Lockerbie: London Origin Theory

[Caustic Logic]

Originally Posted by Rolfe

I've been thinking about this. It's probably an unnecessary complication, but the container was unattended again after Bedford went off duty, wasn't it? What's the chances of the bomber coming back and arranging the cases to his liking?

Speculation. He wanted the bomb suitcase on the second row to get it right innto the overhang. Your diagrams have shown that placing was spot-on perfect. So he brought two cases, one being innocent, so as to have one spare to go under the bomb one. Just in case there was nothing else in the container, or nothing he could plausibly move. And as I said, carrying two cases probably looks more natural than one, for someone in baggage-handler's clothing.

Fairly good chance, I think. Might've been a blond-blue Lebanese Christian named Khaisar. He plays it cool. In the right uniform, he could have cut a bolt the night before and emptied his giant "tool box" before leaving and reurning the next afternoon in a new costume. Could have hung around for hours maybe. I'd jog over and check it right when I saw 103A landing. 'Still lower outboard, and I'm outta here.'

The placement Bedford reported puts the cases across the whole front, where I imagine toes like to go as people reach in and fill the container. The movement to precise bomb placement from there is a natural fit with justmaking space. Maybe the terrorist just knew that and wanted to show how smart he was. Abu Elias actually built the bomb, it seems, and only had Khreesat solder two wires. Why? This is actually a similar question, so, hmmm....

Quote:

I'm still not sure why they didn't find the remains of the innocent but presumably unaccompanied bag with the rest of the damaged stuff. And I suppose that applies no matter what theory we apply to the exact arrangement of the bags. So this isn't a perfect explanation, for sure.

Rolfe.

And as I've said, they might have. Some chunks were bleached, some still copper brown. One brown chunk was 11 inches long. 450-680 grams with nothing but clothes and radio case in between? Maybe, but...

Sorry I never responded to this good post before. Also got a few technical updates (next post)

[Caustic Logic]

My attempt to clarify the relevance of the 38-minutes after takeoff detonation:
http://lockerbiedivide.blogspot.com/...t-minutes.html

Main points here: Dr. Rainer Gobel of BKA, is talking about only the timer circuit, not the altimeter-timer combo, when giving the spread 35-45 minutes to detonation.

Quote:

"When the neccessary operating height has been reached the fall in pressure connected with it will start the timing mechanism, and when the delay period has elapsed the detonator will be activated. […] The time delay of the electronic component fluctuates over a wide margin since the structure of the circuit is relatively simple. Time delays between 35 and 45 minutes were measured." [Leppard, p 11-12]

This is all from the BomBeat Khreesat and dalkamouni had on arrest. A similar timer on the Sanyo monitor IED yielded a 30-35 min range, and enough of one of the destroyed radios was left for Gobel to report:

Quote:

“[T]he accompanying capacitor is of the same value as in 1 and 2, but has however, jumped out of circuit. […] it can be assumed from the remains of the circuit that the time delay was in the same region as 1 and 2." [p 144]

If that's right, it's not the problem I first suspected. Gobel found the alitide/pressure rigger at about 950 milibars, Leppard says, equivalent to 2400 feet. By the altitude profile in the AAIB report, that level was passed about two minutes after wheels up. Cabin, hold, and outside pressure should not be much different that low or early, right?

So about 36 min after altitude.

Khreesat said something relvant to the variability within one unit (that is, from test-to-test):

Originally Posted by Ed Marshman, FBI

Khreesat advised that the times are not exact and the time changes depending upon how long the timers have been tested after last being used. They usually reset to zero after a day. He used to test the timers three times in a row before installing the timer in a device. He found that in each test the time decreased. When this happened, he put the timers aside, and the next day when he tested them, they would run for the same time as when he had first started them.

And then, I made a video about the baggage arrangement, basically, but with some attempted 'oomph.' Couldn't afford a narrator, so... (cringe)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UeLRsDSk500

All for now
Adam

[Rolfe]

I'm forgetting the details, but didn't the expert at Camp Zeist put a wider window of probability on it, and the 38-minute spot was still comfortably within that window?

Rolfe.

