early January 1989 in Mr Bedford’s presence. Mr Bedford said that he had been told by Mr Kamboj [the x-ray technician] that he had placed the additional two suitcases in the container during his absence. Mr Kamboj denied that he had placed any suitcases in the container and denied also that he had told Mr Bedford that he had done so.

Bedford also said Kamboj had told him he had x-rayed the suitcases before putting them in the container. I would assume somebody did searching background checks on Mr. Kamboj after this lot emerged, but the circumstances seem to me quite suspicious.

Anyway, there are ways to have got this suitcase on while circumventing the x-ray procedure, and also no certainty that a bomb suitcase would definitely have been picked up even if it had been x-rayed.

I'd certainly like to hear how you think this "complete fabrication" of great swathes of evidence could possibly have been accomplished, in a way that is consistent with the rest of the information we have available.

Rolfe.

LONGTABBER PE

1st October 2009, 06:12 AM

I don't believe he put the suitcase on the plane, which is what he was convicted of. The evidence is laughable.

If you really think he was materially involved in the operation, I'd be interested to know why. Also "stuff I heard" doesn't really cut it with this one. The rumour mill has been so active you could have heard apparently reliable information to pin it on anyone from Abu Talb to the CIA.

Wrong thread probably, but [/end derail].

Rolfe.

Well, I'll put the train back on the track

I thought I said I DO NOT believe he had an "operational" hand in it. I also believe i told you the information floating back then was Libya was the conduit ( ostensibly for Nidal's group) but a conduit.

LONGTABBER PE

1st October 2009, 06:35 AM

Of course, remember that you're not just saying it could all have been vaporised, but that it's 99.9% certain it would all have been vaporised. If there's even a 10% chance these fragments could have survived as described, that's the interpretation I'd go for.

I thought they did say "lookie here at all the radio fragments we found."

Of course it's always theoretically possible that all this could have been fabricated. However, I question the practicality of being able to do that without this being discovered, and in particular the suggestion that it was done after 1990, when to my recollection the basic stuff about fragments of a cassette player and a suitcase was made public early in the investigation.

If you want to make the case that this was all planted evidence, I could even see where they might have got it from.

However, the probability that this could or would have been done (especially without any sign of falsification of documents except in the case of the timer fragment) in the time scales apparently involved seems to me to be remote.

I'm currently reading The Trail of the Octopus, and the suggestion there seems to be that the suitcase was put on the luggage conveyor at Frankfurt after the security checks. I'm not sure how well that fits with the rest of the evidence, but it's something to consider.

Also, there have been questions raised as to the sensitivity of the x-ray checks at Frankfurt and Heathrow. Frankfurt airport had had the security warning about bombs in Toshiba radio-casette players, and the x-ray technician was confident he would have pulled out anything that looked like such a radio for hand-searching, but the Court managed to dismiss his evidence anyway.

It's possible the Court's view on this is correct, or that the bag was introduced at Frankfurt after the security checks. Of course that still leaves the x-ray checks at Heathrow, however the Toshiba bomb warning hadn't been circulated there (it was still lying on someone's desk), so it's more likely that it could have got past there.

Then we have the possibility of the bag being introduced at Heathrow, the "Bedford suitcase". No matter what The Trail of the Octopus alleges, or how persuasive the theory may be that the MST-13 timer fragment is genuine thus pointing to introduction elsewhere than at Heathrow, this still seems the likeliest point of introduction.

Bedford also said Kamboj had told him he had x-rayed the suitcases before putting them in the container. I would assume somebody did searching background checks on Mr. Kamboj after this lot emerged, but the circumstances seem to me quite suspicious.

Anyway, there are ways to have got this suitcase on while circumventing the x-ray procedure, and also no certainty that a bomb suitcase would definitely have been picked up even if it had been x-rayed.

I'd certainly like to hear how you think this "complete fabrication" of great swathes of evidence could possibly have been accomplished, in a way that is consistent with the rest of the information we have available.

Rolfe.

Of course, remember that you're not just saying it could all have been vaporised, but that it's 99.9% certain it would all have been vaporised. If there's even a 10% chance these fragments could have survived as described, that's the interpretation I'd go for.

True, I am and I'm going to stay with that assessment given the type and amount of explosive claimed

I thought they did say "lookie here at all the radio fragments we found."

Note their emphasis on COULD be and I'm not talking about the grille- I'm talking about the frame and magnet

Of course it's always theoretically possible that all this could have been fabricated. However, I question the practicality of being able to do that without this being discovered, and in particular the suggestion that it was done after 1990, when to my recollection the basic stuff about fragments of a cassette player and a suitcase was made public early in the investigation.

If you want to make the case that this was all planted evidence, I could even see where they might have got it from.

I can go either way with you on that one now based on what i have read and now believe. For example- I have no problem they legitimately recovered bits of a blown up Toshiba radio from the blast. I DO have a problem when they claim that radio housed the explosive. Thats why I can go either way.

I'm currently reading The Trail of the Octopus, and the suggestion there seems to be that the suitcase was put on the luggage conveyor at Frankfurt after the security checks. I'm not sure how well that fits with the rest of the evidence, but it's something to consider.

I'm still thinking on that one. I'm stuck between that and a installed device on the bird. In any case- I dont believe it was put there a great distance away or made a long trip

Also, there have been questions raised as to the sensitivity of the x-ray checks at Frankfurt and Heathrow. Frankfurt airport had had the security warning about bombs in Toshiba radio-casette players, and the x-ray technician was confident he would have pulled out anything that looked like such a radio for hand-searching, but the Court managed to dismiss his evidence anyway.

I've done some of that for training and internal components all have nice crisp lines even at low settings- a glob of goo looks like a tumor. Theres no way even a half assed operator with good vision could miss it. I dont think the court dismissed it as much as they didnt want to hear it.

Anyway, there are ways to have got this suitcase on while circumventing the x-ray procedure, and also no certainty that a bomb suitcase would definitely have been picked up even if it had been x-rayed.

It should have been

I'd certainly like to hear how you think this "complete fabrication" of great swathes of evidence could possibly have been accomplished, in a way that is consistent with the rest of the information we have available.

The only thing I think fabricated is the suitcase contents

Ambrosia

1st October 2009, 07:22 AM

I thought they did say "lookie here at all the radio fragments we found."

They did, but the only fragments positively IDed as being from that particular make of Toshiba were the manual and some of the circuit board fragments, and IIRC the circuit board bits weren't exclusive to an RT-SF 16, there are a handful of models that carry that board. Also if the plastic fragments are black I am pretty sure that rules out an RT-SF 16, it was a model shipped to Libya with a white not black case. I'll go and find where I read that, I might be misremembering.

The thing that bugs me about the Toshiba radio ID is the manual. In the grey shirt PI995 they dug out fragemnts of black plastic, the MST-13 fragment and pieces of Toshiba manual.

Does anyone know how they reconcile those fragments of Toshiba manual with the "intact" page(s) of manual that Decky Horton found, is that one and the same manual, two seperate manuals?

It was nearly Christmas, presumably many of the passengers are taking Christmas presents home. Toshiba Radios are not exactly rare items.

Rolfe

1st October 2009, 10:55 AM

The only thing I think fabricated is the suitcase contents

Well, you'll find support on that one. There are a number of assertions of tampering with items alleged to have been in the suitcase.

Gauci at first seems to have had an unexpectedly accurate recollection of what the mystery shopper bought from him. Some people (even those otherwise "an apple short of a picnic"!) can do this, and he seems to have remembered the sale because of the peculiar mix of items bought. Among other things, the purchaser bought a tweed jacket he's been trying to get rid of for months. I imagine most of his sales involve fewer items, and not such an eclectic mix of stuff. He also said the purchaser didn't seem to care much what he was buying, unlike most customers who would go through a process of choosing.

According to de Braeckeleer, Gauci originally ran off a list of stuff that was bought, and also said how much the purchaser paid for the purchase. The list didn't include a slalom shirt and a number of other things he was apparently "persuaded" to remember later that he sold. Nevertheless (again according to de Braeckeleer), if you add up the prices of the items on his original list, the total comes to exactly what he said the purchaser's bill had been. The suggestion is that his original list was correct, and the items he "remembered" later were not among them.

I don't know what you think of the whole Gauci story, but I very much doubt that he's clever enough to have made that lot up to order, or be acting. I think his original memories are probably right (6-foot, 50-ish customer who bought the items he originally listed), because that's the way his mind works, and the rest is confusion due to police pressing him, and offering him money/inducements.

This is a helluva funny story to attach to an innocent suitcase that just happened to be right next to the bomb. It does sound consistent with someone purchasing stuff to be used for just that purpose. And then it looks as if the police wanted him to add extra items to his list, in order to provide them with the provenance they wanted in the enquiry. Of course these were the items with significant stuff caught in them, and include the items people are reporting discrepancies with.

But on the other hand, I always thought it was slightly odd for the bomber to go and buy stuff at random like that, in a small shop where he might well be remembered. What was wrong with a nice anonymous checkout at a big chain store somewhere? Or a charity shop with second-hand items?

Sigh.

Off the top of my head, tampering accusations include the blue babygro (said to have been found intact, but later presented shredded and charred), the Toshiba manual (or at least a substantial part of it), and the slalom shirt itself, about which there are allegations that it is the wrong size, as well as that it has been tampered with.

Rolfe.

Ambrosia

1st October 2009, 06:02 PM

page 26 of this pdf (http://www.dia.mil/Foia/panam103.pdf) of declassified intelligence documents from the DIA pertaining to Lockerbie says:

New information in the investigation of the bombing of the UTA DC-10 has revealed similarities between the UTA explosion, the Pan Am 747 explosion over Lockerbie, and a bombing of the Marks and Spencer store in Paris in Feb 85.

In an article entitled "Terrorism - DC-10, New Discovery", "Le Express" reported that the analysis of the Debris of the UTA DC-10 which exploded over the Niger Desert on 19 Sep 89 revealed that a coating of Pentrite which had not exploded was found on the inside wall of a suitcase.
(my emphasis)

PETN is one of the noted substances found in forensic tests at Lockerbie used to ID the explosive used as SEMTEX-H.

What are the odds that the Lockerbie bomb might have been of similar manufacture and had a coating of PETN on the inside wall of a suitcase? Perhaps with just a timer/detonator circuit held within the radio?

Would such a setup mean it was more or less likely that fragments of radio/clothing etc were found in the wreckage in the way that they were?

Libya were blamed for the UTA bomb there's controversy there as well.

The 1985 Paris bomb was attributed to Hezbollah, responsibility was claimed by Abu Nidal, and the PFLP(not the PFLP-GC, who are a different group)

Online archives of "le express" only go back to 2003 and I can't find the article it refers to.

LONGTABBER PE

1st October 2009, 07:59 PM

What are the odds that the Lockerbie bomb might have been of similar manufacture and had a coating of PETN on the inside wall of a suitcase? Perhaps with just a timer/detonator circuit held within the radio?

Possible but HIGHLY unlikely- heres why

Plastics ( like every other kind but because of their nature are more prone to it because they are often used "unwrapped" rather in the case like say dynamite) desorb both vapors ( slight but there) and residue from the media they are mixed in.

Imagine playing with play doh or silly putty and you get that slight residue and odor on your hands.

To get it there ( touching the suitcase or anything else) would mean the explosive was in physical contact with it for a pretty good while.

If we accept the bomb in the boom box theory- it couldnt have happened.

USUALLY- these signatures are left by the handler ( gloves or not but gloves transfer more since they are impermeable) and are trace except in cases where the explosive literally sat there for days or weeks.

LONGTABBER PE

1st October 2009, 08:09 PM

Well, you'll find support on that one. There are a number of assertions of tampering with items alleged to have been in the suitcase.

Gauci at first seems to have had an unexpectedly accurate recollection of what the mystery shopper bought from him. Some people (even those otherwise "an apple short of a picnic"!) can do this, and he seems to have remembered the sale because of the peculiar mix of items bought. Among other things, the purchaser bought a tweed jacket he's been trying to get rid of for months. I imagine most of his sales involve fewer items, and not such an eclectic mix of stuff. He also said the purchaser didn't seem to care much what he was buying, unlike most customers who would go through a process of choosing.

According to de Braeckeleer, Gauci originally ran off a list of stuff that was bought, and also said how much the purchaser paid for the purchase. The list didn't include a slalom shirt and a number of other things he was apparently "persuaded" to remember later that he sold. Nevertheless (again according to de Braeckeleer), if you add up the prices of the items on his original list, the total comes to exactly what he said the purchaser's bill had been. The suggestion is that his original list was correct, and the items he "remembered" later were not among them.

I don't know what you think of the whole Gauci story, but I very much doubt that he's clever enough to have made that lot up to order, or be acting. I think his original memories are probably right (6-foot, 50-ish customer who bought the items he originally listed), because that's the way his mind works, and the rest is confusion due to police pressing him, and offering him money/inducements.

This is a helluva funny story to attach to an innocent suitcase that just happened to be right next to the bomb. It does sound consistent with someone purchasing stuff to be used for just that purpose. And then it looks as if the police wanted him to add extra items to his list, in order to provide them with the provenance they wanted in the enquiry. Of course these were the items with significant stuff caught in them, and include the items people are reporting discrepancies with.

But on the other hand, I always thought it was slightly odd for the bomber to go and buy stuff at random like that, in a small shop where he might well be remembered. What was wrong with a nice anonymous checkout at a big chain store somewhere? Or a charity shop with second-hand items?

Sigh.

Off the top of my head, tampering accusations include the blue babygro (said to have been found intact, but later presented shredded and charred), the Toshiba manual (or at least a substantial part of it), and the slalom shirt itself, about which there are allegations that it is the wrong size, as well as that it has been tampered with.

Rolfe.

I don't know what you think of the whole Gauci story, but I very much doubt that he's clever enough to have made that lot up to order, or be acting.

I think it bogus and either made up or he was "told" what to remember. I've seen this in my LE career. There are many people who get caught up in the moment and want to "help" or otherwise feel like a "part of the case" and embellish a great deal. I obviously cant say thats what this guy did but it looks like it from here.

But on the other hand, I always thought it was slightly odd for the bomber to go and buy stuff at random like that, in a small shop where he might well be remembered. What was wrong with a nice anonymous checkout at a big chain store somewhere? Or a charity shop with second-hand items?

BINGO, theres your answer. Maybe its just my SF mindset and living that life for so long but I cannot fathom even the possibility or accept it as possible that a TRAINED and/or experienced military type ( dont care whose army he is in) who set out with the SOLE PURPOSE of stuffing a suitcase for a bomb would go to what amounts to a specialty shop and buy odd items ( that a clerk might remember) and pay for it with a credit card when he could go to the flea market or just dumpster dive and leave no trails.

To me that would qualify for a Darwin- maybe he did but I just cant accept it.

Dan O.

1st October 2009, 08:54 PM

page 26 of this pdf (http://www.dia.mil/Foia/panam103.pdf) of declassified intelligence documents from the DIA pertaining to Lockerbie says:

a coating of Pentrite which had not exploded was found on the inside wall of a suitcase.

It's conceivable that a booster charge could be concealed as a thin layer on the outer case. But the destructive force of high explosives comes from producing a uniform shock wave that concentrates the energy in a short time period. By the time the shock wave travels from the initiator charge to the outer case it will have been significantly distorted rendering the boost less effective because of incomplete detonation and a much wider time dispersion of the resulting shock wave.

Unless there is a better description of what was found, I am inclined to think they are only referring to trace deposits that were transfered by the blast. This is something that is looked for and is a primary means of establishing what explosive was used.
I know that the technical jargon user the term booster as an intermediary between the primer and the main charge but this isn't exactly a technical forum

Ambrosia

2nd October 2009, 03:38 AM

USUALLY- these signatures are left by the handler ( gloves or not but gloves transfer more since they are impermeable) and are trace except in cases where the explosive literally sat there for days or weeks.

Unless there is a better description of what was found, I am inclined to think they are only referring to trace deposits that were transfered by the blast.

OK so the UTA bombs suitcase was put together by sloppy handlers that smeared a film of this stuff on the inside of the case, and the way that this bomb was constructed it blew like a shaped charge, leaving enough of one of the inside walls behind. Or some of the main charge was blown onto the interior of the case by the primer or the booster, immediately prior to the main charge detonating. Or something like that.

Scratch that idea.

Rolfe

2nd October 2009, 05:53 AM

I think it bogus and either made up or he was "told" what to remember. I've seen this in my LE career. There are many people who get caught up in the moment and want to "help" or otherwise feel like a "part of the case" and embellish a great deal. I obviously cant say thats what this guy did but it looks like it from here.

My original opinion was that the purchase took place pretty much as per Gauci's initial statement, which suggested 23rd November, had a purchaser over 6 feet tall and over 50 years old, and specified a list of items bought (and the total cost, if de Braeckeleer's report is correct). There were details in the account that indicated gauci really did remember the purchase, and in more detail than might have been expected. However, police later pressurised Gauci to add more items to the list, and change his description of the purchaser, and the more they did that the more confused he became. This fits the observed facts as regards the investigation.

BINGO, theres your answer. Maybe its just my SF mindset and living that life for so long but I cannot fathom even the possibility or accept it as possible that a TRAINED and/or experienced military type ( dont care whose army he is in) who set out with the SOLE PURPOSE of stuffing a suitcase for a bomb would go to what amounts to a specialty shop and buy odd items ( that a clerk might remember) and pay for it with a credit card when he could go to the flea market or just dumpster dive and leave no trails.

To me that would qualify for a Darwin- maybe he did but I just cant accept it.

I kind of agree. I always thought it was weird in the extreme, however it appeared to me to be in the category of "it happened so it must be possible". But I've always wondered what I'd do if I was in that position.

For a start, let's get rid of this notion that these people were "staying close to base". The PFLP-GC were based near Frankfurt, but they travelled around. Abu Talb was in Malta on several occasions, but he was also lots of other places. He is currently in jail in Sweden, having lived these for some time. Megrahi certainly had strong connections to Malta, but he too was all over the bloody place including Switzerland a lot. Why buy the clothes "close to home" at all? Either of them could have bought the clothes anyplace they damned well pleased. (And if the plot was to put the bomb on a feeder flight at Malta, as per the allegation against Megrahi, surely the last place you'd want to draw attention to by risking pieces of identifiable evidence in the wreck would be Malta.)

And why buy them in a small shop where you're the only customer at a quiet time of day? Behaving in a fairly peculiar manner by buying a strange mix of items without apparently caring much what you were stuffing into your bag?

Personally, I'd have avoided new stuff at all, because even I know you can often trace where stuff has been bought through the manufacturer. I hadn't thought of dumpster diving, but yes, that's one. Or as I said, a charity shop. Choose a busy time, say Saturday afternoon, and they're usually staffed by random volunteers at that time too. Use one in a big, anonymous town. Chances are the purchases might never even be traced to that charity shop, as tracing the original purchasers of old-ish items to ask them what they did with them would probably be quite difficult.

Or if I was going for new stuff, I'd choose a big branch of M&S or something similar. The purchases could probably be traced to that shop, but finding out who bought them would be a different matter so long as I used cash.

The whole Gauci purchase story does have a distinct air of someone actively wanting their activities to be noticed and traceable. Even if I was sure the clothes were going to end up at the bottom of the Atlantic, I don't think I'd have done it quite so blatantly.