[Caustic Logic]

Originally Posted by Rolfe

I'm forgetting the details, but didn't the expert at Camp Zeist put a wider window of probability on it, and the 38-minute spot was still comfortably within that window?

Rolfe.

and we cross paths again. Fraid I'm not geting... hold on...
I think Gobel was the expert there as well, and testified to the 35-45 spread. Somehow Leppard got a bit more detail in his book (likely got half wrong too). But yeah, 36 minutes for the timer, after the early trigger level, fits fine. Each capacitor timer unit thing (??) was different. The one in thee tuner tended shorter than the one in the BomBeat they took in. Forgot to add Khreesat explains that, too:

Originally Posted by Kreesat via Marshman

The timers were made by the Fatah group in Damascus. He first saw these timers at the PFLP-GC camp in Syria and four of them were good, so he took them to use. One of the timers was a half-hour timer, one was forthree-quarters of an hour, and one was for one hour. Khreesat does not recall what time the fourth timer was set for. None of the timers were for more than one hour.

I know it's a lot, don't worry if you can't absorb it all personally. Just adding another E to the JREF, and it's such a long eeeeee now I've given up waiting for the final F. I leave you all to your devils.

[Caustic Logic]

For all those who care and don't, I haven't stopped looking into the evidence for the PA103 bomb first leaving the ground at London. So far nothing I've seen has changed my mind, and still no one here has been able or willing to help. It fizzled here but it continues elsewhere.

I see what Rolfe's been up to and i fully excuse her from this talk - rockin' it in the new non-US politics forum on Scots-UK issues and such. I've been meaning to pop in there , as I realize it's a big time, but first...

Made an adjustment with better info on the suitcase size - it was nearly square, 22x26in. Here's the placement Bedford describes then, done with silhouette 4000 cases that size

So my visualizing post had to be updated:
http://lockerbiedivide.blogspot.com/...ord-story.html
Still a good fit.

My thing about brown and gray material... big oops. The case was made of gray plastic, with only a copper skin. Dr. Hayes' descriptions I found later are much better. The bleaching issue might still apply, but not as clearly as I suggested.

More interesting is the giant fragment PI/911 that Dr. Hayes once felt was on the container floor well beneath the explosion. 10.5 by 11 inches, lined inside with delicate fabric. I think it's a decent clue that the Bedford cases were stacked right around the blast zone. Anyone else? What's up with the blue specks?
http://lockerbiedivide.blogspot.com/...on-forest.html

[Rolfe]

I just need a bit of a break from this topic. Let what I've learned collate itself.

That schematic looks rather better. If you look at the photos of the mockups shown in court, the cases are quite big as regards the dimensions of the container.

I just think the London origin is so much a front-runner that I don't think it's necessary to have figured out exactly what happened. In real life, silly little details and minor coincidences can have a disproportionate effect on how things pan out, and there may have been some little detail we simply can't guess. It's the only scenario, after all, which has someone on the ground when Maid of the Seas is being loaded, and in a position (potentially) to influence the positioning of these cases.

Unless someone can come up with something else from another airport, I'm a Heathrow fan.

I'm just intrigued by the Erac printout apparently showing an item coming off KM180, and Megrahi being right there at Luqa when KM180 was boarding. Which is a topic for another thread.

Rolfe.

[Caustic Logic]

Regarding that fragment PI/911, this is really interesting. Here's my own tracing of the suitcase debris, as visible in some photos online.

We can see numerous large pieces, including 20" uninterrupted fabric lining. The darker shaded area of backdrop is the size of the suitcase, 22x26". Clearly this doesn't show more than one such case, and in fact less than one. But so many large pieces and then really small ones. What accounts for the asymmetry if the explosion happened in the center of the case rather than above it?

Dr. Hayes at first felt that PI/911 (upper left) was
"Apparently the lower side of a suitcase, compressed and fractured in a manner suggesting it was in contact with a luggage pallet's base and subjected to explosive forces from above."

The bomb case was early on decided to be on the second layer and NOT touching the base.

Q What was it about the item that suggested to you that it was in contact with the luggage pallet's base and subjected to explosive forces from above?
A On the assumption that it might have been part of the suitcase containing a bomb, firstly the residual size of the fragment, which is quite large, and also the fact it appeared to have been supported in some substantial way by a relatively immoveable surface.

Yet his official report of much later noted something that would rule this out:
<i>“Small flecks of a blue foamed plastics material with a cross-hatch-patterned blue plastics skin were found strongly adhering to the simulated leather surface. This finding indicates that at the moment of detonation of the explosive device, this bronze suitcase was in direct contact with one containing a foamed blue plastics material. The items recovered from PI/911 were removed and raised collectively as item PT/42. “</i>

So... did he fail to notice the suitcase bits when he looked at it in January 89 and decided it was against the aluminum floor? Or did these flecks appear later to turn the secondary Bedford bag into the primary one?

It's alright, folks. Don't answer that question.

[SnidelyW]

Great thread, everyone!
I have been examining some political aspects to PA103, and the motivational angle.

Andrew Killgore, in this March 2010 article;

http://www.wrmea.com/component/conte...an-am-103.html

blabs on about a possible Mossad motivation, but;

The fascinating part of the article seems to come at the bottom, in the 'comments' section, where Richard Marquise, Patrick Haseldine, and Jim Swire go keyboard -to-keyboard.
Following that is an intriguing note posted by Patrick Haseldine asking 'Why Libya?" An interesting theory about Bernt Carlsson, the Assistant Secretary-General of the United Nations and UN Commissioner for Namibia, is among other ideas floated.

I think the specifics detailed in the thread are great- don't stop, but I haven't seen much linkage to the external factors regarding motivation, and how that affected the modus operandi.

[SnidelyW]

Perhaps some one can explain whether I have my facts straight regarding the PA103 debris storage.
Was Section 41 (the nose area) stored at Roger Windley's junkyard in Tattershall, Lincolnshire, U.K.? I think the main fuselage and wings were all stored at Farnborough, Surrey, U.K. where an attempt was made to reconstruct the plane in order to analyze what had happened when the IED exploded.
If the above is correct, what was the reason for the separation of the nose from the rest of the aircraft? Not just after the crash, but current reconstructive analysis has Section 41 completely separating from the rest of the fuselage and striking the ground first.

[SnidelyW]

In this thread, it has been shown that a hole was blown in the fuselage of the Boeing.
Call me naive, but if a hole was blown in the side of the aircraft, why did the nose (Section 41) separate from the section right aft of it (Section 42)?

I recall United Airlines Flight 811, on February 24, 1989, fly out of Honolulu which had an entire cargo door blow out, resultant sudden decompression, and that aircraft landed safely.

Could someone compare the explosive blast of the PA 103 flight with the effect of the cargo door flying off?

I'm just trying to wrap my thoughts around why the complete destruction of the Pan Am aircraft occurred, given a 450g block of explosive directed the blast outward. The United Boeing 747 landed safely after an area the size of a door blew off, suddenly decompressing the aircraft.

If this was dealt with in another thread, please point me there.

Thanks in advance.

[Rolfe]

Have you been through Robert Black's blog on the subject? Patrick Haseldine is a regular contributor and he has an idee fixe about Carlsson. No evidence, though. I've seen nothing to suggest Carlsson's presence on the flight was anything more than coincidental.

Have you read the Air Accident Investigation Bureau report on the crash? I think it's required reading before questioning the official version of the details of the breakup of the aircraft. The chances of this being some mega-conspiracy with scores or hundreds of people aware that evidence was being covered up or manipulated are negligible.

However, if you've got a case to put for the AAIB report being falsified, it's probably a topic for a new thread, as this thread is about the possibility that the bomb got past security at Heathrow rather than Malta or Frankfurt. I know there are a number of theories around this proposition, so it could be interesting to examine it.

There is another thread where some of the concepts have been dealt with, but it got pretty long, and Longtabber PE derailed it quite a lot. Also, it was really about the timer rather than the explosive as such. So, help yourself!

Rolfe.

[SnidelyW]

Originally Posted by Rolfe

Have you been through Robert Black's blog on the subject? Patrick Haseldine is a regular contributor and he has an idee fixe about Carlsson. No evidence, though. I've seen nothing to suggest Carlsson's presence on the flight was anything more than coincidental.