It's just that I really don't know where that line of thinking goes. I don't think it goes anywhere really plausible.

Rolfe.

LONGTABBER PE

2nd October 2009, 06:18 AM

I kind of agree. I always thought it was weird in the extreme, however it appeared to me to be in the category of "it happened so it must be possible". But I've always wondered what I'd do if I was in that position.

The whole Gauci purchase story does have a distinct air of someone actively wanting their activities to be noticed and traceable. Even if I was sure the clothes were going to end up at the bottom of the Atlantic, I don't think I'd have done it quite so blatantly.

It's just that I really don't know where that line of thinking goes. I don't think it goes anywhere really plausible.

Rolfe.

All things being equal,( and the fact I cant buy the stupid part) and under the assumption that he actually did purchase this "stuff" in a manner similar to what is claimed.

Alternate theory # 47603

Suppose his entire role in this was to be the diversion and deliberate "red herring". Suppose he acted like Maxwell Smart on purpose to ensure the investigation would focus on him and not where the real truth lied.

Wouldnt be the first time such a thing has been done.

If he did do all this so overtly- he had to have a reason and I dont buy careless or stupid.

Alternate theory # 47604

He did buy this stuff for himself totally innocently and in the process of the investigation, the receipt was discovered and alternate items were purchased in order to frame him. ( which might account for the alleged "undamaged manual" and different size shirt)

After all, its not like shirts and such have specific serial numbers

Dan O.

2nd October 2009, 08:29 AM

Behaving in a fairly peculiar manner by buying a strange mix of items without apparently caring much what you were stuffing into your bag?

Sounds like someone with more money than time shopping for christmas gifts.

Rolfe

2nd October 2009, 04:46 PM

LONGTABBER PE

2nd October 2009, 09:23 PM

Well, he did say the trousers were for somebody else.

So someone bought a bunch of stuff in Sliema on (say) 23rd November, and he wound up on PA103 en route to New York on 21st December, with the prezzies in his suitcase. There was nobody on PA103 who started their journey in Malta, but then it was four weeks.

Somehow, that suitcase was so close to the bomb that everybody ended up believing (wrongly) that these things were actually wrapped round the bomb. The true owner is dead on the ground in Dumfriesshire, so can't tell anyone about the innocence of his purchase. Or about the innocent Toshiba radio-casette, still brand new in its box with its manual, that he was also carrying.

O.... K....

Anybody prepared to run with this one?
Rolfe.

Not anymore that theoretically its very realistic and possible.

Considering the bubble is maybe 3-5 feet and the immediate blast area is up to about 20ish feet and there are bags all around. ( this is not even considering the turbulence and mixing from the fall itself)

It would be normal for several bags to be destroyed at various levels and their contents mixed together. There is no technology or technique on Earth that could accurately distinguish what was where and in what to begin with before the blast.

Certainly you can identify items that were in that zone from their patterns and probably some chemical trace but to say what was where and in what would be virtually impossible.

Thats why I draw the distinction that there may very well have been toshiba fragments survive from a case blown up BY the bomb. Given the popularity of those models and the season- I think it likely that there may have been several in the hold.

I think the problem is the purely circumstantial way they linked them as being a part of "the" bomb.

dropzone

2nd October 2009, 11:46 PM

Lacking a avatar of my own, I was disinclined to associate a poster with one with a belief I could associate myself with. Given the number of JREF posters using theirs here, I understand that I was wrong.

Metal fans, you are screwed to the point of being dismissed as retards if you try to push your dismissed beliefs against the reality here.

Dan O.

3rd October 2009, 09:48 AM

Rolfe

3rd October 2009, 02:39 PM

I was going to start a new thread on the mystery purchaser because more news has broken today. However I don't have time, so I'll just post the links for now.

Revealed: Scots link in $3m Lockerbie pay-out (http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/politics/revealed-scots-link-in-3m-lockerbie-pay-out-1.923750)

Is this man key to Lockerbie ...or was he just after the cash? (http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/politics/is-this-man-key-to-lockerbie-or-was-he-just-after-the-cash-1.923752)

It's more about the question of whether Megrahi was the purchaser or not, but it confirms several things that were rumoured previously. The Gauci brothers were paid $3 million between them for their evidence, and they were very keen to get the money. There was (allegedly) a witness to the purchase, a friend of Gauci's, who says there were two purchasers, neither of whom was Megrahi.

And something I didn't know that may clarify the situation. It was Paul Gauci who was keen to have the money, and he was "controlling" of his brother. I had difficulty understanding why Tony Gauci was so tentative if he was so keen on the money. Why didn't he just come out and say he was pretty sure Megrahi was the purchaser? However, if he was in fact being leaned on by his dominant brother, that could explain that one.

Rolfe.

Rolfe

6th October 2009, 03:01 PM

Actually, there is a lot of information available to piece together a three dimensional model of the blast vicinity. Detailed examination of fabric fiberss imbedded in other fabrics can tell you the relative velocity of the impact. Velocities in the range of 1000-8000 ms-1 are typical for high explosives (the aircraft is traveling at a paltry 250 ms-1 max). These high velocities are going to be radial from the blast center so you can start to line up the relative positions of each fabric. When hard surfaces are found, it gives you more information of what was inside and what was outside of that surface and establish boundaries within the blast zone. Synthetics also record clues to the temperature and time scale of the blast which can be used to judge the distance from the center.

I'm just bumping this for Longtabber, to see if he has any more detail about his theory of what happened.

I suspect the answer is either the obvious (the PFLP-GC, but there are reasons the PtB really, really didn't and don't want to go there), or something nobody has suggested yet. I'd like to hear more about how Longtabber's thoughts are going, even if I play Devil's Advocate to him.

Rolfe.

Rolfe

6th October 2009, 03:12 PM

Guybrush Threepwood

7th October 2009, 01:14 AM

I'm just bumping this for Longtabber, to see if he has any more detail about his theory of what happened.

I suspect the answer is either the obvious (the PFLP-GC, but there are reasons the PtB really, really didn't and don't want to go there), or something nobody has suggested yet. I'd like to hear more about how Longtabber's thoughts are going, even if I play Devil's Advocate to him.

Rolfe.

I take it you are not aware of this thread then? (linked post concerns Longtabber, he's also claiming the Oklahoma bombing was a set up!)
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=5168944#post5168944

Longtabber is busy trying to extinguish his pants at the moment, so I suggest we take his contributions to this and the other Lockerbie threads with a very large grain of salt.

Rolfe

7th October 2009, 02:29 AM

O.... K....

He's not the only person pushing the theory that the Maltese-clothes-in-Samsonite-suitcase story is all too neat, but I do note that the people who are most prominent with this line of argument are mostly kooks.

ETA: Oh. Definietly, OH. (http://www.bullshido.net/forums/showthread.php?t=90453) And feel free to call him out on this thread if you think it's appropriate for the forum. I don't think we need his sort of speculation to muddy the waters of what is already a pretty muddy affair. I'm much more persuaded by what Dan O. has to say.

ETA again: I was suspicious of Longtabber, because of his tendency to shoot from the hip and come out with what seemed wild scenarios that really didn't fit other aspects of the incident. All the while telling us he scorned CTs and wasn't a CTer. That thread confirms all my suspicions.

I do like this comment, as regards discussing Longtabber on that forum!

More than Kosher, it's halal.

Think of us as a version of the JREF forums without a giant stick up our collective ass, plus punching people.

Rolfe.

Guybrush Threepwood

7th October 2009, 09:36 AM

I don't think calling out is appropriate, or necessary, as JoeyDonuts has done that nicely in the other thread. I must confess Longtabber was getting right on my thruppenny bits, but I thought that anything more than the gentle hints of disbelief I had been giving would have resulted in an even more bombastic and prolix post than normal from him, which would have broken up what was a very interesting and well argued group of threads.
Personally, based on the fact that Longtabber never produced an argument backed by anything more than the size and potency of his SF membrum virile, and that there is considerable evidence that he lied about that, I'm going to ignore pretty much everything he posted.

Rolfe

7th October 2009, 02:03 PM

This "SF community" stuff just cracks me up. Where I come from, that's the BSFA (http://www.bsfa.co.uk/).

I think, at some point, a poster's own argument from authority has to be met with some ad hominem analysis. I was trying to soft-pedal my reservations about Longtabber too, because I saw the outbursts he was aiming at those who questioned his credentials more openly. However, his approach wasn't what I would have expected from someone who was a genuine expert.

This repeated "don't suffer fools gladly" (or indeed at all) while not actually being familiar with the evidence in the case was rather striking. To declare that the suitcase and clothes (and luggage container) had all been fabricated by blowing them up on a pad with dynamite then planting the pieces, simply flew in the face of the known events at the beginning of the investigation. His willingness to declare a large number of academics and other forensic experts mistaken, or fools, was unwise, to say the least. And did I spot him slagging off a posted link to the Air Accident Investigation Board report on the incident as "internet speculation"?

He boasted of having a PhD; well, I've got one of these as well, and I don't (usually) go around behaving like a complete arse on the proceeds. I hadn't realised he was also making implausible claims of a military CV, but I've seen the posts now.

So basically, I agree with your call of BS here. I see every reason to believe the Pan Am 103 bomb consisted of 450g Semtex concealed inside a Toshiba radio-cassette player, packed with clothes bought from Mary's House in Sliema, in a brown Samsonite hardshell suitcase. This suitcase was placed on the second layer of cases near the bottom of luggage container AVE4041, on the extreme outside of the container close to the hull of the aircraft. The evidence for that is well attested and doesn't seem to include any impossibilities or unsupportable assumptions.

Nothing Longtabber has said has disproved any of this, his posts being confined to his own opinions backed by appeal to his own authority. That authority has been seriously undermined. So I vote we continue to discuss the incident on the basis of the above facts being reasonably established - which actually simplifies things quite a lot!

Rolfe.

Rolfe

10th September 2010, 05:21 PM

Heck, it's been a year! I suppose we've all moved on a long way in that time, I know I have. And yet, I've always stuck with the baseline assumption that the luggage container and the suitcase and the Maltese clothes and at least some of the bits of Toshiba (the Claiden fragment and the bits of white plastic) were genuine.

I can't explain why Longtabber's opinion that any radio involved in such a blast would inevitably have been completely vaporised differs so sharply from the opinions of the explosives experts who looked at the Lockerbie debris, but as we can see, it wasn't just Hayes, Feraday and Thurman involved here, it was a number of highly-qualified experts, none of whom seem to have considered that a significant sticking-point.

Nevertheless, the only people I see declaring that no fragment of a timer could possibly have survived that explosion are Bollier and de Braeckeleer, and there seems to be a distinct lack of a stampede of other explosives experts to agree with them.

Um, no longer. The Wyatt tests were first publicised in January by the BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8441796.stm), but have surfaced again more recently in an article in a Sunday tabloid. This was reproduced online on Robert Black's blog at the beginning of the week (http://lockerbiecase.blogspot.com/2010/09/megrahis-new-book-to-reveal-vital.html). The relevant extract reads:

Dr John Wyatt, the United Nations’ European consultant on explosives, carried out a series of 20 controlled explosions within brick and corrugated iron constructions in a secluded part of the Kent countryside.

Dr Wyatt revealed last night that the experiment was designed to replicate as closely as possible the conditions of the Lockerbie bomb.

Radio-cassette recorders, containing semtex and timing devices of the type that led to Megrahi’s conviction, were placed within hard-shell Samsonite suitcases and surrounded by clothing matching the contents of the case that concealed the bomb.

The circuit board was completely vaporised in all tests until the amount of semtex was reduced considerably. Only when the scientists went as low as 150g, 37.5% of the quantity that downed Pan Am 103 on 21 December 1988, did any trace of the circuit board survive, and it could only be viewed and identified through a microscope.

Dr Wyatt said: “We carried out the tests indoors specifically to make it easier to gather up all the residue of the explosions. Until we got down to 150g of semtex, nothing was left but dust.

“At 150g, we found one tiny fragment that had been part of the circuit board, and it had to be checked and identified through a microscope. Even at 150g, the device, the circuit board and the radio-cassette recorder had literally disintegrated, a far cry from the evidence presented at the trial.

“Before carrying out the tests, I found it quite extraordinary that a 4mm sq fragment had survived an explosion caused by 400g of semtex, had been found among long grass and foliage many miles from Lockerbie and had been identifiable. Now, I find it completely unbelievable.

“The tests we carried out showed a consistency that leaves no room for doubt. I don’t think it could have happened. So where did the fragment come from?”

I think the timer fragment was a plant anyway, although as some people commented, wouldn't it be a bit silly to plant something that couldn't have survived the explosion? I also think the Horton page of the radio manual was a plant, and although Dr. Wyatt doesn't say anything about that, if the timer fragment couldn't have survived the paper manual page would have been a snowball in Hell. And again, I think the bits of black plastic radio case were also planted. But, I thought they were planted to match the genuine Claiden fragment, as a misdirect as to the exact model, that's all.

Now Wyatt's work seems to be lining up with Longtabber, amazing though that seems. He says the radio also vapourised. Which means the Claiden fragment, found in mid-January in Scotland by an independent witness who recognised its importance at the time, can't be genuine.

What did Peter Claiden really find and how did it get there?

And then, although Wyatt doesn't mention the clothes as such, if the radio vapourised, then was it at all possible the pieces of clothes survived as described? Bear in mind that the Golfer also claimed the clothes were planted (http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com/lockerbie/Golfer-tells-of-plot-to.3298354.jp).

Golfer alleges pieces of supposedly bomb-damaged clothing, parts of a timer circuit board and an instruction manual for a Toshiba radio-cassette recorder were added to the evidence to lay a trail that would lead to the 'bomber'.

And yet the clothes seem to be even better attested-to than the Claiden fragment. Ten items of clothing were identified as blast-damaged. The very day the cops tracked down Tony Gauci (through the manufacturers' order books), he spontaneously reeled off seven of the items as having been bought by the tall dark stranger.

I could seriously cope with the concept that these clothes were all planted (to lead to Malta, where Megrahi was conveniently present complete with false passport); it would be remarkably easy to make sense of a lot of things if they were. However, I can't make it fly. They only way it flies is if Tony Gauci not only has a brain, but has an acting talent to rival Olivier, and the patience of Job (to wait more than ten years for his payoff, without even any great certainty of getting it).

The way the suitcase debris is described seems all of a piece, with a tiny bit of the timer, a number of tiny bits of the radio, various bits of clothes with the babygro (wrapped round the radio) being the most damaged, and some fair-sized chunks of suitcase. The bits of radio and the timer fragment seemed to have survived by being blasted into the cloth. While one might dispute the provenance of some of it, the only part whose survival seemed really unbelievable was the manual page.

Longtabber suggested it should all have been vapourised, and that the evidence was fabricated by blowing some stuff up on a pallet with dynamite. We implored him to look at the totality of the evidence, and accept that the clothes and the suitcase and at least some of the radio had to be genuine.

Longtabber was a poseur. But John Wyatt (http://www.sdsgroupltd.co.uk/aboutsds/john-wyatt) does not appear to be in that class.

How do we cope with the possibility that there may have been no radio and no Maltese clothes? Where did these bits of evidence come from, if so?

Rolfe.

Rolfe

11th September 2010, 03:49 PM

I've just been having way too much fun re-reading the unmasking of Longtabber on Bullshido.net. However, I suppose even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

I think the Wyatt tests may have been done in 2008, although they weren't made public till January this year. What I haven't seen is any mention of who commissioned and paid for them. I don't suppose Wyatt did all that out of personal curiosity. Not that I'm suggesting there's anything funny about it, I'd just like to know. My guess is that it was the defence, and it was evidence to be used at the cancelled appeal, hence the publication after the appeal was dropped.

I'd love to see the full results. What was left of the clothes? Was any debris blasted into collars or seams as was found to have happened in several cases in the Lockerbie evidence? What about the suitcase? And the surrounding luggage? However, I think we have to wait for this book coming out, "maybe" later this year.

If there was really no radio (no Claiden chip), and no clothes, where the hell does that leave the case? I can't imagine.

I wonder if there was something wrong with the test protocol, possibly because of a wrong assumption by the forensic team in the first place. Otherwise, could the bomb suitcase have been on top of the Bedford suitcase, which was never moved, and the debris said to be in the bomb suitcase really in the Bedford suitcase? But if that was an innocent case, why were these contents never traced to a passenger?

I think I have a headache.

Rolfe.

Caustic Logic

12th September 2010, 01:13 AM

The distance of 10 inches favoured by de Braeckeleer really does put the whole thing in the melting point, because it would pretty much have to be outside the baggage container. And yet, the rest of the evidence supporting the theory that the bomb was among the luggage is so strong, it would take a lot to knock it down as far as I can see.

In contrast, Longtabber seems to be assigning that 450g of Semtex a lot more destructive power than de Braeckeleer is, and thus allowing a greater distance between the charge and the skin of the plane. This would allow the charge to be inside the luggage container.

I didn't even see this thread at all until today! Way behind, obviously. Longtabber PE's back? Cool! I've never liked this explosion revisionism - DeBraeckeleer, Bollier, Parkes, Protheroe, Ronnie the Pict, Norrie, etc. suggesting a second bomb, one outside the luggage container, in the cargo hold, illegal munitions, yadda yadda. That's partly my wiring vis a vis fellow activists, and I don't have the science background or detailed study to say for sure. But for that 10" allegation to be true, all the luggage container and probably luggage and all had to be fabricated. I'm open on the luggage, especially the important ones, being faked later, but the container is just too much. It clearly shows the blast was inside of it, right about where Bedford saw a brown Samsonite case.

I've avoided this issue in the past, but was just been forced, in the course of seeking submissions for my site (http://lockerbiedivide.blogspot.com/2010/09/help-wanted.html), to consider whether I'll take the time ... but the whole point of asking for help was a lack of time ... so I think I'll pass on it again.

His objections to the suitcase theory seem to be different, essentially that there was too much evidence to be compatible with stuff that was so close to such a powerful explosion.

Sorry I missed the context of that suspicion, but out of curiosity, Longtabber: Nevermind the suspect contents, just considering the suitcase scraps we've seen:
photo link (http://www.corbisimages.com/Enlargement/Enlargement.aspx?id=UT0063808&caller=search)
material coded graphic (http://i133.photobucket.com/albums/q62/chainsawmoth/127-911/Suitcase_Fragments_watermark.jpg)
This is less than half of a suitcase, but there are some darn large chunks, one of which Dr. Hayes at first thought (http://lockerbiedivide.blogspot.com/2010/05/monster-of-newcastleton-forest.html) was from a second suitcase beneath the bomb bag, and resting on the container's floor. He later changed his mind.

Considering that Bedford's actual description was of two apparently matching cases, (both hardsided Samsonite style, one brown and the other one either the same color or quite similar), and considering no one can rule out that they were stacked one on the other, would the collected scraps make more sense as the remains of two such bags (mostly if not all from the bottom case)?

Rolfe

12th September 2010, 07:07 AM

Hang on, CL, this is an old thread I bumped, rather than start a new one about the Wyatt tests. Longtabber hasn't been seen since Joey Donuts exposed him as a fraud nearly a year ago.