Have you read the Air Accident Investigation Bureau report on the crash? I think it's required reading before questioning the official version of the details of the breakup of the aircraft. The chances of this being some mega-conspiracy with scores or hundreds of people aware that evidence was being covered up or manipulated are negligible.

However, if you've got a case to put for the AAIB report being falsified, it's probably a topic for a new thread, as this thread is about the possibility that the bomb got past security at Heathrow rather than Malta or Frankfurt. I know there are a number of theories around this proposition, so it could be interesting to examine it.

There is another thread where some of the concepts have been dealt with, but it got pretty long, and Longtabber PE derailed it quite a lot. Also, it was really about the timer rather than the explosive as such. So, help yourself!

Rolfe.

Thanks. I appreciate the reading prerequisites. I have taken a look at the AAIB report previously, but thanks for providing the link for those that have not.

I'm not even hinting at any sort of conspiracy regarding PA103, in any way, shape or form. This thread seems to have dealt specifically with the blast location, characteristics, and resultant damage vis-a-vis the size of the charge, and I took off from there.

I appreciate the narrow scope of this thread regarding PA103, and mistakenly thought the questions asked were somewhat relevant.

It wasn't my intention to derail.

Now, back to the regularly scheduled luggage placement thread.

[Rolfe]

No, no, it's not a derail. It's just that there are so many different aspects of this affair that it's useful to deal with them on a thread-by-thread basis. I think for the purposes of figuring out if the bomb was infiltrated at Heathrow, we've been working on the assumption that it was indeed 450g Semtex placed as described. The idea that it wasn't, is a big enough subject to merit a dedicated thread, in my opinion.

Have you come across Charles Norrie's theories? He's convinced there were two bombs, apparently because the AAIB report refers to there being only one IED, which of course implies there was a second bomb which wasn't an IED.... And he thinks the IED was attached to the luggage container, not in a suitcase.

Then we have de Braeckeleer, who believes the bomb was attached to the airframe, not in a luggage pallet.... And so it goes on. A lot of it is blatant conspiracy theorising, but it would be interesting to hear any firm evidence supporting any of it.

Rolfe.

[Caustic Logic]

Originally Posted by SnidelyW

I'm not even hinting at any sort of conspiracy regarding PA103, in any way, shape or form.

Something makes me wonder, but, taking you at your word... why not?

Welcome to the discussion, SW. You seem to pose yourself as having studied the issue quite a bit.

Quote:

In this thread, it has been shown that a hole was blown in the fuselage of the Boeing.
Call me naive, but if a hole was blown in the side of the aircraft, why did the nose (Section 41) separate from the section right aft of it (Section 42)?

It seems that way to me, a hole about the size of a dinner plate roughly 25" from where container AVE4041 was blown outward. Why would the plane fall apart after that? I'm no expert, but this animation makes perfect sense.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j5naaWe3nLI
Decompression, loss of aurodynamic slip-through ability (???), increasing wind turbulence, and a chain reaction.

To delve further into this would probably be a derail and I won't be paty to it unless it's in a new thread.

Quote:

I'm just trying to wrap my thoughts around why the complete destruction of the Pan Am aircraft occurred, given a 450g block of explosive directed the blast outward. The United Boeing 747 landed safely after an area the size of a door blew off, suddenly decompressing the aircraft.

Could be. Was that event at 31000 feet? If it's worth continuing with, new thread.

Quote:

Now, back to the regularly scheduled luggage placement thread.

Well, it's the London origin thread, but luggage placement has been my personal interest for a while.

The other things about this theory that could be discussed:
- Bomb placement - how DID it come to be just 25" from the plane's skin? Pure chance for sure?
- The Break-in at Terminal 3 - covered-up until after the 2000 trial. Allows for possible bomb introduction during down hours.
- The 38-minutes after takeoff detonation, matching a Khreesat bomb loaded at Heathrow.
- The complete lack of evidence for the bomb coming from anywhere else.

Quote:

Great thread, everyone!
I have been examining some political aspects to PA103, and the motivational angle.

Andrew Killgore, in this March 2010 article;

http://www.wrmea.com/component/conte...an-am-103.html

blabs on about a possible Mossad motivation, but;

The fascinating part of the article seems to come at the bottom, in the 'comments' section, where Richard Marquise, Patrick Haseldine, and Jim Swire go keyboard -to-keyboard.
Following that is an intriguing note posted by Patrick Haseldine asking 'Why Libya?" An interesting theory about Bernt Carlsson, the Assistant Secretary-General of the United Nations and UN Commissioner for Namibia, is among other ideas floated.

I think the specifics detailed in the thread are great- don't stop, but I haven't seen much linkage to the external factors regarding motivation, and how that affected the modus operandi.

I heard that was a good discussion but I haven't read it. Kilgore for one knows nothing except his own agenda. Just tried to read the comments, too much Haseldine. His theory makes only the tiniest bit of sense, not enough to bother with. Kill Carlsson and also 190 Americans? And then to exactly mimic Iran's revenge the way the Libyans are alleged to have?

There are different schools of disinformation (or something to the same effect) plaguing the quest for truth here. IMO, the most prevelant and destructive has been the "drug swap theory," which has obscured the London origin evidence up until roughly now. Since it helps set-up the London evidence as well as question the dominant CT paradigm of the past, I should link to my recent article on the issue.
http://lockerbiedivide.blogspot.com/...ap-theory.html

What do you think, SW? Where did the bomb get on? Was it inside container 4041 with the luggage, or was that evidence faked do you think?

[Caustic Logic]

Originally Posted by Rolfe

...it was indeed 450g Semtex placed as described.

To be a liiiittle more precise, no one knows, and estimated vary. I've seen 312 cited, etc. The Indian Head tests, run by people I don't trust (Feraday, Thurman, and Bell on one project? Yikes!). But their results suggested anything from 450g at the low end to 680 at the high end would be consistent with the damage.

I think there's room to wonder about two bombs, if not two proper detonations. I'm also totally not an expert.

Quote:

Have you come across Charles Norrie's theories? He's convinced there were two bombs, apparently because the AAIB report refers to there being only one IED, which of course implies there was a second bomb which wasn't an IED.... And he thinks the IED was attached to the luggage container, not in a suitcase.

Evidence from misread semantics

Then we have de Braeckeleer, who believes the bomb was attached to the airframe, not in a luggage pallet.... And so it goes on. A lot of it is blatant conspiracy theorising, but it would be interesting to hear any firm evidence supporting any of it.

Rolfe.[/quote]

De Braeckeleer has some great article on details of the case, but thhis oddball argument is based on math which i can't verify without some courses and a tutor. Yet it makes no sense. And he's a scientist by profession, he says, so to fail in your special field raises questions. Like Mebo failing at MST-13 analysis, or British investigators missing all the London intro clues...

[Rolfe]

I've never seriously doubted the thesis that the bomb was relatively small, but happened to tear a hole in the fuselage at just the right spot for decompression and aerodynamics to pull the plane apart. I can't see the AAIB investigators being entirely bent or mistaken to that extent. I'm kind of with the judges in feeling that the Mach Stem calculations don't really call the entire thesis into question in any case. And the pictures of the reconstructed plane were all over the TV at the time, showing what was supposed to have happened. It didn't seem that incredible. I can also imagine that a similar explosion might not cause a plane to break up, depending on the exact circumstances of placing, altitude, weather and so on. Maid of the Seas was flying into a 90 mph gale, I think.

The possibility of two small IEDs in adjacent suitcases, so that the explosion of one triggered the other and they appeared to be a single expolsion (which I think is Caustic Logic's idea) doesn't necessarily conflict with these observations though.

Originally Posted by Caustic Logic

IMO, the most prevelant and destructive has been the "drug swap theory," which has obscured the London origin evidence up until roughly now.

Be fair, Paul Foot's 2001 report features it pretty prominently.

Rolfe.

[Caustic Logic]

Quote:

Be fair, Paul Foot's 2001 report features it pretty prominently.

Yeah, it's petered off over time. Foot's booklet was better than average by a stretch, but still came across ambiguously on London vs. Frankfurt. Then Manly came forward (just too late to make the cut for Foot) and it started shaping up from there, but AFAIK no one else has championed the evidence in a book or video or any other form more solid than some internet articles, so it remains pretty obscured.