It's just that Wyatt seems to be saying much the same as Longtabber was, but as he has a lot more credibility than Longtabber, it might be necessary to revisit the argument. The very idea makes my head hurt.

I remember you saying that maybe the pieces found were from the second case of the pair, but it still doesn't make a lick of sense whichever way you look at it.

Rolfe.

Caustic Logic

12th September 2010, 01:16 PM

Ooops... no wonder I missed three pages of discussion. I never did link this thread into my list ... another to-do.

Buncrana

13th September 2010, 05:50 AM

Rolfe

13th September 2010, 08:44 AM

I just can't get my head around the possibility that an alien device was attached to the inside of the hull, therefore outwith container 4041, and a array of false evidence then latterly produced. I accept there appears the strong suggestion that some of the crucial pieces presented at Zeist was manipulated, perhaps fabricated, but essentially I'm still pretty sure the bomb was contained within a suitcase and placed inside container 4041.

An alien device attached to the inner of the fuselage, not observed, and no one was ever repored to have been observed entering the hull of the aircraft (perhaps an unusual occurance?) to presumably place the charge device in the precise location required of the hull of 103. These two particular scenarios, which have never been even remotely alluded to by any witness, seems to be me to be simply a stretch too far, even allowing for the virtually non-existant 'security' that appeared to be in place around the baggage hold and loading areas at Heathrow in 1988.

I entirely agree with you. Even if we take the Wyatt evidence at face value, the only real inference we might draw, I think, is that the material that was assumed to have been in the bomb suitcase, wasn't. That the investigators assumed blast-damaged items perhaps from nearby cases had actually been in the bomb bag itself.

That brings its own problems of course, but it's not as mad as sabotaged luggage containers or shaped charges attached to the airframe.

However, there is certainly one aspect that does slightly disturb, or confuse, me, albeit a somewhat simplistic assertion. Dr Wyatt's tests, and his indication that he went from the lower end of the presumed amount of explosive used in the actual bomb, with pieces only evident when viewed under a microscope, is the extent and power of the explosion that according to the AAIB produced a relatively small initial rupture to the hull of the jumbo jet. In the reconstructions produced by Dr Wyatt, and shown on the Newsnight programme, the explosion does appear to me, not to be compatible with the small hole punctured by the bomb said to be placed inside 4041. I'm not sure what I really expected, but the explosion resulting from Wyatt's tests seem much more violent than I had ever envisaged. Even allowing for the clothing and other luggage packed around the samsonite, and the actual container wall itself, the explosion represented in Dr Wyatt's tests, does seem to me to be far more powerful and intense than I was always led to believe the explosion had been. Would this kind of explosion only cause the relative small rupture we're led to believe was the onset of 103's disintegration??

I don't know about that part. Since we're not shielded from the explosions in the Wyatt tests by the skin of the plane itself, it's hard to judge. Also, there is footage that's sometimes shown of a controlled explosion going off on the tarmac in an actual 747, and it's a helluva fireball. The whole plane splits apart. (I think it's actually part of the Indian Head tests.)

The "Plane Truth" web site criticises that footage (http://plane-truth.com/pan_am_103.htm) as not being relevant to PA103, citing in particular that the explosion is in the wrong place - too far aft. It certainly seems that way from the footage, also it's a far bigger bang than I would have expected. Just like Wyatt, I suppose.

Someone remarked earlier that the investigating authorities always gather up wreckage from car bombs and so on, hoping to find bits of detonator or other forensic clues. And it seems odd to suggest that bits of plastic and circuit board and speaker wire and so on had survived lodged in pieces of cloth, if in fact this was impossible from the get-go.

I have a bad case of incredulity on the Horton manual page. I also find the timer fragment implausible, partly as being by far the biggest part of circuit board found and yet from the device nearest the Semtex, and partly because it just happens to be the only piece of the board with a pattern distinctive enough to be identified as far as I can see. And that's before we start looking at the other plausibility problems attached to that one.

However, I'm much more reluctant to abandon the Claiden fragment and the Maltese clothes as incidental findings of some sort, and I have a lot of trouble seeing how either of these could be fabrications. So if Wyatt is alleging that these couldn't have survived either, then yes, I'm thinking there's something wrong with the way the tests were done.

Rolfe.

Bunntamas

14th September 2010, 02:51 PM

Now, THIS is an excellent thread. VERY interesting. Thanks for creating it Rolfe. I'm just popping in now to add kudos. Busy 'til next week, but I'll definitely be lurking and possibly adding later.

Bunntamas

14th September 2010, 03:09 PM

After all, its not like shirts and such have specific serial numbers

Actually, they did, in this case. That's one of the ways they tracked the clothing back to Malta. I think it was a pair of pants that had a serial number stamped on the inside pocket that was tracked back to the manufacturer, whose records showed the retailer to whom the clothing was sold. I don't have time now to dig up the evidence, but I'll post later.

Rolfe

14th September 2010, 03:09 PM

I think I've figured out why that video clip shows such a big bang and the whole plane seems to come apart.

Q When carrying out the major trials which are referred to at page 28 of your report, that is the detonation of four bombs simultaneously on a Boeing 747.
A Yes.
Q You included one detonation from an explosive, I think you said about 450 grammes in size?
A There were four bombs of 450 -- 454 grammes in size, yes.

OK, I suppose they did it that way for a reason, though it seems odd to me.

Rolfe.

Rolfe

14th September 2010, 03:14 PM

Actually, they did, in this case. That's one of the ways they tracked the clothing back to Malta. I think it was a pair of pants that had a serial number stamped on the inside pocket that was tracked back to the manufacturer, whose records showed the retailer to whom the clothing was sold. I don't have time now to dig up the evidence, but I'll post later.

Bunntamas, there's not much point in responding to Longtabber. He hasn't been seen for almost a year, since it was shown he was pretending to a military background he didn't actually have. He didn't know anything about Pan Am 103 or the evidence and was making it up as he went along.

I only resurrected the thread because his assertion was apparently the same as Wyatt's findings, possibly by sheer chance. So we've been over quite a lot of the points already.

It wasn't exactly a serial number on the trousers, but the pattern and size and other features were, as you say, sufficient to trace the item from the manufacturer to the retailer, who remembered selling the trousers. This appears to me to be entirely kosher.

Rolfe.

Bunntamas

14th September 2010, 03:21 PM

I think the Wyatt tests may have been done in 2008, although they weren't made public till January this year. What I haven't seen is any mention of who commissioned and paid for them. I don't suppose Wyatt did all that out of personal curiosity. Not that I'm suggesting there's anything funny about it, I'd just like to know. My guess is that it was the defence, and it was evidence to be used at the cancelled appeal, hence the publication after the appeal was dropped.

I'd like to see who commissioned Wyatt's tests too. Particularly considering one of his clients noted on his web site is North Africa and the British Counsil.

I think I have a headache. Welcome to the party.

Rolfe

14th September 2010, 03:39 PM

It's odd nobody has mentioned this. It's the sort of thing the BBC would usually have included.

Rolfe.

Bunntamas

14th September 2010, 03:43 PM

Bunntamas, there's not much point in responding to Longtabber. He hasn't been seen for almost a year, since it was shown he was pretending to a military background he didn't actually have. He didn't know anything about Pan Am 103 or the evidence and was making it up as he went along.

Thanks Rolfe, I've just now looked at the beginning of this thread and realized the exposure of Longtabber.[/quote]

I only resurrected the thread because his assertion was apparently the same as Wyatt's findings, possibly by sheer chance. So we've been over quite a lot of the points already.

Yep. Got that. Sorry. I'm catching up here.

It wasn't exactly a serial number on the trousers, but the pattern and size and other features were, as you say, sufficient to trace the item from the manufacturer to the retailer, who remembered selling the trousers. This appears to me to be entirely kosher.

Mmmmm... not sure that's accurate. I do believe that they traced (a) serial number(s) back to the manufacturer. I recall having a conversation about this with one of the DOJ attorneys while at the trial, and also reading about it. Like I said, I'll dig that up & post later. Promise.

Soily

14th September 2010, 03:45 PM

It's odd nobody has mentioned this. It's the sort of thing the BBC would usually have included.

Rolfe.

I was wondering that to. At first I thought he may have done them off his own back, but they looked awfully expensive and complex. Who funded them would be very interesting indeed.

Bunntamas

14th September 2010, 03:49 PM

It's odd nobody has mentioned this. It's the sort of thing the BBC would usually have included.

Rolfe.

The media skip over details all the time. And there is a ton of censure. I'm not saying its (all) governmental censure. Mostly, I think it's about what headlines are going to sell the most. However, I do know, from experience that governments and lobbyists DO have the ability to hush certain media.
One of the most interesting things for me about traveling to other countries is the difference in what is and what is not reported and the contrast between what's reported (and sadly, not reported) within and beyond the US.

Bunntamas

14th September 2010, 03:50 PM

Oh, and by the way, with regard to North African and British clients of Wyatt; Pr. Black actually omitted that in his blog post as well.

Rolfe

14th September 2010, 03:55 PM

Rolfe

14th September 2010, 03:57 PM

Here's the picture of the label on the trousers. The "34" is just the waist size.

http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/gallery/2001/01/31/300clothes-toe.jpg

Rolfe.

Caustic Logic

14th September 2010, 04:58 PM

How is "North Africa" a client? I recall he's the UN's explosive consultant for the Europe and North Africa region, which is just how they set up regions, I guess.

I agree with Davies/Plane Truth that those total blow up tests have nothing to do with the bombing that happened. It looks like just good TV drama. Indicentally, the tests by Wyatt we've seen were selected for TV, also with a focus on the more dramatic end. He did 20 tests, 19 in controlled rooms, with blasts as low as 150 grams and perhaps lower. The huge blast in the container was the only of its kind.

I sent an e-mail to Dr. Wyatt some months back asking how we could get more details of the test results and methods, and how he came to do them. No response. How could he ignore ME, I thought? (note: that was said jokingly) Must be holding it back for something or someone else. Come to find out the details are going in Megrahi's book, they were done back in 2008 or so, and I forget just what but something I saw suggests Megrahi's legal team commissioned them. That's a slight PR problem if so, that will be made a huge one by some people.

But myself, I'm inclined by now to consider the most recent details of the findings, plus what Longtabber said, as more in line with common sense than accepting this debris is. If I may plug, I just put up a blog post (http://lockerbiedivide.blogspot.com/2010/09/on-planted-evidence.html) on the subject. If the plane was ruptured, I think the radio would be dust and vapor.

The clothes and suitcase are a bit more arguable. But I think there were two suitcases of the same basic sort to start with, stacked after Bedford saw them. The blast destroyed one and a half of these, leaving us only the bottom half of the lower case, which perhaps contained said clothes...

And it just now struck me it could contain a Libya-traceable radio as well, if the PFLP-GC wanted to frame Libya to cover for themselves... Interesting, probably full of problems if I thought about it more...

ETA: And the clothes were first traced by conveniently intact serial numbers, and then at the Yorkie factory, the cutting records showed the material and make of that batch, small number variously reported of six to 20-ish pair, all sent to the shop with the compliant idiot savant Tony Gauci.

Rolfe

14th September 2010, 05:17 PM

Rabbit-hole, ur entering it!

Rolfe.

Bunntamas

14th September 2010, 06:31 PM

ETA: And the clothes were first traced by conveniently intact serial numbers, and then at the Yorkie factory, the cutting records showed the material and make of that batch, small number variously reported of six to 20-ish pair, all sent to the shop with the compliant idiot savant Tony Gauci.

Yes, that's what I'm referring to. Thanks Adam. I think I have more.

Rolfe, Rabbit hole?

Bunntamas

14th September 2010, 06:38 PM

I can't see who his other clients are matters a toss, unless you have reason to suspect he's bent, or deliberately producing a biassed result.

I suspect the tests were commissioned by the Defence as part of the preparation for the second appeal.

Rolfe.

I'm just saying it's interesting that his clients, including North Africa and the UK are omitted in Pr. Black's post, and as you note, in other media posts about him. Don't you think it's a bit wierd, if not possibly biased, to say the least, that North Afica, which includes Libya, is one of his clients? Seriiously, I'm asking you to be neutral here. If someone is conducting tests / research on a bomb that is allegedly (yes, I'm using that word for the sake of peace here, I'm not saying I agree) planted by Libyans / North African Government officials, that the person conducting the bomb tests is also being paid by a client about whom the research is being conducted? Really? No question whatsoever? Really????

Rolfe

14th September 2010, 06:40 PM

I'm not sure it matters, but weren't the serial numbers on the manufacturer's patterns? If there was any number apart from the size on the fragment itself, that's news to me.

Rolfe.

Rolfe

14th September 2010, 06:42 PM

Yes, that's what I'm referring to. Thanks Adam. I think I have more.

Rolfe, Rabbit hole?

When I say rabbit hole, I think Caustic Logic is doubting the provenance of items which are very difficult to dislodge. In particular, the clothes from Mary's House have much more solid evidence behind them than one might expect given the basic improbability of the story.

Rolfe.

Bunntamas

14th September 2010, 06:43 PM

I suspect the tests were commissioned by the Defence as part of the preparation for the second appeal.

Rolfe.

And ummm.... yeah, the defence [tests commissioned by...] would be Megrahi, whose expenses / defense (among many other things) were funded by Libya.

Rolfe

14th September 2010, 06:45 PM

I'm just saying it's interesting that his clients, including North Africa and the UK are omitted in Pr. Black's post, and as you note, in other media posts about him. Don't you think it's a bit wierd, if not possibly biased, to say the least, that North Afica, which includes Libya, is one of his clients? Seriiously, I'm asking you to be neutral here. If someone is conducting tests / research on a bomb that is allegedly (yes, I'm using that word for the sake of peace here, I'm not saying I agree) planted by Libyans / North African Government officials, that the person conducting the bomb tests is also being paid by a client about whom the research is being conducted? Really? No question whatsoever? Really????

How is "North Africa" a client? I recall he's the UN's explosive consultant for the Europe and North Africa region, which is just how they set up regions, I guess.

Bunntamas, I think you need to establish that any of what you're asserting is true, before suggesting it might lead to bias.

Rolfe.

Rolfe

14th September 2010, 06:47 PM

And ummm.... yeah, the defence [tests commissioned by...] would be Megrahi, whose expenses / defense (among many other things) were funded by Libya.

Bunntamas, I've been an expert witness for the defence in my time. (And for the prosecution too, though not in the same case obviously.) And yes, the defence paid me. That's normal.

Do you really think I invened my results to order?

Rolfe.

Rolfe

14th September 2010, 06:50 PM

Look, I think there might be something not right about the Wyatt tests too. I just don't think it's reasonable to leap to dismiss the evidence of an expert witness for the defence on the grounds that he's being paid by .... the defence.

I trust you wouldn't accept the instant trashing of all the prosecution evidence on the grounds that the scientists and engineers and so on were paid by the prosecuting authority?

Rolfe.

Bunntamas

14th September 2010, 07:05 PM

Bunntamas, I've been an expert witness for the defence in my time. (And for the prosecution too, though not in the same case obviously.) And yes, the defence paid me. That's normal.

Do you really think I invened my results to order?

Rolfe.

Rolfe, we're not discussing you, or your "witness" experience. Please stay on topic.

Rolfe

14th September 2010, 07:09 PM

You seem to be assuming that any expert witness paid by the defence may be assumed to be fabricating his or her evidence to order. So why wouldn't that include me? Or do you have special knowledge of Mr. Wyatt's corruptibility?

Rolfe.

Bunntamas

14th September 2010, 07:10 PM

Look, I think there might be something not right about the Wyatt tests too.

Wow. Glad to see that you "think there migh be something not right about the Wyatt tests too."

I just don't think it's reasonable to leap to dismiss the evidence of an expert witness for the defence on the grounds that he's being paid by .... the defence.

I agree. I also agree that it's not reasonable to leap to dismiss everything that was presented at trial. Same argument can be made about Gauci.

I trust you wouldn't accept the instant trashing of all the prosecution evidence on the grounds that the scientists and engineers and so on were paid by the prosecuting authority?

Isn't that what you and other naysayers of the verdict are doing?
I bring up a possibility, and you trash it, but you do the same thing with the trial evidence and verdict.

Rolfe.[/QUOTE]

Bunntamas

14th September 2010, 07:17 PM

The Scottish Police traveled to Malta in Late August 1989 to find the maufacturers of the category one items. They located the Yorkie Clothing COmpany and determined that they only distributed their products in Malta. The investigators in Scotland had also determined that the piece of material having the Yorkie Label had the number 1705 in ink, on the garment [I was told by a DOJ attorney that this number was stamped on the inside pocket of the trousers, so that the manufacturer could track their sales and quality assurance] . When interviewed, the manager of the company said 1705 was an order number. He determined that order number 1705 was for 98 pair of trousers placed by a Tony Gauci in October 1988. It had been delivered to Mary's House.... on November 18, 1988.

Bunntamas

14th September 2010, 07:19 PM

sorry about my typos re: usage of quotes above. They really are typos. Please don't throw me out. LOL!

Rolfe

14th September 2010, 07:20 PM

Wow. Glad to see that you "think there migh be something not right about the Wyatt tests too."

Bloody hell, I've been saying that all along!

:hb:

I agree. I also agree that it's not reasonable to leap to dismiss everything that was presented at trial. Same argument can be made about Gauci.

I'm not Charles. I'm not leaping to dismiss everything presented at the trial by any manner of means. If there is a strong case to be made that a particular item of evidence is suspect, then that's something else.

Actually, although the money paid to the Gauci brothers is a howling scandal and by itself should technically make that evidence inadmissible, practically speaking I don't think it adds much weight to the criticism of the evidence they (or rather Tony) gave.

Isn't that what you and other naysayers of the verdict are doing?
I bring up a possibility, and you trash it, but you do the same thing with the trial evidence and verdict.

No. It's called basing your case on the evidence. I think there are inconsistencies in the Wyatt results as presented, so I entertain the possibility that there's some sort of problem with the methodology. I don't immediately leap to the accusation that an expert witness is corrupt simply because he is appearing for the defence.

Rolfe.

Rolfe

14th September 2010, 07:22 PM

Rolfe

14th September 2010, 07:23 PM

sorry about my typos re: usage of quotes above. They really are typos. Please don't throw me out. LOL!

Oh yeah, very funny! Like nobody can tell the difference between a typo and Charles?

By the way, you can edit your posts for 2 hours after you make them. You see something like that, you can just fix it. I do it all the time.

Rolfe.

Bunntamas

14th September 2010, 07:44 PM

How is "North Africa" a client? I recall he's the UN's explosive consultant for the Europe and North Africa region, which is just how they set up regions, I guess.

See: His Bio (http://www.sdsgroupltd.co.uk/aboutsds/john-wyatt)

It says he's a consultant for North Africa, et al. Hence they are his clients. It says nothing about "how they set up regions". But nice try.

I agree with Davies/Plane Truth that those total blow up tests have nothing to do with the bombing that happened. It looks like just good TV drama. Indicentally, the tests by Wyatt we've seen were selected for TV, also with a focus on the more dramatic end. He did 20 tests, 19 in controlled rooms, with blasts as low as 150 grams and perhaps lower. The huge blast in the container was the only of its kind.

Yep. Good TV drama... and resultant $$$

I sent an e-mail to Dr. Wyatt some months back asking how we could get more details of the test results and methods, and how he came to do them. No response. How could he ignore ME, I thought? (note: that was said jokingly) Must be holding it back for something or someone else. Come to find out the details are going in Megrahi's book, they were done back in 2008 or so, and I forget just what but something I saw suggests Megrahi's legal team commissioned them. That's a slight PR problem if so, that will be made a huge one by some people.

EXCACTLY. If he was paid for research by Megrahi's legal team, who were paid the Libyan gov't, then it completely discredits his theories.

But myself, I'm inclined by now to consider the most recent details of the findings, plus what Longtabber said, as more in line with common sense than accepting this debris is. If I may plug, I just put up a blog post (http://lockerbiedivide.blogspot.com/2010/09/on-planted-evidence.html) on the subject. If the plane was ruptured, I think the radio would be dust and vapor.

I like your site, and no offense, but I'm kinda getting sick of your "plugs". We know who you are, dude. If we wanna go there and read your blog, we will. Again, no offense, sorry you don't have more commentors, but you're beginning to look a bit pathetic with your plugs, particularly with your "cry for help" on Pr. Black's site. Ugh.

The clothes and suitcase are a bit more arguable. But I think there were two suitcases of the same basic sort to start with, stacked after Bedford saw them. The blast destroyed one and a half of these, leaving us only the bottom half of the lower case, which perhaps contained said clothes...

Gawd, I wish Longtabber weren't a fraud. His concept about how other suitcases weren't damaged was actually true. My dad was one of the "first fifteen" due to his interlining and "alleged" damage from the bomb to one of his suitcases. More than 15 years after the bombing we got the "questionable" suitcase back. It was in perfect condition, and the contents; textbooks and notebooks, clothing were all in tact, without one ounce char or of mud from the fields of Lockerbie. You'd never know it had been involved in a bombing or fallen 30,000 feet.

And it just now struck me it could contain a Libya-traceable radio as well, if the PFLP-GC wanted to frame Libya to cover for themselves... Interesting, probably full of problems if I thought about it more...

You have totally bashed me for coming up with "ideas" like the above. NOW who's telling "stories"? I'll spare you my thoughts on CTs, considering the source.

ETA: And the clothes were first traced by conveniently intact serial numbers, and then at the Yorkie factory, the cutting records showed the material and make of that batch, small number variously reported of six to 20-ish pair, all sent to the shop with the compliant idiot savant Tony Gauci.

Yep. See above. It wasn't Gauci who provided the evidence on the serial numbers. It was evidence that was discovered at the manufacturer. Keeep trying. And please try to keep it civil.

Bunntamas

14th September 2010, 07:48 PM

Oh yeah, very funny! Like nobody can tell the difference between a typo and Charles?

By the way, you can edit your posts for 2 hours after you make them. You see something like that, you can just fix it. I do it all the time.

Rolfe.

HA! Glad I'm not considered in that category, and also back to civility here.
And thanks for the tip on editing.

Bunntamas

14th September 2010, 07:50 PM

Bloody hell, I've been saying that all along!

:hb:

Well geez. Sorry. LOL! I obviously missed that, or wasn't tuning into the right thread. I just recently joined JREF when you bumped me, and I haven't seen you post anything about your disagreement w/ Wyatts tests on Black's blog. So, again, my apologies for missing it.

Rolfe

14th September 2010, 07:53 PM

See: His Bio (http://www.sdsgroupltd.co.uk/aboutsds/john-wyatt)

It says he's a consultant for North Africa, et al. Hence they are his clients. It says nothing about "how they set up regions". But nice try.

Yep. Good TV drama... and resultant $$$

EXCACTLY. If he was paid for research by Megrahi's legal team, who were paid the Libyan gov't, then it completely discredits his theories.

Non sequitur. In that case you might as well throw out all technical and scientific evidence in every case ever brought, because hey, the witnesses were paid by the side which called them. [ETA: And see below.]

Gawd, I wish Longtabber weren't a fraud. His concept about how other suitcases weren't damaged was actually true. My was one of the "first fifteen" due to him interlining and "alleged" damage from the bomb to one of his suitcases. More than 15 years after the bombing we got the "questionable" suitcase back. It was in perfect condition, and the contents were all in tact. You'd never know it had fallen 30,000 feet.

Just because he was a fraud doesn't mean he was wrong. That's why I re-opened the thread.

You have totally bashed me for coming up with "ideas" like the above. NOW who's telling stories. I'll spare you my thoughts on CTs, considering the source.

That's what I meant by "rabbit hole". Your point is valid. Caustic Logic shouldn't do it, neither should you.

Yep. See above. It wasn't Gauci who provided the evidence on the serial numbers. It was evidence that was discovered at the manufacturer. Keeep trying. And please try to keep it civil.

Er, was anybody disputing the clothes were genuinely traced to Tony Gauci? (Well, maybe Caustic Logic was, please allow me to slap him for you.) Whether it was a serial number or not, there's nothing wrong with the tracing of the clothes that I can see.

Rolfe.

Rolfe

14th September 2010, 07:59 PM

Well geez. Sorry. LOL! I obviously missed that, or wasn't tuning into the right thread. I just recently joined JREF when you bumped me, and I haven't seen you post anything about your disagreement w/ Wyatts tests on Black's blog. So, again, my apologies for missing it.

OK, OK, let's go out and come in again. Looking at the evidence, the provenance of Mr. Claiden's fragment of Toshiba chip looks solid to me. Ditto the Maltese clothes sold to the tall dark 50-year-old stranger one rainy evening before the Christmas lights were lit. So any theory that throws these out creates more problems than it solves as far as I can see.

Given that, I'm not entirely convinced survival of the MST-13 fragment is impossible. I have serious doubts about the provenance of that item, but I'm not convinced it's an impossibility.

So I think life would be so much easier if there was some basic problem with the Wyatt results.

(Actually, I've been making that point in this thread pretty consistently. Just slow down a bit and don't assume everybody is automatically disagreeing with you on principle.)

Rolfe.

Rolfe

14th September 2010, 08:08 PM

See: His Bio (http://www.sdsgroupltd.co.uk/aboutsds/john-wyatt)

It says he's a consultant for North Africa, et al. Hence they are his clients. It says nothing about "how they set up regions". But nice try.

OK, I re-read the CV. Its exact words are

International terrorism expert John Wyatt lectures regularly to professional institutions, he is the U.N.'s blast consultant for Europe and North Africa, the British Council's Consultant Worldwide and a Member of the London Olympic Group.

I read it as Caustic Logic did. He is consultant to the UN. The reference to "Europe and North Africa" appears merely to delineate his geographical area of responsibility in this role.

And you think there's something underhand about the British Council (http://www.britishcouncil.org/new/), or what?

Now can we talk about whether his actual results are credible rather than doing a knee-jerk trash-job?

Rolfe.

Bunntamas

14th September 2010, 08:10 PM

Non sequitur. In that case you might as well throw out all technical and scientific evidence in every case ever brought, because hey, the witnesses were paid by the side which called them.

Just because he was a fraud doesn't mean he was wrong. That's why I re-opened the thread.

Wow. Thanks again. It's actually really nice for me to return here and have a civil conversation.

That's what I meant by "rabbit hole". Your point is valid. Caustic Logic shouldn't do it, neither should you.

Got it. I'll try my best. But when cornered in the lion's den, sometimes I can't help myself. No excuses. I got yellow tagged, and I admit, I got unruly. Sorry.

Er, was anybody disputing the clothes were genuinely traced to Tony Gauci?

I thought you were questioning whether or not the tracing of clothing from the manufacturer to Gauci was true. I was simply providing further information - something I have been highly scorned in the past for not doing.

(Well, maybe Caustic Logic was, please allow me to slap him for you.)

PLEASE DO!!! :D Maybe if it comes from one of the Lions, it will have more impact.

Bunntamas

14th September 2010, 08:15 PM

It wasn't exactly a serial number on the trousers, but the pattern and size and other features were, as you say, sufficient to trace the item from the manufacturer to the retailer, who remembered selling the trousers. This appears to me to be entirely kosher.

Rolfe.

This is what I was responding to re: clothing / manufacturer.

Bunntamas

14th September 2010, 08:19 PM

OK, I re-read the CV. Its exact words are

I read it as Caustic Logic did. He is consultant to the UN. The reference to "Europe and North Africa" appears merely to delineate his geographical area of responsibility in this role.

And you think there's something underhand about the British Council (http://www.britishcouncil.org/new/), or what?

Not so much the British Council, but North Africa. As Caustic points out above, seems rather slimy to me.

Now can we talk about whether his actual results are credible rather than doing a knee-jerk trash-job?

Sure. But I have some catching up to do on the thread and your position, unless you'd lke to give me a quick and dirty refresher.

Rolfe

14th September 2010, 08:23 PM

Wow. Thanks again. It's actually really nice for me to return here and have a civil conversation.

Right at the moment, I have to say you're a vast improvement on Charles, that's for sure.

Got it. I'll try my best. But when cornered in the lion's den, sometimes I can't help myself. No excuses. I got yellow tagged, and I admit, I got unruly. Sorry.

Not to worry. The yellow cards are only to make the point. Intelligent people learn. Unintelligent people don't. Charles didn't learn.

Now there's one thing I'm going to explain to you again. (Caustic Logic explained it on the Black blog, but maybe you didn't understand.) You are not in the lion's den here. This forum, as a general rule, hates conspiracy theories and their proponents with a fiery passion. Many people make a hobby of debunking conspiracy theories, and they're particularly hot on those involving cases where Arabs have caused airliners full of Americans to crash into buildings, by the way. Just take a quick look in the 9/11 forum. They're bored, because they have no credible opposition.

Most posters here would simply love an opportunity to support the Official Theory on Lockerbie. It's what they do. Quite a few have entered threads in the past and simply tried to "debunk" in first principles, but they all went away again because they had no evidence to support their position.

So if you can come up with coherent arguments, you'll find you're on home ground. It's those of us who believe the verdict was a miscarriage of justice who might find ourselves in the lion's den. It all depends on the quality of the argument you can bring to bear though.

I thought you were questioning whether or not the tracing of clothing from the manufacturer to Gauci was true. I was simply providing further information - something I have been highly scorned in the past for not doing.

No, I think that was just a hangover from something someone else said - might even have been Longtabber. The very idea that those Maltese clothes were in any way fabricated gives me a headache you wouldn't believe. But that was good supplementary information anyway - if you wouldn't mind sourcing it. Crawford (who is an idiot who wrote a vanity-published book that isn't even proof-read) doesn't mention it.

PLEASE DO!!! :D Maybe if it comes from one of the Lions, it will have more impact.

Caustic Logic just likes conspiracy theories. He often runs ahead of himself. Consider it brainstorming. He's amenable to logic and persuasion.

Rolfe.

Rolfe

14th September 2010, 08:28 PM

Not so much the British Council, but North Africa. As Caustic points out above, seems rather slimy to me.

Honestly, he's consultant to the UN. The reference to "Europe and North Africa" is clearly merely geographical.

Sure. But I have some catching up to do on the thread and your position, unless you'd lke to give me a quick and dirty refresher.

On this topic, I think I just did. I don't believe the Claiden fragment of PCB is either a plant or coincidental, and I don't believe the Maltese clothes were planted or coincidental. The idea creates far more trouble than it solves. If I had to take on board that survival of any fragments of either the radio or the clothes in the bomb suitcase was impossible, I think my head would asplode.

Also, I'm agnostic on whether or not a fragment of timer PCB could have survived as claimed. I don't need any proof that this is an impossibility to have serious doubts about the provenance of that.

Rolfe.

Bunntamas

14th September 2010, 08:42 PM

Honestly, he's consultant to the UN. The reference to "Europe and North Africa" is clearly merely geographical.

Have to disagree with you there. He is a private consultant. One of his "clients" is the UN, which happens to include the geography of North Africa. And the UN also includes Libya. I think we may be beating a dead horse here. All I'm saying is that it seems a bit biased. And to add to your and Caustic's comments about the (possible) fact that the tests he conducted were not publicised until after the appeal, hence, possibly conducted for the defense (megrahi / Libya) seems to me to make it even more biased. Certainly he did not conduct these tests for free. If he was paid, by the defense, it makes the tests dubiously biased.

On this topic, I think I just did. I don't believe the Claiden fragment of PCB is either a plant or coincidental, and I don't believe the Maltese clothes were planted or coincidental. The idea creates far more trouble than it solves. If I had to take on board that survival of any fragments of either the radio or the clothes in the bomb suitcase was impossible, I think my head would asplode.

Also, I'm agnostic on whether or not a fragment of timer PCB could have survived as claimed. I don't need any proof that this is an impossibility to have serious doubts about the provenance of that.

Rolfe.

My head is asploding now. Not because of this stuff, but because of my day and week yet to come. I'll be back later to pick up on this.

Caustic Logic

15th September 2010, 01:56 AM

On my rabbit hole moment, I take Pr. Black's point about distracting from the main point and shelve my pet theories for the moment. For the sake of non-argument, I'll accept the radio fragments as legitimate, and the clothes and suitcase (leaving some serious questions about who packed it) but maintaining questions about the MST-13 fragment. Or whatever variation it is we're trying to keep consensus on...

Anyway...

Bunntamas, I appreciate your mostly consistent civility and willingness to engage in reasoned discussion. I'll try for my part to keep the snark to a minimum and stick to the discussion.

It says he's a consultant for North Africa, et al. Hence they are his clients.

Please think about what you are saying here, so we can move on. What is this entity "North Africa?" A company? A country? A reginal organization without any words like"union"attached? If he's a paid consultant, who cuts his check? The treasury of north Africa? Where are their headquarters?

It's not stated outright as a region, like the other one preceding it, Europe, but it seems to be saying he's a consultant for UN inquiries and such dealing with these regions. Made me wonder once if the UN, not Megrahi, had paid Dr. Wyatt to do the tests, either for an investigation they were planning or just their own curiosity. But that didn't make very much sense.

What the tests lay claim to is science and its process. Wyatt apparently knows his stuff, he says he tried similar arrangements at differing blast levels and found nothing like investigators found at anything like that blast level that's alleged. Unless we doubt the blast type (none of us here do, much) the tests question the remains. I've seen nothing convincing from anyone else to counter this, except implicitly the Lockerbie investigators, by saying such things DID survive. Personally, not convinced. There's some possible bias there as well, I hope we can agree. I won't dismiss the RARDE claims completely, but neither will I just accept them.

The question with sponsorship is bias - the defense paying Wyatt might in one way or another lead to bias towards what they want to find. Sure. I won't even go into probabilities, but the possibilities are outright biased process, completely honest and impartial, and the broad range in between with subtle decisions that lean it slightly or grossly one way. The way to find out is in how the science is carried out - can we see a slant entering the picture? With Dr. Wyatt's tests, there are doubts but no evidence I know of that it was done wrong. If you had it, it would include numbers.

Certainly he did not conduct these tests for free. If he was paid, by the defense, it makes the tests dubiously biased.
If you mean it's dubious whether there was any bias, I'd be close to agreeing with you. I presume you meant possibly biased and I agree. But we need to see more than a possibility to completely dismiss these provocative findings.

As you say
... it's not reasonable to leap to dismiss everything that was presented at trial. Same argument can be made about Gauci.

Indeed, and with far greater specificity. We KNOW he was paid by those who were targeting Libya. I don't dismiss what the man said, not completely. When he says Megrahi resembled the buyer if he were ten years younger, I'm inclined to note that's a comparison between two men. Some others weren't and mischaracterized what he said (Gauci "identified Megrahi as the buyer"). One of the more important things Gauci did was establish the date of purchase by describing the day in details that line up exactly with November 23. but investigators and prosecutors insisted he meant to describe December 7, when Megrahi was there. At trial, perhaps to earn his conviction-contingent $2 million, he can be seen transparently fudging his details in all the relevant points to make it seem more like Nov 23 and/or Dec 7 whichever works. We can see in action who bought it and what they bought.

And don't forget we could say the same thing about Giaka. The all-wise judges who convicted Megrahi thought you COULD dismiss someone's evidence if it didn't line up, was acknowledged by the prosecuting forces as unreliable, and the "expert" was paid by the prosecuting forces. You don't still defend Giaka's "testimony"to the Grand Jury, do you?

In comparison, what have you really got against the tests? Take stock. Last I saw was:

Have to disagree with you there. He is a private consultant. One of his "clients" is the UN, which happens to include the geography of North Africa. And the UN also includes Libya. I think we may be beating a dead horse here. All I'm saying is that it seems a bit biased. And to add to your and Caustic's comments about the (possible) fact that the tests he conducted were not publicised until after the appeal, hence, possibly conducted for the defense (megrahi / Libya) seems to me to make it even more biased. Certainly he did not conduct these tests for free. If he was paid, by the defense, it makes the tests dubiously biased.

Please elaborate on the highlighted part - that'ssuggesting something more specific than a contact in the North Africa... organization. I admit, there is a potential for bias in any such arrangement where someone is paying an expert in the hopes of hearing a certain outcome. But to be the slightest bit rigorous, as opposed to a sloppy connect-the-cots conspiracy theorist, one needs to look for actual evidence of skewed method. Are the results grossly out-of-step with established science? (and RARDE's challenged findings here don't count - we need a third opinion, as neutral and knowledgeable as possible).

In fact, until we can get some serious science up in here, I'm not sure how this conversation can go much of anywhere. I won't be the one to do that.

Rolfe

15th September 2010, 03:28 AM

Have to disagree with you there. He is a private consultant. One of his "clients" is the UN, which happens to include the geography of North Africa. And the UN also includes Libya. I think we may be beating a dead horse here. All I'm saying is that it seems a bit biased. And to add to your and Caustic's comments about the (possible) fact that the tests he conducted were not publicised until after the appeal, hence, possibly conducted for the defense (megrahi / Libya) seems to me to make it even more biased. Certainly he did not conduct these tests for free. If he was paid, by the defense, it makes the tests dubiously biased.

We seem to be going round in circles here, but I'll repeat what I said before.

If my assumptions are correct, he was employed as an expert witness for the defence. Since Megrahi wasn't on Legal Aid as far as I know, that inevitably means that he would have been paid from defence funds. This is normal. Just as expert witnesses for the prosecution are paid from prosecution funds.

And by the way, having done the job, I can tell you that expert witnesses for the defence are commissioned and contacted by the defence legal team. All communication is with the defence solicitors. You don't have any contact with the defendant or any of the defendant's other supporters.

Wyatt's web site is merely advertising that among his other clients are the UN (in Europe and North Africa) and the British Council (worldwide). This gives him a certain professional standing, so it's something he wants to publicise. As Caustic Logic said, "North Africa" isn't a political entity, any more than "Europe" is - or "worldwide", come to that. It's a geographical region. "Europe and North Africa" is a geographical region. (You might as well say he's biassed to the prosecution because Britain is in Europe and a member of the UN, for goodness sake!)

I am completely baffled as to how you can spin this into an automatic assumption that the man is corrupt and producing falsified results to order. That's a slur on all expert witnesses everywhere, who are trained and on oath to act independently, and whose future careers depend on them being seen to do exactly that. I would agree that there are exceptions (Karol Sikora being one in my opinion), but you need some reasonable grounds for suspicion to entertain that notion.