I wanted to return to an argument Buncrana was making earlier that I downplayed and I'm not sure why.

Originally Posted by Buncrana

If the PLFP, or the Iranians, had someone working airside at Heathrow in any capicity, sympathetic to their 'revenge mission', although preferably someone with baggage loading knowledge, I really don't think it would be difficult at all to slip them a suitcase, triggered with the bomb, with the instruction to place it as late as was possible in the loading procedure into a container that will be as close to the planes outer fuselage as possible. If the Iranian Airlines gate was also adjacent to 103's, then access to the Pan Am flight loading containers and with the appropriate knowledge of how these would be loaded, would be dare I say, pretty uncomplicated to insert the suitcase containing the bomb.

This does make sense. If the Libyans could have agents working a civilian airport on Malta for terror purposes (and I agree it's possible), then why not Iranian agents at Heathrow? Perhaps Abu Elias was not so directly involved, but used his expertise to decided the best way to circumvent airport security and get the best placement is hand it off to someone who already works at the airport.

[Rolfe]

Quote:

If the Iranian Airlines gate was also adjacent to 103's....

Well, was it?

Rolfe.

[Caustic Logic]

Originally Posted by Rolfe

Well, was it?

Rolfe.

Oh, well, I think so. I read it somewheres, next to or near, but don't know the airport layout enough to say where means what so I didn't bother sorting it out.

On support, let's see: Wikipedia says this:

Quote:

Iran and the London angle

Towards the end of the bombing trial, lawyers for Megrahi argued that the PA 103 bomb could have started its journey at Heathrow, rather than at Luqa Airport in Malta. The Boeing 747 that was destined to carry the 259 passengers and crew on the London-New York leg had arrived from San Francisco at noon on December 21, 1988, and stood unguarded on the tarmac for much of the period before PA 103's passengers began to board the aircraft after 17:00 (scheduled departure 18:00). The Iran Air terminal in Heathrow was adjacent to the Pan Am terminal, and the two airlines shared tarmac space. The lawyers invoked the 1990 Scottish Fatal Accident Inquiry and the evidence it heard that the baggage container AVE 4041, into which the bomb suitcase had been loaded, was left unsupervised at Heathrow for about forty minutes that afternoon.

I hate that "left alone 40 minutes" line. It wasn't unsupervised, Kamboj was watching it. And it's what happened in that time that matters - the introduction of cases matching the presumed bomb bag.

Anyway, Wikipedia's not the best source, but Carl Davies' book says this:

Quote:

During one of my interviews with Bollier, he told me that the Iran Air terminal was next to the Pan Am terminal at Heathrow

Well that doesn't sound good either.

Gareth Peirce, better:

Quote:

Since the trial, evidence new to the defence but known from the start to the police has surfaced of a break-in at Heathrow in the hours before the disaster. The Fatal Accident Inquiry, which didn’t have this knowledge, had made a finding in 1991 that Pan Am 103 was ‘under constant guard at Heathrow’. Iran Air’s hangar at Heathrow was next to Pan Am’s.)

A side-note, Der Spiegel, citing one Abolghasem Mesbahi as “a credible witness” and reported his story:

Quote:

“The bomb had been loaded in single pieces at Frankfurt airport into an aeroplane to London. The head of Iran Air at Frankfurt at that time, a secret service man, had smuggled them past the airport controls. They had then been assembled in London and put on the Pan Am clipper.”

Ooh, ooh, that explains everything!

That's the closest the credible and London-hinting Foot gets to confirming any proximity. So, I'm not as clear that there's anything to it. Just being at the airport might be plenty, I don't know. I'm sure if there were a will there'd be a few ways.

[Rolfe]

I think Gareth Pierce is simply compiling from the same sources we are using, so I wouldn't give her article any special credibility. Remember, she's an English solicitor who only came into the frame very recently, and this case was Scottish. And I wouldn't trust Bollier to tell me the time of day. However, the proximity of the airlines does seem to have reasonably wide currency among fairly credible commentators, and not to have been contradicted.

Rolfe.