Another point to consider is, where on earth are you going to get a truly independent expert witness if the defence aren't allowed to pay them? Especially when the situation requires expensive explosives testing? Expert witnesses don't work for nothing, and people don't as a rule set up such tests out of the goodness of their hearts. Are you aware of any charitable foundation that's prepared to fund expert witnesses for the defence? 'Cos I'm not.

And finally, could I point out where you're going with this? Exactly the same accusation can be levelled in reverse against all the scientific officers working for the prosecution. If we have to reject all evidence attested to by someone who was paid by one side or other of the case, then there's bugger-all scientific evidence left. Maybe the AAIB is independent, but that's about your lot.

More than that, the prosecution relied heavily on evidence given by three particular "experts", Thomas Hayes, Allen Feraday and Tom Thurman. We know that these three men were either corrupt or incompetent or possibly both. Hayes and Thurman both left their jobs under clouds of suspicion (to put it no more strongly) of having "sexed-up" evidence to suit the prosecution (in different cases), and Feraday was shown to have no professional standing to present himself as an expert witness.

Do you want that we should hand-wave away all the evidence they worked on as "dubiously biassed"? Because I have to say, there's your case straight down the toilet right there.

I do think these three were up to no good in the Lockerbie investigation. However, I base that not simply on their shocking track records, which are a matter of public record, but on defects, deficiencies and contradictions in the actual evidence they presented. And I confine my doubts to those particular items where such defects exist.

So could you maybe quit with the knee-jerk assumptions that everybody on the side of the case you don't support is corrupt, and actually look at the strength or otherwise of the evidence presented? If there is evidence of corruption that's certainly an issue. But hey, defence expert paid by defence funds does not cut it.

Rolfe.

Soily

15th September 2010, 03:43 AM

The BBC are hardly the most conspiracy friendly of organisations, so I doubt they'd have broadcast wyatts claims if his client made him obviously compromised.

Buncrana

15th September 2010, 04:31 AM

I agree entirely with Rolfe's arguments with regards to experts used to support the defense or the prosecutions claims in any judicial case. Evidence and conclusions given cannot simply be precluded on the basis they are not arguing for your case. Arguments and questions may be made as to someone's particular qualifications to be carrying out such tests and the conclusions subsequently produced. Indeed, procedures followed, testimony given and any known improprieties of experts used, by either of the parties involved, can be a basis for disputing any conclusions found. Contention cannot be made simply on the basis of conclusions you do not find favourable to your argument. Therefore, until we wither know the full extent of Dr Wyatt's tests, it should be accepted that we have no known basis for disputing what his conclusions were of the survival of the fragment.

Moreover, it would seem that Dr Wyatt is regarded as a trustworthy and creditable expert to merit involvement in the tests designed to determine the possible damage that would have been sustained by the aircraft involved in the 'underpant bomber' attempted attack last Christmas.

"Kip Hawley, the former head of the US Transportation Security Administration (TSA) said: "We can be sure that al Qaeda and others have taken lessons from their failed attempt and this program allows the public to be privy to some of those lessons. [..]

The explosives analysis done by Dr John Wyatt gave a realistic picture of the effects of a carry-on bomb roughly similar to the one used on Christmas Day.

Dr Wyatt's test results are to be shared with governments and aviation security experts around the world."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8547329.stm

Rolfe

15th September 2010, 04:51 AM

Therefore, until we either know the full extent of Dr Wyatt's tests, it should be accepted that we have no known basis for disputing what his conclusions were of the survival of the fragment.

I'm not crazy about the Wyatt results, as it happens. They throw up serious inconsistencies with the totality of the evidence in the case. In my opinion this is far more pertinent than baseless mud-slinging about his honesty.

As I said, I'm agnostic on the MST-13 fragment's survivability. Some people believe it couldn't have survived the explosion, others are prepared to accept the possibility. It seems to me that admitting that it could have survived is very far from admitting it's kosher though.

In contrast, there's strong evidence that the Claiden PCB fragment (of Toshiba circuit board) is genuine. It was found and identified as potentially important by an independent witness (Claiden is AAIB) within about three weeks of the disaster. If that wasn't part of the IED, then the only other sensible explanation is that it was an innocent radio packed in an adjacent suitcase. If that's the case, then we have next to no information about the nature of the IED - the whole "bomb disguised as a radio-cassette player" is right out of the window.

If we have to go there, we have to go there, but srsly, I'd rather not. It throws so much back into the melting pot that you might as well declare it was a rogue IRA unit and be done with it! I realise there's room to doubt the survival, if not of the flake of PCB itself, of the delicate white ID numbers on it that remained legible. However, Wyatt's results have not convinced me, over the provenance Claiden's evidence gives to the fragment.

Also, one can't discuss the radio or IED fragments without discussing the Maltese clothes, which were held to be just about as close to the bomb. It's extremely difficult to make a case for these clothes being anything other than genuine (most of them, at least, one could leave a little wiggle-room for one of two rags).

Yes, I know the whole tale appears way too convenient and indeed far-fetched to be true. But looking at Tony Gauci's first statement, it pretty much has to be. That he sold seven of the items identified as being within the "primary suitcase" to an Arabic-speaking customer a few weeks before the bombing, and that he remembered the transaction, does not seem to be in doubt.

So if these clothes weren't in the primary suitcase, where did they come from? Oh they were planted! Spare me. Any suggestion of that nature requires Tony Gauci not only to be in on this conspiracy up to his neck, but to be in possession of a brain. Get real.

This then leaves only the possibility that they were in another suitcase close to the bomb. In that case, whose were they? They were never traced to any of the passengers. Nobody matching Tony Gauci's description of the purchaser was among the victims. If the purchaser had passed them on to an innocent passenger who died, I think we might have heard about that by now. It doesn't make a lick of sense.

These are my reasons for not accepting Wyatt's results at face value. But rather than instantly accusing him of being bent, my suspicions are that there was some methodological problem with what he was doing. He was trying to replicate the forensic conclusions about the exact nature of the IED, but could there be an incorrect assumption in there that was throwing everything out?

However, I'm not an explosives expert, so I can't go further than that. My position is that I don't believe Wyatt's results, as we understand them at the moment, outweigh the other evidence available that the Claiden fragment and at least the seven items of clothing described on 1st September 1989 by Tony Gauci are genuine.

As a result, I'm not prepared to assert categorically that Wyatt has proved that the MST-13 fragment couldn't have survived, either. Not without a lot more detail about his results. I can't go any further. Until we get more detail, I feel we just have to park Wyatt in the "not proven" file, and move on.

Rolfe.

Soily

15th September 2010, 04:59 AM

For me, it's not a case of possibility but likelihood. It's incredibly unlikely the fragment would have survived. It's also incredibly unlikely if it did survive it would be found. So we're multiplying unlikehoods. And I actually find the second unlikehood even harder to believe than the first.

Rolfe

15th September 2010, 05:11 AM

Oh, I agree with that to a large extent too. I don't have any problem with the concept that the MST-13 fragment is close to impossible. It's the largest piece of PCB that was found by a metric mile, and it was from the part of the device right up against the Semtex. And by another of those amazing chances that seem to characterise this affair, it seems to be exactly the part of the board with a circuit pattern distinctive enough to allow it to be identified (that "fingerpad" that looks like a 1).

However, I wouldn't major too hard on the likelihood of its being found. The search was extraordinarily systematic and extraordinarily thorough. Assuming it existed in the first place, it was likely to be found if it fell short of the Newcastleton Forest - which it seems to have done, by maybe 100 yards.

I merely point out that I'm not ready to assert that the Claiden PCB fragment is impossible, or the Maltese clothes, and if that means I also have to allow the possibility that the timer fragment might have survived too, then so be it.

Rolfe.

Soily

15th September 2010, 05:34 AM

Rolfe

15th September 2010, 05:53 AM

"If it's not growing, or a rock, pick it up."

I think the bloody timer fragment was planted, but not for that reason. Argument from incredulity isn't really enough.

It's arguable just how much it can be described as the "crux of the case" though. It certainly was a turning point when it was identified. It was the identification of the MST-13 that set the whole investigation off on the road to prove Libya did it. On the other hand, it was peripheral to the case against Megrahi himself, as he was never shown to have had one in his possession.

Rolfe.

Soily

15th September 2010, 06:08 AM

I admit I don't know the case that well but I thought the unbelievably flimsy case against Megrahi was bolstered by the specious logic that the fragment pointed to Libya...and well Megrahi is Libyan, so it must have been him.

Rolfe

15th September 2010, 06:17 AM

Yes, that's part of it! But even the extraordinarily biassed bench at Zeist couldn't have brought in a conviction with only that. The MST-13 fragment is the main answer to "why Libya", but for the answer to "why this particular Libyan?" you have to look at Tony Gauci's mystery shopper and the amazing case of the disappearing Frankfurt baggage records.

All the fuss about the provenance of the timer is in a sense peripheral. The timer isn't evidence against Megrahi, and it was Megrahi who was convicted, not "Libya". Even if the timer is completely and absolutely above board, found and examined exactly as described, the case against Megrahi is a steaming pile of foetid dingoes' kidneys.

Rolfe.

Buncrana

15th September 2010, 07:03 AM

Wyatt's conclusions are disturbing because they support the host of suspicions and unsatisfactorily explained inconsistencies that surround the chain of examination and identification of the fragment. Aptly descibed by someone as That Bloody Fragment! Clearly however, more comprehensive details of Wyatt's tests and conclusions are required to detremine just how much they support the suspicions; conclusively, likely, improbable or unfeasibly. As I've said before, short of flying an aircraft to 31,000ft, with passengers and luggage, I don't think the exact conditions of the explosion can ever be truly replicated, far less the appropriate weather conditions that Maid of the Seas, travelling in excess of 500mph, would have been facing that December evening.

I think it's relatively immaterial whether we work on the assumption that the Claiden fragment was genuine, but not part of the actual device, or whether it was somehow planted very early into the investigation, as Wyatt's test's appear to imply. It would appear from Wyatt's tests the suggestion is that the timer fragment wuold have been virtually obilterated by the blast, thereby the same can be speculated about the whole radio. But that is not referred to or concluded in his report, and therefore we can speculate about Wyatt's conclsuion witnh regards to the Claiden fragment, but as it stands, cannot dispute his conclusions on PT35(b) and it's survival as "highly improbable...most unlikely...incredible". Although, it's worth remembering the curious circumstance that allowed the identification of AG145: the bomb-makers had re-inserted this circuit board in reverse when assembling the bomb device and radio, thus allowing it to be identified by the numbers not being exposed to the initial blast. [Claiden Fragment AG145 (http://content.news10now.com/syrcontent/online_extras/pan_am_series/timer_fragment_3.jpg)]

This fragment merely indicated some type of Toshiba electronic appliance, and the brown circuit board it formed part of was initially part of seven assorted appliances used by Toshiba. It was then Feraday who narrowed it down to a possible two Radio's, and on balance he concluded the white Toshiba RT-8016. Anyway, I think, at this moment, examining the Claiden fragment beyond what is known of it's provenance and identification is a somewhat futile, and wholly speculative discussion. If anything, Claidens discovery and Wyatt's conclusions indicate to me that, much like Mrs Horton's find, these items were consequently ascribed to have been intimately involved as part of the bomb device, lending weight to a threadbare and questionable assertion made by the forensic experts presented, as oppose to innocent pieces of debris carried amongst the luggage on 103.

However, scepticism with the entirely unsatisfactory documented finding of PT35(b), with the re-writing of the label on the evidence bag, it's subesquent control and forensic noting as highlighted in Hayes and Feraday's page 51, it's further analysis and apparent photographing, not to mention it's continuity of possession alluded to in Levy's film, are then latterly given considerable support by Wyatt's tests and conclusions.

Rolfe

15th September 2010, 08:28 AM

I think it's relatively immaterial whether we work on the assumption that the Claiden fragment was genuine, but not part of the actual device, or whether it was somehow planted very early into the investigation, as Wyatt's test's appear to imply. It would appear from Wyatt's tests the suggestion is that the timer fragment wuold have been virtually obilterated by the blast, thereby the same can be speculated about the whole radio. But that is not referred to or concluded in his report, and therefore we can speculate about Wyatt's conclsuion witnh regards to the Claiden fragment,

I don't entirely agree. The Claiden fragment could be a mistake, as you say. A fragment from an innocent radio being carried in luggage close to the blast. Though as it's the only half-way convincing and reputable piece of radio we have in the evidence, where are we if we eliminate it? We don't really know how this bomb was assembled or disguised!

However, if we're going to consider the possibility that it was planted, that's a whole other ball game. For that, I want to know who, where, when, how and why. I can do the first four of these quite easily, knowing who was yomping around Dumfriesshire that January. I have a big problem with the why part, as early as that.

but as it stands, cannot dispute his conclusions on PT35(b) and it's survival as "highly improbable...most unlikely...incredible".

However, scepticism with the entirely unsatisfactory documented finding of PT35(b), with the re-writing of the label on the evidence bag, it's subesquent control and forensic noting as highlighted in Hayes and Feraday's page 51, it's further analysis and apparent photographing, not to mention it's continuity of possession alluded to in Levy's film, are then latterly given considerable support by Wyatt's tests and conclusions.

I think I'm just trying to be as fair as possible here. I find it incredible that the clothes (at least Tony's initial seven items) weren't part of the bomb bag. I find it pretty unsettling to contemplate that the Claiden fragment may be a complete red herring, so no actual radio. And veering in that direction, it seems irrational of me to baulk at the timer fragment too.

I'm not concerned about the continuity of possession of the timer fragment after it had been passed to Scottish custody. It's perfectly clear from the photos that the item hasn't been substituted at any point. And some at least of the confusion in Levy's film could be ascribed to faulty memories nearly 20 years on and insufficient attention being paid to the distinction between "it never left Scotland - er the UK" and "it never left Scottish jurisdiction". It definitely left the UK, but there's no evidence that it wasn't properly in the custody of a Scottish copper every time that happened.

The provenance and continuity from 13th January to 15th September 1989 are an entirely different story, I agree. But these still exist, unaffected, even if it's conceded that it's perfectly possible for the fragment to have survived the explosion as alleged.

Rolfe.

Soily

15th September 2010, 10:14 AM

Apologies for my ignorance, but how could they be sure that any of the relevant fragments were even from the 'bomb case'?

Rolfe

15th September 2010, 10:40 AM

There's screeds of tedious detail about all that. It was down to whether or not they showed evidence of blast damage, whether or not they had bits of the radio blasted into them, and whether or not they had bits of the actual suitcase blasted into them.

It's hard to know how reliable the conclusions are, but it doesn't look manipulated to me.

Rolfe.

Bunntamas

15th September 2010, 11:30 AM

We seem to be going round in circles here

I agree. As I said before, I think we're beating a dead horse. I also agree that I don't think any of us have any hard evidence to prove whether or not he was biased, based on who paid him to do the tests. It was just my opinion re: Wyatt / possibility of bias. Sorry I brought it up.

So could you maybe quit with the knee-jerk assumptions that everybody on the side of the case you don't support is corrupt, and actually look at the strength or otherwise of the evidence presented? If there is evidence of corruption that's certainly an issue. But hey, defence expert paid by defence funds does not cut it.

While I do believe there was plenty of corruption involved in this case, and the release of Megrahi, I don't necessarily think that everyobdy on the other side of the case is corrupt.
I said yesterday I have a ton of stuff I have to do until next week, so I won't be posting again til then.. Just wanted you to know I'm not running away. :)

Caustic Logic

15th September 2010, 04:06 PM

I suppose it's impossible to meaningfully quantify, but the idea that a tiny 4mm square fragment which would later prove to be the entire crux of the case, would be found amoungst millions of pieces of debris over a 1000 square miles of countryside is pretty hard for me to believe.

To clarify, it was larger, about 1cm sq, and was supposedly found within a larger scrap of shirt collar. It was the collar that was supposedly found and picked up. That makes it more plausible, if indeed the story is true.

Nothing against Rolfe, but if there's any possibility of fakery, where we draw the lines is something to consider. I don't know the science involved, but just consider the arrangement - the main circuit board and MST-13 are about equally poorly spaced for survival.
http://i133.photobucket.com/albums/q62/chainsawmoth/127-911/PP8932_16inch.jpg
And the brown labeled side of this fragment (http://i133.photobucket.com/albums/q62/chainsawmoth/Lockerbiedivide/AG-145_color.jpg) was facing the blast. In contrast, the MST-13 was set in edgewise, and actually would stand a better chance of its face surviving.

Mr.Claiden doesn't convince me terribly well either. He's independent of what? RARDE too is supposed to be independent of any frame-up plans someone hatches, but we can agree a couple of their people at least were not. So why not someone at AAIB? He's made other questionable calls, like for some reason deciding metal chunk AI/100 just had to be from right next to the bomb, with nothing but a hunch that seems to ignore physics.
http://lockerbiedivide.blogspot.com/2010/02/forensic-elimination-1-claidens.html

If having another agency's person makes a questionable fragment look less questionable, well, maybe that's why this unusual early find was found in such an unusual way.

But that aside, let's call it another mystery. Sorry, Rolfe, if it makes your head hurt to consider it. You'll have to manage that yourself by just not going there anyway, I suppose.

Rolfe

15th September 2010, 05:26 PM

Well, I have an open mind. Mainly, it seems very implausible to me that there was any plan to subvert the direction of the enquiry which was so advanced so early that it knew exactly what it wanted to plant and was bold enough and organised enough to plant it. Particularly considering that most of the debris was still unexamined at that point, so they couldn't have known what they were really going to find.

But at the same time, I agree the survival of that brown chip with its pristine white lettering is a bit of a facer.

What I would propose would be to call a truce on Wyatt and agree to continue the discussion as if it's possible he made some sort of mistake, even if you don't believe he did. My reason for proposing this is that I don't think it's possible to persuade Bunntamas to agree that the survival of the MST-13 fragment was impossible. And that being the case, we'd be looking at a complete impasse.

If Wyatt is right, that's the proof many people have been looking for that this highly suspect piece of evidence was indeed fabricated. It's proof the investigation was subverted and evidence planted to pervert the course of justice. It torpedoes the case against Megrahi completely, 100%, in one fell swoop.

Bunntamas isn't going to wear it. He's going to imply Wyatt is a crook (though in my opinion he'd get on better by suggesting there was a methodological error in the blast tests). He's going to point out that we don't have a full set of results for these tests. He's going to point out that the results haven't been tested in court. He's going to point out that the SCCRC report explicitly said it found nothing to substantiate the suggestion that any piece of evidence had been substituted or fabricated.

I'm certainly prepared to park Wyatt for now, as not proven, and at least await fuller and better details of the results if we get them. And frankly I think it's the only way we'll be able to continue to convese with Bunntamas.

Rolfe.

Rolfe

15th September 2010, 05:42 PM

Longtabber s concept about how other suitcases weren't damaged was actually true. My dad was one of the "first fifteen" due to his interlining and "alleged" damage from the bomb to one of his suitcases. More than 15 years after the bombing we got the "questionable" suitcase back. It was in perfect condition, and the contents; textbooks and notebooks, clothing were all in tact, without one ounce char or of mud from the fields of Lockerbie. You'd never know it had been involved in a bombing or fallen 30,000 feet.

Bunntamas, that's the first time you've told us it was your father you lost on Pan Am 103. Please let me say how very, very sorry I am for your loss. I've always felt very keenly for the victims of this atrocity, both on the plane and on the ground, and it really brings it home to be in contact with any of their loved ones.

Would you mind elaborating a bit on what you said there? Am I right in deducing that your father's luggage was in AVE4041? I read somewhere (can't pinpoint the reference now) that in the early stages there were 15 suitcases identified as being blast-damaged, and that 14 of these were from PA103A and one was loaded at Heathrow. Is that what you mean by "first fifteen"? (I understand about 25 cases ended up in that category eventually.)

It sounds as if you think there was something not quite right about the condition of the case when you got it back? Not actually blast-damaged? Not damaged by the fall at terminal velocity? Would you mind explaining your take on that, because it sounds quite peculiar.

I wouldn't have asked, but as you've volunteered the information, I hope you'll clarify it a bit.

Rolfe.

Caustic Logic

16th September 2010, 02:02 AM

I'd certainly rather truce than argue about whether the genuine fragments were re-painted "L106" "01""02" to look more fake...

As soon as anyone can think of what else to say on the issue go for it. I'm a start a new thread.

Bunntamas

16th September 2010, 12:07 PM

What I would propose would be to call a truce on Wyatt and agree to continue the discussion as if it's possible he made some sort of mistake, even if you don't believe he did. My reason for proposing this is that I don't think it's possible to persuade Bunntamas to agree that the survival of the MST-13 fragment was impossible. And that being the case, we'd be looking at a complete impasse.

Agreed.

Bunntamas isn't going to wear it. He's going to imply Wyatt is a crook

I never implied that Wyatt was a "crook". I implied that his tests may have been biased. But to further your point:

(though in my opinion he'd get on better by suggesting there was a methodological error in the blast tests).

Agreed.

He's going to point out that we don't have a full set of results for these tests. He's going to point out that the results haven't been tested in court. He's going to point out that the SCCRC report explicitly said it found nothing to substantiate the suggestion that any piece of evidence had been substituted or fabricated.

Thanks for thinking for me, but I need to dealve into this a bit further before I actually comment further, and make my own observations.

I'm certainly prepared to park Wyatt for now, as not proven, and at least await fuller and better details of the results if we get them. And frankly I think it's the only way we'll be able to continue to convese with Bunntamas.
Rolfe.

Agreed.

Bunntamas

16th September 2010, 12:10 PM

Bunntamas, that's the first time you've told us it was your father you lost on Pan Am 103. Please let me say how very, very sorry I am for your loss. I've always felt very keenly for the victims of this atrocity, both on the plane and on the ground, and it really brings it home to be in contact with any of their loved ones.

Thanks for your kind words Rolfe.
I sent you a PM in reply to other points.
~B.

Rolfe

16th September 2010, 02:10 PM

Agreed.

Well, I find Wyatt a bit difficult to swallow as things stand, too. If the work was published and peer-reviewed it would be different, but as it is we don't have the full methodology and results. Replication is important too, which given the expense and the shortage of people motivated to do the work (this isn't a cure for cancer he's discovered!) might be hard to come by.

So I'd very much prefer to keep this parked unless and until we get better information and/or confirmation of his findings.

I never implied that Wyatt was a "crook". I implied that his tests may have been biased.

It's the same thing. You either approach these matters with rigorous impartiality, or you're no better than a crook.

Don't get me wrong, I think (OK, I know) there are expert witnesses who are not playing a straight bat. However, that conclusion comes from taking note that this is what they're doing, by looking at their actions and track record. The assumption that every scientist or engineer employed as an expert witness may automatically be assumed to be bent is unsustainable.

Thanks for thinking for me, but I need to dealve into this a bit further before I actually comment further, and make my own observations.

Sorry, I probably phrased that badly. Assuming you wouldn't be back for a few days, I was trying to explain to Caustic Logic, Buncrana et al. what your point of view would probably be, to induce them to see it from that angle.

I am of the opinion, based on the evidence, that the MST-13 timer fragment was fabricated and planted in that shirt collar. For two reasons. First, the provenance of the item as a piece of evidence stinks to high heaven. It would actually be a miracle of biblical proportions if a piece of evidence with a pedigree like that was on the level. And second, because it doesn't make a blind bit of sense. If there had been an MST-13 timer in that bomb, the plane would have blown up five hours later than it did.

However, theories have to bend to the reality, when that reality is established. What would the effect be of some sort of divine messenger showing up with conclusive proof that the fragment wasn't a plant? Not a lot, really, unless there was a great deal more information attached to it. Mainly, a great deal of puzzling as to why on earth the explosion happened at the time it did. The timer never pointed conclusively to any particular culprit, and certainly not to Megrahi.

Accordingly, I don't have a problem continuing the discussion on the basis that we don't know for sure one way or the other. That's been the basic premise up till now anyway.

Rolfe.

Rolfe

16th September 2010, 02:12 PM

Thanks for your kind words Rolfe.
I sent you a PM in reply to other points.
~B.

Replying shortly, thank you.

Rolfe.

Rolfe

16th September 2010, 06:53 PM

Bunntamas, clear out your PMs!

Sheesh, how do you get 150 PMs in a month and 48 posts? Are you having an affair with Shemp behind our backs?

Rolfe.

Rolfe

19th September 2010, 06:15 PM

Hmmm. I just noticed that the journalist (http://www.marcello-mega.co.uk/) whose article prompted me to bump this old thread is the same person as wrote that intriguing article about "the Golfer" (http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com/lockerbie/Golfer-tells-of-plot-to.3298354.jp) in 2008, and indeed the one that seems to be a lowdown on the PII document (http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com/topstories/Truth-revealed-on-Lockerbie-bomb.4139925.jp).

I find myself in strange agreement with this guy in a number of important respects.

Rolfe.

Ambrosia

20th September 2010, 02:25 AM

If Wyatt is right, that's the proof many people have been looking for that this highly suspect piece of evidence was indeed fabricated.

The devil is always in the details, and we don't have the details, until such time as independant explosives experts can pick over the fine details of his tests.

Wyatts tests do open up more questions than they answer though.

I do actually wonder sometimes how much it would cost to hire an explosives expert and carry out similar tests. Exactly what does happen to a radio packed inside a suitcase thats had 450g of semtex detonated inside it?

Rolfe

21st September 2010, 07:08 AM

Sigh. One of Caustic Logic's lines of speculation is that there might have been more than 450g, so that positioning in the hold would have been less critical. But if you go down that line, you're even more liable to vapourise everything in the suitcase.

Rolfe.

Bunntamas

21st September 2010, 02:22 PM

Bunntamas, clear out your PMs!

Sheesh, how do you get 150 PMs in a month and 48 posts? Are you having an affair with Shemp behind our backs?

Rolfe.

LOL! No, no affair w/ Shemp. Who is Shemp? Was that an inside JREF joke about which I am unaware? And did I just make a complete (bigger than current) fool of myself by asking that question?
From what I can see, I don't / didn't have 150PMs. All I can see are the welcome message, one alert about being yellow tagged (bad Bunny, bad! :eye-poppi), and a couple of messages about posts (per yellow tag) being moved. Weird.

Bunntamas

21st September 2010, 02:33 PM

I don't know the science involved, but just consider the arrangement - the main circuit board and MST-13 are about equally poorly spaced for survival.
http://i133.photobucket.com/albums/q62/chainsawmoth/127-911/PP8932_16inch.jpg
And the brown labeled side of this fragment (http://i133.photobucket.com/albums/q62/chainsawmoth/Lockerbiedivide/AG-145_color.jpg) was facing the blast. In contrast, the MST-13 was set in edgewise, and actually would stand a better chance of its face surviving.

CL: where did you get that image? From the Claiden doc's? If so, was the blue "measurement" at the bottom included in the image you downloaded? Or did you add that? (no, I'm not accusing you of anything, I'm just asking about the source). It's the same image that was included in the booklet of evidence given to family members (and possibly others, I'm not sure about the latter) at the Zeist trial, with the exception of the measurement, which is not included in the trial booklet. Just curious.
~B.

Rolfe

21st September 2010, 02:43 PM

LOL! No, no affair w/ Shemp. Who is Shemp? Was that an inside JREF joke about which I am unaware? And did I just make a complete (bigger than current) fool of myself by asking that question?

Yes to the first part, no to the second. You may be far too fastidious to hang around in Community and find out what Shemp is reputed to get up to!

From what I can see, I don't / didn't have 150PMs. All I can see are the welcome message, one alert about being yellow tagged (bad Bunny, bad! :eye-poppi), and a couple of messages about posts (per yellow tag) being moved. Weird.

Maybe the system only allows new members a few stored PMs? Normally one is allowed a total of 150, which includes anything the damn AutoModAction bot sends, and anything you've sent which has a copy saved in your "sent" folder.

Anyway, the system was refusing to allow me to send you any more messages because you have "exceeded your quota of stored messages".

Just delete anything you don't want, which would include all the automated messages if you've read them. People get posts moved and infractions all the time, it's nothing to worry about so long as you know what not to do again (see Charles, as the Awful Warning).

Rolfe.

Rolfe

21st September 2010, 02:49 PM

CL: where did you get that image? From the Claiden doc's? If so, was the blue "measurement" at the bottom included in the image you downloaded? Or did you add that? (no, I'm not accusing you of anything, I'm just asking about the source). It's the same image that was included in the booklet of evidence given to family members (and possibly others, I'm not sure about the latter) at the Zeist trial, with the exception of the measurement, which is not included in the trial booklet. Just curious.
~B.

A lot of these images are floating around the internet now. I have a feeling Edwin Bollier might be the original source of a lot of it, but once you let the files loose, they fly free. I don't trust Edwin as far as I could throw him (see your "Spanish typewriter" remark), but the images seem to be undoctored as far as I can tell. Some of them are indeed annotated though.

The one of the mock-up of the IED is also included (in black and white) in Paul Foot's Flight from Justice booklet. Foot was of course the only journalist to sit through the entire Zeist trial, so he probably had the same booklet given to him as part of a press pack.

Just by the way, you don't happen to have a copy of Production 930, do you? That's the passenger listing for KM180. There's some information on that I'd dearly love to confirm.

Rolfe.

Caustic Logic

21st September 2010, 04:24 PM

CL: where did you get that image? From the Claiden doc's? If so, was the blue "measurement" at the bottom included in the image you downloaded? Or did you add that? (no, I'm not accusing you of anything, I'm just asking about the source). It's the same image that was included in the booklet of evidence given to family members (and possibly others, I'm not sure about the latter) at the Zeist trial, with the exception of the measurement, which is not included in the trial booklet. Just curious.
~B.

The image was probably from a standard Google image search, I forget where. Buncrana provided me a better res version, but this one is already online. I added the blue for size ref. and did a little work to clarify the labels.

On Bollier and images, I'm still baffled by the blueness of available JPEGs of MST-13 timers (http://lockerbiedivide.blogspot.com/2010/02/pt35b-papers-photos-details.html), most coming to us from Ebol the clown. Bunny, do you happen to have color photos from a separate source, and are they as blue as these, or different?

BTW: I've been a member here for over three years but didn't get the Shemp thing either. But then I don't really "hang out" here much.

Bunntamas

21st September 2010, 05:41 PM

correction re: above comment I'm surprise should be I'm surpised.

Rolfe

21st September 2010, 05:43 PM

Hayes said the chip was green when he first described it, whenever that actually was. And the chip photographed then is the same chip as the court exhibit. So why wouldn't it be green? But all the pics, including the reference items, are a weird bluish shade. I know what colour green circuit boards are, and that ain't it! While the pics of the brown Toshiba circuit board are the right colour.

Strange.

Rolfe.

Rolfe

21st September 2010, 05:45 PM

correction re: above comment I'm surprise should be I'm surpised.

Really? You sure about that? ;)

You can edit any typos in a post less than two hours old, if you want to spare your blushes. But who cares about the odd typo?

Rolfe.

Bunntamas

21st September 2010, 06:00 PM

correction re: above comment I'm surprise should be I'm surpised.

Ha! SURPRISED. I am a really bad typist.

Rolfe

21st September 2010, 06:09 PM

Hey, who cares? Just edit it if the post is less than two hours old, and if it's older than that and the world is still turning, it's probably not that important....

Rolfe, who is definitely going to bed now.

Ambrosia

22nd September 2010, 02:26 AM

I don't know the science involved, but just consider the arrangement - the main circuit board and MST-13 are about equally poorly spaced for survival.

Thats a mock up showing a 'Trial Loading' - which basically means only the bomb maker actually knows how the explosive was packed into the bomb.

They could have moulded the explosives and stuck them inside of the two speaker cones for all we know. Perhaps the explosive was in a thin film smeared along the inside wall of the case, like the UTA-772 bomb was and the radio itself was a perfectly normal radio. We just don't know. All the forensic evidence is able to say is that bits of radio were found that were damaged by, and in close proximity to, the explosive device that downed PA-103.

So why not someone at AAIB? He's made other questionable calls, like for some reason deciding metal chunk AI/100 just had to be from right next to the bomb, with nothing but a hunch that seems to ignore physics.
http://lockerbiedivide.blogspot.com/2010/02/forensic-elimination-1-claidens.html

I am not ready to throw Claiden out. He was one of a team of experts that worked on the AAIB report. Surely if there were mistakes in it they would have come to light already?

Aside from Wyatt and John Parkes I don't know of anyone poking holes in the AAIB report. I don't believe Parkes, and so far Wyatt is short on details.

Rolfe

22nd September 2010, 02:46 AM

The other one poking holes in the AAIB report is John Barry Smith (http://www.ntsb.org/Wiringcargodoor/home_files/SmithAAR103fffallpartapA-N.pdf). Barking, in my opinion. (Oh and I forgot Charles, who seems to think that the AAIB report is implicitly saying the opposite of what it explicitly states, for some surreal reason.)

And I'm not sure Wyatt is really doing that. If anything, he's just saying that stuff assumed (by RARDE, not the AAIB) to have been in the bomb suitcase couldn't have been and (by inference) is likely to have come from adjacent suitcases. The MST-13 fragment, which isn't something likely to have been in innocent luggage, is the only thing he's really putting severe pressure on.

Rolfe.

Bunntamas

22nd September 2010, 01:36 PM

Just by the way, you don't happen to have a copy of Production 930, do you? That's the passenger listing for KM180. There's some information on that I'd dearly love to confirm.

I haven't gotten through my entire pile of stuff yet, but I’m doubtful that I have a copy of Production 930. Passenger manifests were kept very close to the vest. It took days for PanAm to release the manifest to families, while we waited in agony.
I do however have a copy of Production 1061 which is Frankfurt employees Koca and Candar’s worksheet records of coding of bags that were unloaded frrom KM180 into the baggage system for PA103A (below).

Also, here (http://web.archive.org/web/20020831080034/www.thelockerbietrial.com/trial_January9.htm)is a section of the trial transcripts that contains info. on Production 1061, fragments found & where they were found in the hold & container & Dr. Douse’s test results indicating PETN and RDX, where the bomb detonated, etc. Seems relative to some of the comments / questions above re: debris & bomb placement, so I thought I'd post a quick reference.

Sorry if this is old news.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_424544c9a5a77e5b4e.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=21128)

Bunntamas

22nd September 2010, 01:46 PM

Oh, and BTW, the info. I referenced in the link above starts at around 9379.

Rolfe

22nd September 2010, 01:53 PM

Thanks, that worksheet is one of the things that's been around on the internet for a while.

I didn't realise the whole transcripts were on the internet, even if on Wayback. I had them by email. As I said, WordPerfect and I have just now created a single pdf file of the whole thing, minus the line numbers, single-spaced and with normal-length lines. It's very easy to read, completely searchable, and even retains the original page numbers for handy reference. The only little snagette is that it's 14Mb. If that's a problem, I also have it in a split version, seven files of about 2Mb each.

Free to as many good homes as want it.

Rolfe.

Caustic Logic

22nd September 2010, 02:05 PM

Ambrosia: Indeed, and it could have been a different radio as well. But from what we were shown, or any arrangement sufficient to punture the fuselage, IMO the radio cant be counted on ti survive in but microscopic form.

And I wouldn't toss Claiden's work or the report. There are a few question marks, and to me he doesn't have enough credibility to prove AG/145 true. I don't think anyone could do that for me once I saw how fake it was.

Rolfe: Indeed. And don't forget Carl Davies. And Chris Protheroe, who WAS AAID, by extension (his 12"math suggest fakery of the container at least). In fact I rather appreciate the analysis they did on the container. I haven't tried understanding the plane failure in such detail, but that's probably legit and informative as well.

Bunntamas: You know, the almost "Thomas" sound might be part of why I presumed you was a dude. But now you know I can be wrong at least once, and will be on the look-out for others, so I better stay sharp.

That was an awesome post for having stuff in it. There are existing transcript links? I was led to believe unless you got a clandestine copy you had to pay 10,000 pounds for a print version. Caught in ignorance again so quick? Rolfe's hours of formatting ... no, this is still an improvement, plus condensing into 7 as opposed to 86 volumes.

The Koca/Candar sheet is old news, though that scan looks different and very yellow. Will compare later, just in case there's any difference or clues. I'm still undecided if that's a 6 or a 0,and have decided it's not worth worrying about.

I'd like to know what you think of that and what it says or doesn't say.

Rolfe

22nd September 2010, 02:13 PM

Rolfe did not spend hours formatting. You dudes who are slaves to MS Word have no idea how a real word processor makes life easy. :D (OK, I know Word will probably do the same thing, it's mainly a question of user-friendliness.)

Once I'd written the macro, each day took 2 to 5 minutes, but of that, less than a minute was actively doing anything.

And there was no way I was going to be able to read it the way it was.

Rolfe.

Bunntamas

22nd September 2010, 02:58 PM

Bunntamas: You know, the almost "Thomas" sound might be part of why I presumed you was a dude. But now you know I can be wrong at least once, and will be on the look-out for others, so I better stay sharp.

No worries.

That was an awesome post for having stuff in it. There are existing transcript links? I was led to believe unless you got a clandestine copy you had to pay 10,000 pounds for a print version. Caught in ignorance again so quick? Rolfe's hours of formatting ... no, this is still an improvement, plus condensing into 7 as opposed to 86 volumes.

Thanks. There used to be a password protected site for families during the trial where transcripts were posted daily. Alas, that site is now defunct, and the administrator sadly passed away. I was printing them at the start of the trial, but it became too cumbersome after the first couple of weeks. Now I wish I had them. But yes, that archives site is cool. The first appeal transcripts are also available there. Here's (http://web.archive.org/web/20021222212746/www.thelockerbietrial.com/transcripts.htm)the link to the page with both trial and appeal.

The Koca/Candar sheet is old news, though that scan looks different and very yellow. Will compare later, just in case there's any difference or clues. I'm still undecided if that's a 6 or a 0,and have decided it's not worth worrying about.
I'd like to know what you think of that and what it says or doesn't say.

I scanned it directly from my trial booklet. The background of the document is pale yellow. My scanner sucks, and after scanning it was barely legible, so I enhanced the contrast which is why it looks a bit more yellow. What 6 or 0 are you referencing? The last line reads KM180, 13 04 (though that 4 could be a 6), 13 16 (could be 10, is that what you're referring to?) - 1 Koca

Rolfe

22nd September 2010, 03:02 PM

Caustic Logic

22nd September 2010, 03:15 PM

Numerous typos above,sorry

I scanned it directly from my trial booklet. The background of the document is pale yellow. My scanner sucks, and after scanning it was barely legible, so I enhanced the contrast which is why it looks a bit more yellow. What 6 or 0 are you referencing? The last line reads KM180, 13 04 (though that 4 could be a 6), 13 16 (could be 10, is that what you're referring to?) - 1 Koca

Indeed, the 1310/1316. Optically it's more a 6 but unsure, logically it should be a 0, factually this isn't the key document to be scrutinizing.

I double-checked, and prod. 1061 is this paper, so it looks like we're getting into evidence for the bag from Malta. This would best be discussed either in that thread, or in the "Did ..." thread where it plays as central evidence. Don't forget it was a combination of prod.s 1060 and 1061 that suggested the relevance, and we'll be bringing up the problems with 1060 (Mrs. Erac' printout).

Bunntamas

22nd September 2010, 04:03 PM

Mr. Taylor made a big deal at the trial regarding whether the finishing time for coding KM180 was 13.10 or 13.16. I go for 10, Ambrosia thinks it's 16, and to be honest I don't think anybody really thinks it matters.

I believe he was trying to correlate the accuracy of time between the clock at baggage loading, Koca and Cadar's watches (both of which were used to record loading times), what was recorded by hand, and the time on the baggage computer system. It's a difference of approx 2 to 10 minutes.

Rolfe

22nd September 2010, 04:23 PM

That, and trying to show that the time window for coding that amount of luggage was wider than it should have been for what came off KM180. Assuming the 13.16 reading. He had a rather fantastical story about how half a wagon of luggage from Damascus, which he seemed to think was unaccounted for, might have been coded after the Luqa flight, and Koca forgot to make a separate note about that. That batch might have had luggage for PA103A (er, did it? I thought the Damascus passengers for PA103 interlined directly into Heathrow?).

That would still have required Koca's watch to be off though, because 13.07 would still have been during the assumed Luqa coding time. And anyway, it seems that the Damascus luggage wasn't unaccounted for anyway. This was not Mr. Taylor's finest hour. There is a far simpler explanation. Or even maybe two.

Rolfe.

Ambrosia

23rd September 2010, 02:33 AM

Ambrosia: Indeed, and it could have been a different radio as well. But from what we were shown, or any arrangement sufficient to punture the fuselage, IMO the radio cant be counted on ti survive in but microscopic form.

Am away till Monday and will pick up a few things when I get back.

Just quickly though. We don't know how big the bomb was, where or how it was packed.

The forensic evidence points that it was inside AVE4041 100% - no doubt in that at all. It points to on balance of probability it being inside a brown samsonite type case I'd guess about 85% likelyhood of that being the case.

We also know that bits of radio circuit board were found blasted into bits of clothing. It's a pretty shaky conclusion to say that the clothe fragments/radio fragments were definitely from the bomb case imo.

Having said that it can't be ruled out, the explosion was very complicated and chaotic who knows what tiny bits of stuff might have survived that really ought to have been dustified/vapourised.

There is really no forensic evidence other than Feraday/Hayes "expert" opinion that the bomb was even in a radio, there's enough reasonable doubt just there to drive a truck through, and Megrah still got convicted...

Rolfe

23rd September 2010, 02:50 AM

It's very difficult for us non-experts to know how much weight to put on a lot of that. As you say, the explosion was chaotic with stuff inevitably flying everywhere.

The investigators made the basic assumption that if a piece of cloth had suitcase blasted into it, it was from outside the case, but if it had no suitcase blasted into it, it might have been inside the case. They also decided that the blue Babygro had been either wrapped round the radio or right up against it, and things with fibres of Babygro in them were given a high probability of being inside the case. As were things with bits of the radio components in them, but no bits of suitcase.

I can see the logic of this. I have no idea how valid it is, but this was these guys' job. I imagine there were a lot of data gathered over many years of IRA mayhem, as well as Indian Head, to support the assumptions. On the whole, I'm inclined to go along with it in general, although obviously if more detailed experimental evidence shows it was unlikely to have been like that, it has to be re-evaluated.

The Maltese clothes fragments existed, and Tony Gauci seems genuinely to have recalled selling the stuff to a tall dark stranger who has not been identified but certainly doesn't appear to have been a passenger on the plane, and hasn't come forward as having passed the things to a passenger on the plane. So if they weren't in the bomb suitcase, this is a lot stranger than anyone has ever postulated.

Rolfe.

Rolfe

27th January 2011, 03:58 PM

I think this might be the most appropriate thread for this.

I have just seen John Wyatt on Newsnight, being challenged about his promotion of the bogus bomb detection device the ADE 651. The thing has been known to be classic snake-oil for quite some time. It's along the lines of the Vega-test or the Zapper or the Q-ray, or perhaps some of the audio devices like the CD "enhancers" - just a conglomeration of electronic bits that don't actually do anything. Seeing the demonstration of the device, it's comparable to a dowsing rod, in that it has a rod (an ordinary radio aerial) which will move either at the will of the operator or by ideomotor action.

Ben Goldacre blogged about it over a year ago. http://www.badscience.net/2009/11/wtf/ However, it still seems to be in circulation - the common ploy of agreeing the original device was a fake but claiming that the new model is the real thing is well underway. I've seen this done with bogus allergy tests too.

Anyway, Wyatt's performance on Newsnight led me to the rapid conclusion that the man is a fake and a charlatan. Which is something of a relief because as I said, his evidence really didn't fit with what we know about the Lockerbie explosion. He's right up there with Longtabber I'm afraid. I propose to ignore him totally, and my world-view has become considerably more coherent as a result.

Rolfe.

Rolfe

18th February 2011, 05:24 PM

This has come up again in the forum, see this thread. http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=200463

First Longtabber says the entire suitcase should have been vapourised, and then he turns out to be a complete fraud.

Then Wyatt says the entire suitcase should have been vapourised, and then he turns out to be a complete fraud.

I'm seeing a bit of a pattern here.

Rolfe.

Caustic Logic

19th February 2011, 04:32 AM

Interesting. Two points is the base minimum level at which a pattern can be seen, right? :)

Rolfe

19th February 2011, 05:14 PM

Bunntamas

20th February 2011, 08:41 PM

Given his clear dishonesty in the ADE 651 issue, my conclusion is that he faked the Lockerbie tests. Bunntamas was right, though I think for all the wrong reasons. I think he knew or thought that the defence were hoping none of the timer circuit board would survive, and somehow fiddled the methodology or the data to get that to happen.

I don't suppose he had any notion that announcing the entire suitcase was obliterated was inconsistent with the rest of the evidence found. Too bad. Busted.

Rolfe.
Wow. "Bunntamas was right", with a backhanded slap of "for all the wrong reasons". Thanks Rolfe. More of your true (bullying) colors shine brightly as ever.
Care to explain "all the wrong reasons"?, particularly in light of current events / slease / Libyan coersion of British and henceforth Sottish governments / MURDERS OF INNOCENTS /anything else you want to throw into the hopper that Libyans wouldn't do / pay for via their defense to sleaze like Wyatt to get what they want? I dare not slip off the derail path (lest you report me again) to mention Libyan government shootings of innocent protesters from helicopters..... But....THINK about who you have been defending for so long. Megrahi was, and has been aligned deeply with the Gadaffi regime (why else would they fight so hard to get him released? NO, No mid-level, just buying "parts" to circumvent sanctions guy there. And if you do believe he was that, I have some ocean front property in Arizona to sell you).
LOOK at what is happening now as a result of that regime. And tell me, still you think he is innocent, based on the fact that that regime would stop at nothing to murder innocent people, of their own, much less Americans, whom in 1988 were a huge threat to Libya ?????? OMG. If you can say you still defend Megrahi after looking at what is finally taking place, and what is coming forward about the Libyan government, in which Megrahi was an integral player, I have nothing more to say, because ingnorance is not bliss, but a bloody stain on humanity, where defenders of these murderous animals are concerned.

Birds of a feather and all that...I'm gathering that you and CL are flying at (in your defense of members of) the same level as the (now fleeing) Libyan regime and their aligned tribes, including Megrahi, Senussi (sorry CL, I remember you don't know who he is - ahem http://www.usasurvival.org/pa103sundaytimes.html) and their actions over the past 40 years. Good to see how it all FINALLY FALLS into place.

Caustic Logic

21st February 2011, 12:00 AM

Oh, zing.

:rolleyes:

Rolfe

21st February 2011, 02:20 AM

Honestly, Bunntamas, there is more than one bunch of evil murdering bastards in the world you know. More's the pity, but there it is.

Simply pointing out that the Gadaffi regime is in that category does not automatically prove it was responsible for any atrocity you care to list. Let alone that Megrahi (of all people, against whom there as never any reliable personal evidence) had anything to do with it.

Rolfe.

Bunntamas

21st February 2011, 08:03 PM

Honestly, Bunntamas, there is more than one bunch of evil murdering bastards in the world you know. More's the pity, but there it is.
Indeed, there it is. Megrahi being included in those bunch of evil murdering bastards.

Simply pointing out that the Gadaffi regime is in that category does not automatically prove it was responsible for any atrocity you care to list. Let alone that Megrahi (of all people, against whom there as never any reliable personal evidence) had anything to do with it.

What? Not another wall of text from the EPIC ROLFE???? How surprising. (NOT) When she is beaten she has no walls of text, but when she "thinks" she has (unsupported) evidence to banter about with her sad little flunkies; CL, Architect, Buncrana, etc.... she has walls of text to post. But not now. NOT now that the Libyan government are fleeiing from all of the atrocities that included Megrahi (as a member of that regime).....Hmmmmm.....

Megrahi, by association and inclusion with the Gaddafi Libyan regime and close family tribes associated Gaddaffi and Sennusi????

Per above, I said, birds of a feather....and if you so care to respond to my questions as to why the (murdering of innocents) Gaddafi regime would so vehemently choose to focus on Megrahi's release, that would be interesting as well.
Until you can correlate your "evidence" with this, I'm still looking at you and others like you (e.g. Megrahi)
Side note: - does it not quake your bones to know that you are aligned with a convicted muderer who is aligned so closely with Gaddaffi's tribe ????
Does it not strike you as merely interesting tha Gaddaffi would fight so for one person, if it were not for political reasons????? If not, I must say, I have some question about your sociopathic stability-

So sad that you are such pawns, so blinded and are unable see what has happened in Libyan / UK and Scottish politics for so many years. And that after so many years, the Scots are still stuck in the you know what sucking of the th UK so as to release a murderer on the grounds of a pathetic "compassinate" release.

It is reprted that Gaddafi has fled Libya. My only regret is that his departure from Libya is not in a coffin, alonside Megrhai, Fimah, Sennusi, and all of the others who planned, carried out and supportd the bombing of Pan Am 103 (including the CT'ers) .

~b
PS did you happen to see the landing of Libyan fighter jets and helicopters in Malta and Libyan military requesting asylum? Too bad Megrahi didn't do the same, but instead chose to plant the bomb destined for PA103.
AHHHHH.... It all comes full cirlce now. Lord knows what will be revealed from those now revolting.
Hang on to your seats CT'ers. This will certainly be interesting.

Rolfe

22nd February 2011, 02:40 AM

Bunntamas, when I post what you call "walls of text" you don't read it anyway. I've explained the evidence and how there, like, isn't any that Megrahi had anything to do with the Lockerbie bomb. I'm not posting it again here, go back and read it if you like.

I'm sure there is a name for this logical fallacy.

Whoever was behing the Lockerbie bombing is an evil murdering bastard. [Correct]
Gadaffi is an evil murdering bastard. [Correct]
Therefore Gadaffi was behind the Lockerbie bombing. [Non sequitur, logic fail]
Was Megrahi himself an evil murdering bastard in some other context? Unknown, because there is no evidence. Plenty such evidence against other people associated with the Gadaffi regime, but none against Megrahi personally. The most there is, is that he knew people who were evil murdering bastards. Do evil murdering bastards only know other evil murdering bastards? I doubt it.

You know, I hope he was an evil murdering bastard. It's the classic get-out from law enforcement in Scotland, of course. Oh well, even if he didn't bomb that plane, don't shed any tears for him because he was an evil murdering bastard anyway.

That is such a betrayal of all the principles of justice I don't know where to start. OK, never mind actually solving any crime, just find someone else you think probably did a similar crime and fit them up for it, that'll do. No, PC McPlod, it won't.

But still. If Megrahi's own story is true, he went to Malta that day for completely innocent purposes. The only dubious activities he was involved in were related to smuggling aircraft parts and supplies past the UN sanctions. If that's true, we banged up a completely innocent man in jail for over ten years.

So I hope it's not true. Still doesn't help the problem of the real Lockerbie bombers still running free and laughing their heads off at all this Megrahi nonsense, or the deep cancer at the heart of the criminal justice system, but at least it would be possible to feel less bad about actually jailing the wrong man.

Rolfe.

Caustic Logic

22nd February 2011, 06:31 AM

Per above, I said, birds of a feather....and if you so care to respond to my questions as to why the (murdering of innocents) Gaddafi regime would so vehemently choose to focus on Megrahi's release, that would be interesting as well.

You read too much into feathers, Bunntamas.

The answer you are looking for is that Megrahi is IN FACT a terrorist mass murderer, and the Gaddafi regime was so intent to get him out because they are a terrorist regime, and love getting any and all terrorists out of jail, or help them in any way, in their insatiable bloodlust for the blood of infidels.

If I or anyone else answered the question any other way, you'd ignore it. Where do you keep all the things you read and just discard, anyway? Hollow legs and a hefty wagon?

Rolfe

22nd February 2011, 06:54 AM

Side note: - does it not quake your bones to know that you are aligned with a convicted muderer who is aligned so closely with Gaddaffi's tribe ????

I wish you'd get your head straight.

MEGRAHI WAS FRAMED FOR THE LOCKERBIE BOMBING BY THE CIA AND THE US DoJ.

If you dispute that, argue it on the facts, not on screeds of disjointed and baseless innuendo.

What I'm aligned with is the attempt to get the Scottish criminal justice system to face up to the fact that it colluded with US interests to frame someone who had no connection to the crime. I officially DO NOT CARE whether the man who was framed was pure as the driven snow or had a past that would shock Ivan the Terrible. And I have told you this on innumerable occasions in the past. The issue is the perversion of justice evident in the Lockerbie investigation and the Zeist trial.

The corollary to that, of course, is that the actual evil murdering bastards who blew up that plane were never caught and never punished and are doubtless laughing their evil heads off about all this fuss over "the Lockerbie bomber". Does it not quake your bones to know that the terrorists who killed 270 people were allowed to run free by the US authorities?

If you think it's sufficient to declare, "Gadaffi was and is an evil murdering bastard, end of argument," then I've got news for you. Nobody has ever been under any illusions about Gadaffi, this week or earlier.

It is reprted that Gaddafi has fled Libya. My only regret is that his departure from Libya is not in a coffin, alonside Megrhai, Fimah, Sennusi, and all of the others who planned, carried out and supportd the bombing of Pan Am 103 (including the CT'ers) .

I really hope we're not supposed to parse that as expressing a hope that those members you named above in your post as CTers (me, Caustic Logic, Architect and Buncrana) were in coffins. I'm not sure that's entirely in accord with the MA, you know.

I'm not so sure Gadaffi has left Libya. Even though it was apparently raining in the footage supposedly of him still in Libya, we're being told that rain isn't that uncommon on the southern Mediterranean coast in February.

If he's still there, there's hope for a Ceausescu moment yet. With any luck.

Rolfe.

Rolfe

22nd February 2011, 10:36 AM

I just noticed something. Bunntamas appears to be declaring that Fhimah "planned, carried out and supported the bombing of Pan Am 103".

Fhimah was acquitted in court. NOT GUILTY. INNOCENT.

Strange that someone who is so singlemindedly wedded to the court's (irrational) verdict in the case of Megrahi should blithely ignore that same court's verdict in the case of Fhimah. I think the double standards and blinkered outlook are showing here.

Rolfe.

Buncrana

22nd February 2011, 12:53 PM

It seems to me that all those who are so ardently opposed to any possibility that Megrahi was wrongfully convicted, and are fervently casting wild and spurious reasoning why he should be cast as the villain despite what any facts or evidence may suggest, are relying on a belief of pretence that there are no questions about his guilt worthy of discussion, and that there need not be any inquiry or appeal under any circumstances.

Some are apparently capable of absorbing, and upholding, a belief no matter how absurd or questionable these beliefs may be shown to be. No matter how much they may be undermined by evidence and rational argument to its contrary, the alternative is somehow simply too unpalatable to bear. Can this therefore remain and be regarded as a sincerely held belief when there is no attempt to support its own core assertions, except through invalid and contradictory argument or unsupported generalizations and insinuation?

Given the unshakable and vocal confidence in the original conviction put forth, would they not welcome the conclusion of the appeal process or any possible inquiry in the Zeist court (as was recommended by the SCCRC), as an opportunity to demonstrate the validity and soundness of their position, while simultaneously demolishing their adversaries beliefs that a wrongful conviction has occurred?

Surely, at least, each of us has a duty to show the other any possible mistakes given the gravity of these circumstances? I would wholeheartedly welcome such as it would put my fears to rest about the Scottish justice system being corrupted and restate the integrity of UK and US prosecutors. We have reasoned, we have pleaded for such.

But no, for some apparently not.

The belief of 'guilt' should remain unchallenged and unquestioned. And to those who are of doubt, despite all your calls to be heard and the legitimate concerns raised, you have no cause we need answer. Which is a strange position to espouse given it sounds just like the kind of philosophy a certain despot dictator mentioned above would fully subscribe to.

Bunntamas

22nd February 2011, 09:59 PM

More Yaaawwns in reply to the above.

On another note:

Quotes from the Robert Black Blog...

From Robert Black himself:

...it’s also crossed my mind that a prisoner will come forward who says ‘Megrahi confessed to me' ...

Comment on the above
...if only. Alas I fear it will be as Robert predicts. "Papers" will be found "proving" Libya and Megrahi guilty.

And there you have it. The tides of Tripoli are certainly turning, and it seems the tides are turning on and by the CTers as well. Hang on to your hats folks! No doubt Megrahi's admissions will come forth from his former fellow prison inmates who gleaned his friendship at the "advantages" of Megrahi's posh scottish prison accoutrements....funded by the Libyan government (not to mention Megrahi's family's living environment in Scotland, also funded by the Libyan government)...while Libyan citizens starved and were murdered at the hands of the Megrahi and Gaddafi tribes.

Rolfe

23rd February 2011, 03:07 AM

I think some of the speculation that has been going on on Robert Black's blog is a bit silly, I agree. If anyone was going to fake up a cell-mate confession (as was done with Sion Jenkins), they'd have done it long ago.

Rolfe.

Caustic Logic

23rd February 2011, 05:30 AM

Tough ties in Tripoli, no doubt. Sorry, I've been quite busy with some work, not keeping up with discussions or news.

Those intel sources who speak to journalists, post-conviction, about their sooper seekrit evidence the Sunday Times can't reveal, that Bunntamas loves as evidence. That kind of silliness people should feel burned for trusting in the past. That makes me think the speculations at the Case blog and from Bunny above might be prophetic.

Or not.

Hey, maybe they should go ask if Terri Holland (http://lockerbiedivide.blogspot.com/2010/10/exposing-guilty-projects-part-one.html) heard Megrahi confess to the bombing. "More proof! We always seem to need more, for some reason! Like we're still trying hard to convince ourselves!"

Buncrana, quite well put. A random under-used smiley for you. :medusa:

Oh, and BTW, our man Giaka fits the bill of a jail-house snitch in a number of ways, while clearly being a different kind of dubious-at-best evidence. Bunntamas, this guy says he heard Megrahi muse about the 1986 airliner bombing report for Mr. Senoussi, saying "don't rush things." Juicy! Same guy says he (Giaka) wrote the report, or was asked to, but had another guy do it, because Giaka hated terrorism. And he saw TNT in Fhimah's desk at the airport, and learned that it belonged to Megrahi. And he saw them both with a brown hard-shell Samsonite on Dec 20 on Malta.

Bunntamas: I think we'd all be curious what you thought about Giaka, his evidence, and his handling by those nasty Zeist judges.

Rolfe

23rd February 2011, 06:42 AM

I think the whole Libya situation is more important than "Lockerbie Truth" right now. The main priority is they should get rid of that bastard Gadaffi (a lynching would be good....) and get some control over their own country again. It's going to be nasty whichever way you slice it, particularly as a lot of the managers of this and that were foreign nationals who are well on their way to the nearest border or airport right now.

I've had a feeling for a while Gadaffi might be leaning on Megrahi more than a bit, preventing from revealing anything that might rock the boat with his new friends in the UK and US governments. Which makes me wonder what might come out if Megrahi survives long enough to come out the other end of this. But reports of his health are not encouraging.

No idea really. It's a spin ball, and we just have to wait and see where it goes. Getting a stable and liberal Libya is the main thing of course.

Rolfe.

Stellafane

23rd February 2011, 10:08 AM

Guybrush Threepwood

23rd February 2011, 10:25 AM

I apologize if this has already been factored into the discussion, but does this have any relevance (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5j6qtJSctAwrwo_nuDJ3lv2m-Eumw?docId=cf63ca33ee80414ca381da8fddbf2b6b)?

Ooh! I think you've just made Buntamas' year :)

Personally, I'd like to see actual evidence that Gadhaffi ordered it, rather than an ex-foreign minister preparing the ground for his Swedish asylum claim with a nice juicy story.

If good documentary evidence turns up in Libya after Gadhaffi's gone implicating Megrahi, that would be extremely interesting.

Rolfe

23rd February 2011, 10:50 AM

:nope:

This is all getting a bit off-topic for the thread, but since we seem to have a conclusion that both Longtabber and Wyatt are deeply untrustworthy the topic is a bit dead otherwise.

Whoever it was emailed Prof Black predicting that one seems to have been a bit psychic. Of course, no matter how baseless, unsourced or downright impossible any claim that Megrahi did it appears, Bunntamas will regard it as holy writ. Personally, I'm underwhelmed.

Rolfe.

Caustic Logic

24th February 2011, 02:54 AM

Did I call it or what? (the above cryptic comment seconded the prediction there and by Bunny). Next day was a little surprising, but come to think of it, it makes total sense.

Sorry I've been out. This amazing rush of comment-worthy news happened to coincide with some paying work, rush work, that I couldn't turn down. It's almost done now, but has been taking almost every waking hour I have, and a few of the others.

I realized jailhouse snitch is a more apt parallel for Giaka than I realized, with Libya made into almost a prison by factors internal and external. Early release for him meant making up a lot of "admissions," smoking gun clues he was allowed to see and report. I'm sure Bunntamas, like Marquise and many others, still believes and cherishes each of his lies. But unlike the former head of the FBI's "investigation," she seems embarrassed to come out and admit thhat she too believes his tales to this very day.

Mr. Abdel-Jalil here may be little different. This is less like early release from prison, and more, as the ambassadors sloughing off, people abandoning a sinking ship. It's a bad sign for the Col. In that metaphor, to float long enough to reach a western shore, one needs a flotation device, preferably filled with lots of hot air.

Ambrosia

23rd March 2011, 01:58 PM

Am replying in a more appropriate thread.

It also shows the plane immediately falling apart and parts shooting out in all directions.

No it doesn't.

The radar returns show the plane debris fanning out along the same trajectory as the plane was travelling in when it broke apart, and it shows debris spreading out in a direction that correllates with the wind direction.

It does not show bits being blown in all directions, there is none spreading out and flying back the way the plane had come for example.

fig C-14 in that report is timestamped 68566.9secs
(this is the numer of seconds elapsed after UTC 00:00)

fig C-23 in that report is timestamped 68816secs.

So those radar returns cover a time period of 249.1 seconds, or a little over 4 minutes.

Those radar returns show the path that pieces of debris large enough to be picked up by radar took as the plane broke apart mid flight over a time period of about 4 minutes.

Rolfe

23rd March 2011, 03:25 PM

When I started this thread it was specifically to discuss the suggestion that the bomb suitcase would have been completely obliterated by 450g of Semtex - which would of course have meant that the bits of brown Samsonite and its alleged contents were either a fake or a spectacular misinterpretation, probably of ordinary passenger luggage. However, rather than multiply threads eternally, maybe this is the place to discuss all theories that claim the plane was brought down by anything other than that 450 (ish) g Semtex in the Toshiba radio in the suitcase with the Maltese clothes.

All Little Grey Rabbit has said is, look at this radar anomaly recorded a few seconds before the explosion. Well, I've looked. The AAIB inspectors don't seem to know what it was, so I don't think I've got much chance of doing any better. We need to know what LGR thinks it was before we go any further. I'm not playing guessing games.

I suspect this is another example (Charles being the previous one) of an approach that says the entire AAIB report was a huge lie, concealing something entirely different that happened to that plane. So 99% of the report is just fabrication. But in the middle of it all, the inspectors left a big clue right there in plain sight, revealing what actually happened. And that part of the report is completely true, without question.

This isn't logic as we know it, Jim.

Rolfe.

Caustic Logic

23rd March 2011, 04:50 PM

I've looked at radar a bit before and learned that ... anomalies happen. Particularly dense cloud formations, a flock of birds, etc. can show up as a return that, in time and space, get correlated with another object. Radar is quite imprecise for telling things like just how a plane broke up.

True that the Charles approach to the AAIB report, where a semantics-based clue rules out the rest is just about as illogical as it gets. You need to look at all the evidence and find what explains the most, not the least, of the facts. Sometiimes there are a few that just don't fit, and those become the suspect "facts." It's a bad sign when you and your buddy "well, they said there was no second IED, but didn't say there wasn't a professional bomb" are squaring down for battle against all other facts of the case.

Rolfe

23rd March 2011, 05:28 PM

That's the trouble with all these theories. It was a bigger bomb somewhere else. It was a missile. It was mechanical failure. It was illegally-transported military ordnance blowing up. Where did the evidence that the investigation relied on come from in that case, and what happened to the actual evidence the "real" event must have left behind?

The first bit of the luggage container was brought in on Christmas Eve. They had identified the container and were getting an idea of the position and nature of the explosion within ten days. Everybody and his auntie was showing up with every bit of plane and luggage they could find. Apart from the souvenir-hunters that is, and who knows what they got away with.

If the luggage container in particular was fabricated and planted, just how was this figured out and accomplished in three days? And don't underestimate the value of that container as evidence of what happened. Who managed to spirit away all the evidence of an explosion in distant parts of the plane? Who managed to organise the bits of the actual plane to appear, once reassembled, as if there had been a blow-out from inside at exactly that part of the airframe where the container in question had been placed?

Honestly, it's ridiculous. I know Steven Raeburn's answer to this is always that the establishment can do anything, bribe anyone, fabricate anything it wants to. Plant an entire substitute 747 blown up the way they want it blown up while simultaneously spiriting away the actual plane that had the passengers on it?

Actually, I don't think it's quite that. I think the idea is that the plane would show something different if only it was honestly examined, but all the AAIB inspectors were bought and are lying, and the AAIB report is a complete fabrication.

Except for the bits that the particular theory requires to be correct, of course.

Well, that's going a bit off-topic for now. I suppose we have to wait for LGR to come and tell us what he thinks the radar blip actually is, and why a completely doctored and fabricated AAIB report would have left that bit in.

Rolfe.

Rolfe

24th March 2011, 04:20 AM

The radar returns show the plane debris fanning out along the same trajectory as the plane was travelling in when it broke apart, and it shows debris spreading out in a direction that correllates with the wind direction.

It does not show bits being blown in all directions, there is none spreading out and flying back the way the plane had come for example.

fig C-14 in that report is timestamped 68566.9secs
(this is the numer of seconds elapsed after UTC 00:00)

fig C-23 in that report is timestamped 68816secs.

So those radar returns cover a time period of 249.1 seconds, or a little over 4 minutes.

Those radar returns show the path that pieces of debris large enough to be picked up by radar took as the plane broke apart mid flight over a time period of about 4 minutes.

Oh, I see! This is getting silly when we ourselves are being expected to work out what LGR is hinting at before debunking it. He thinks those radar returns are the plane being blown to smithereens? No, LGR, that's the "debris trail" on the way to earth. It's suitcases and small stuff and, I'm afraid, bodies.

I thought it was obvious. I mean, it's not exactly a secret how big the main bits were that hit the ground.

http://www.esds.ac.uk/international/images/lockerbie.gif

The main tube of the fuselage landed almost intact in Rosebank Crescent, with passengers inside it still strapped to their seats. The wing section with engines all fell into Sherwood Crescent, and eyewitnesses saw it fall all of a piece before it was incinerated.

Of course the plane was coming apart as it fell 31,000 feet, the contents spilling out and bits coming adrift all over the place in a 90mph gale. But it wasn't "blown in all directions" at the moment of the explosion.

Rolfe.

little grey rabbit

24th March 2011, 05:22 AM

Oh, I see! This is getting silly when we ourselves are being expected to work out what LGR is hinting at before debunking it. He thinks those radar returns are the plane being blown to smithereens? No, LGR, that's the "debris trail" on the way to earth. It's suitcases and small stuff and, I'm afraid, bodies.

no it isn't. Read the report.

Caustic Logic

24th March 2011, 05:32 AM

no it isn't. Read the report.

yeah, Rolfe, go work it out for yourself. :rolleyes:

Ah, sort of amusing.

Incidentally, LGR, were you trying to drive at any particular thought here? No pressure for a firm answer, just a platform and a nudge.

little grey rabbit

24th March 2011, 05:34 AM

yeah, Rolfe, go work it out for yourself. :rolleyes:

Ah, sort of amusing.

Incidentally, LGR, were you trying to drive at any particular thought here? No pressure for a firm answer, just a platform and a nudge.

Just interested in the species of bird that fly around at 31 000 feet.

Guybrush Threepwood

24th March 2011, 05:49 AM

Just interested in the species of bird that fly around at 31 000 feet.

I'm sure I've read a bunch of posts on this forum by a nutcase who claimed there was someone crouching in the moors north of Carlisle with a portable radar and a SAM missile*, but I can't seem to find it. I assume that's what you are circling around, so why not just come out with it and give us all a laugh.

*I know, department of redundancies department

little grey rabbit

24th March 2011, 06:12 AM

Caustic Logic

24th March 2011, 06:25 AM

The radar returns seem to stretch credibility that it was half a kilogram of semtex.

Possibly Stundie material. Classic in its small way.

Rolfe

24th March 2011, 06:38 AM

I'm sure I've read a bunch of posts on this forum by a nutcase who claimed there was someone crouching in the moors north of Carlisle with a portable radar and a SAM missile*, but I can't seem to find it. I assume that's what you are circling around, so why not just come out with it and give us all a laugh.

*I know, department of redundancies department

It's this thread. http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=184202

Actually, it occurs to me that he may have picked up on the radar anomaly as well as the "there was only one IED" thing.

Charles got banned for sending Lisa an abusive PM after he was suspended for a ton of MA breaches. I've been meaning to revive that thread because yet another killer reason why he's wrong occurred to me, and besides, we can abuse him is we like now he isn't a member any more. :D

Rolfe.

Rolfe

24th March 2011, 06:42 AM

no it isn't. Read the report.

Er, no. I read it a while ago and I'm not gagging to wade through it all again. If you have a point to make, make it. Otherwise, forget it.

Just interested in the species of bird that fly around at 31 000 feet.

I don't believe the report said it was birds. Or clouds. Just that they didn't know what it was.

I haven't the foggiest as to what brought down Pan Am. The radar returns seem to stretch credibility that it was half a kilogram of semtex.

Well, there you go then. Maybe you need to look at all the evidence saying it was half a kilo of Semtex, and see how easy it is to wave it away.

Rolfe.

Ambrosia

24th March 2011, 08:17 AM

Just interested in the species of bird that fly around at 31 000 feet.

That's easy, passenger aircraft fly at about 31,000ft.

LGR the radar return sequence that you are looking at is spread over about 4 minutes. It tracks items of debris large enough to be picked up by radar as it falls to earth.

It stops tracking objects when they fall too low to be tracked.

So the large spread out final radar image return that we see is how the debris, looked to the radar just before it hits the ground.

You can do some simple maths to work out how fast items will hit terminal velocity, and how long it will take things to fall from ~31000ft to the ground. Terminal velocity varies depending on the shape, density and therefore air resistance of the object in question but a good ballpark guesstimate is something like 50m/s, there were lots of bits of debris and some of itwill fall a lot faster than others.

31000ft is about 9450m, items falling at 50m/s take a little over 3 minutes to hit the ground from that height.

Some of the final radar picture could be birds, I don't know, but it's pretty obvious that much of those radar returns are being generated from a height way below 31000ft.

As far as "read the report" this is the revelant bit from the aaib report re: radar returns.

Recorded radar information on the aircraft was available from 4 radar sites. Initial analysis consisted
of viewing the recorded information as it was shown to the controller on the radar screen from which
it was clear that the flight had progressed in a normal manner until secondary surveillance radar
(SSR) was lost.
The detailed analysis of the radar information concentrated on the break-up of the aircraft. The
Royal Signals and Radar Establishment(RSRE) corrected the radar returns for fixed errors and
converted the SSR returns to latitude and longitude so that an accurate time and position for the
aircraft could be determined. The last secondary return from the aircraft was recorded at
19.02:46.9hrs, identifying N739PA at Flight Level 310, and at the next radar return there is no SSR
data, only 4 primary returns. It was concluded that the aircraft was, by this time, no longer a single
return and, considering the approximately 1 nautical mile spread of returns across track, that items
had been ejected at high speed probably to both right and left of the aircraft.
Each rotation of the radar head thereafter showed the number ofreturns increasing, with those first
identified across track having slowed down very quickly and followed a track along the
prevailing wind line. The radar evidence then indicated that a further break-up of the aircraft had
occurred and formed a parallel wreckage trail to the north of the first. From the absence of any
returns travelling along track it was concluded that the main wreckage was travelling almost
vertically downwards for much of the time. [ source (http://www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_resources.cfm?file=/dft_avsafety_pdf_503158.pdf) ]

It's the debris trail being picked up by radar. At the start bits shoot out to the left and to the right of the aircraft. Most of the main wreckage falls almost vertically to earth and the wind scatters a lot of debis. There was a secondary break up mid fall and that caused two distinct debris trails.

I've read the report.

Ambrosia

24th March 2011, 08:36 AM

I haven't the foggiest as to what brought down Pan Am.

An explosion in the cargo hold caused an explosive decompression of the aircraft.

i.e. the bomb blew a hole in the fuselage in a pressurised area of the plane. The air contained inside the aircraft rushed out of the hole and in doing so ripped the plane apart.

It's all detailed in that report you are telling us to read.

Rolfe

24th March 2011, 09:43 AM

[Must resist temptation to play guessing games, must resist temptation to play guessing games....]

I think what LGR is talking about as regards the "bird at 31,000 feet" is the anomalous trace in the third-last "normal" paint. I don't know enough about radar to know if the object causing it was necessarily at 31,000 feet though.

Rolfe.

little grey rabbit

24th March 2011, 04:18 PM

An explosion in the cargo hold caused an explosive decompression of the aircraft.

i.e. the bomb blew a hole in the fuselage in a pressurised area of the plane. The air contained inside the aircraft rushed out of the hole and in doing so ripped the plane apart.

As the world was to find out a few months later, explosive decompression won't rip a plane apart - or even stop it from landing safely.

1989: Nine passengers were sucked out of the back of a plane and fell to their deaths in the Pacific Ocean when a 40 foot hole blew open in the fuselage of a United Airlines Boeing 747 flying 100 miles south of Hawaii. 27 other passengers were injured in the accident resulting from a cargo door separation. Months after the incident, passengers, crew and the Capt. started talking about a strange occurence. Apparently they all felt the presence of angels who helped to hold the plane in the air. Some describe looking out the window and seeing a hand holding up the wing.

explosive decompression and velocity stress (word?) might mean a smaller explosion is needed to rip a plane apart.
How much smaller is not something I can answer.

Rolfe

24th March 2011, 05:34 PM

As the world was to find out a few months later, explosive decompression won't doesn't invariably rip a plane apart - or even stop it from landing safely.

explosive decompression and velocity stress (word?) might mean a smaller explosion is needed to rip a plane apart.
How much smaller is not something I can answer.

FIFY.

How are you doing with explaining away all the evidence that says the explosion happened just the way the report says it did?

Rolfe.

Ambrosia

25th March 2011, 04:34 AM

As the world was to find out a few months later, explosive decompression won't rip a plane apart - or even stop it from landing safely.

That was United Airlines flight 811. You know if you google the exact quote you copypasted you find some amusing sources.

United Airlines Flight 811 (http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19890224-0)

Here's a proper source for that accident. (please supply sources for the things you quote, it's rude not to) That decompression occured when the cargo door blew off as the plane was climbing to 23000 ft not long after taking off.

Explosive decompression depends on a large number of factors the biggest 3 being the size of the hole, the difference between the cabin pressure and the outside air pressure, and how strong the structure of the aircraft is in the area where the hole occurs.

There are accidents where the fuselage has had a hole torn in it and survived.

Aloha Airlines Flight 243 - 1988 (http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19880428-0)

Flight SV162 1980 (http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19801222-2)

There are also incidents where an explosive decompression has caused the loss of the plane.

BOACFlight 781 -1954 (http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19540110-1) this was the first ever jet passenger aircraft and it blew apart midflight because of explosive decompression owing to a bad design.

Continental Flight 11 1962 (http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19620522-0)

US Military plane in 1970 (http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19700206-1)

Air India Flight 181 - 1985 (http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19850623-2) Of the accidents listed this is the closest to the Lockerbie disaster in that it was a 747 at cruising altitude, the entire plane tore apart midflight, and the cause was a bomb leading to an explosive decompression.

There's an interesting wiki page listing notable decompression events (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncontrolled_decompression#Notable_decompression_a ccidents_and_incidents) on aircraft you've probably not looked at either.

Pan Am Flight 103 was brought down by an explosive decompression that happened because a bomb went off in the cargo hold and blew a hole in the plane.

As an aside, do you have any idea how big a bomb would need to be to "blow an entire plane into pieces" ? and if that had happened how much of the debris would you think would show obvious damage from such an explosion?