[Caustic Logic]

Originally Posted by Rolfe

I think Gareth Pierce is simply compiling from the same sources we are using, so I wouldn't give her article any special credibility. Remember, she's an English solicitor who only came into the frame very recently, and this case was Scottish. And I wouldn't trust Bollier to tell me the time of day. However, the proximity of the airlines does seem to have reasonably wide currency among fairly credible commentators, and not to have been contradicted.

Rolfe.

Mmm, not sure I agree it's well-illustrated, but I don't think it's a point to get hung up on. It's not closeness doesn't matter as much as access and will. Iranian agents acting via the airline could have put those cases in container 4041. Or Abu Elias, depending just where he got to after Frankfurt.

Or it could be some slightly different person, or just Mr. Kamboj, either off the conveyor or from the cash-laden stranger. But innocent hands, of baggage workers or of a duped mule, seem unlikely to have done this placement, because it shows such probable intent to rupture the plane.

I'll have to confess a weakness of the London intro theory is the lack of gathered and shared evidence on just who could have and might have operated in London/at Heathrow at the time. But when clues line up like this, it seems that SOMEONE must have slipped the bomb on in London. Can't be Megrahi. Can't be Jaafar.

Can we have a new investigation yet?

[Rolfe]

New investigation? Almost certainly not going to happen. And even if it did, it was over 20 years ago and it would be hard to find new evidence.

I want to know what I think, if that doesn't sound too silly. I think the bomb went on at Heathrow. I think it was either Jibril's group or people very closely related to Jibril's group. I think the 38-minute detonation was due a Khreesat-style barometric device.

I don't know why the authorities announced so early in the proceedings that the bomb wasn't loaded at Heathrow. (For a start, it obviously was loaded at Heathrow in the most technical sense of the word, even if it was transferred from the Frankfurt flight.) This is worth further scrutiny.

I strongly suspect some sort of manipulation of the evidence, most markedly as regards the Horton paper fragment, also the MST-13 fragment. However I'm not 100% sure about this, and it's possible the MST-13 timer was also involved in the device in addition to the barometric timer.

There are an awful lot of barnacles accruing to the case, some of which may indeed be real complications, but it's hard to tell which. All the stuff about McKee and his suitcase. The allegations of a missing body and victimisation of Dr. Fieldhouse. Jafaar and the drug-smuggling ring. Even Carlsson and the South Africans (not to mention Ian Spiro).

As I said, some of that may even be real. I wouldn't be surprised if the CIA were keen to get hold of McKee's luggage before anyone else got their hands on it. It's not impossible the South Africans heard a credible warning about that flight and decided to try to get Carlsson on board (though Baz's details, such as they are, cast some doubt on that theory). But even so, these things seem to be coincidental. (Unless of course the real bombers knew about the drug smuggling ring and decided to target the flight for the possible obfuscation that might introduce.) Interesting topics in their own right, but probably not related to the core question of who bombed the plane and how.

There are two remaining puzzles for me. Megrahi was known to have been at Luqa that morning, checking in for his flight at the adjacent desk to the check-in for KM180. The Erac printout surfaces in extremely peculiar circumstances, apparently pointing to an unidentified item of luggage joining PA103A from KM180. I don't think that was the bomb bag and I don't think it had anything to do with Megrahi, but it's a coincidence too far for me. This all relates to the disapperance of the Frankfurt baggage records and the surprising absence of any explanation or recriminations relating to that disappearance. I'd like to understand that a bit better.

The other puzzle is Gauci and the mystery shopper. I may have to believe that shopper was indeed one of the terrorist gang, but it's all extraordinarily peculiar and I'm still not convinced. I'm not convinced Gauci ever sold the clothes that were found on the ground.

These are they mysteries that are still giving me a headache.

Rolfe.

[SnidelyW]

Could someone shed some light on the person named Jia in this document?

www.gla.ac.uk/media/media_78568_en.doc

I quote the relevant passage below;

"Mr Davidson suggested to Mr Berwick that 40 thousand airside passes had been issued to airport staff. During his cross examination Mr Taylor, for the first accused, suggested the real figure was more like 50 thousand. Both alleged that many passes were unaccounted for. Mr Taylor asked questions relating to the presence of the witness in Lockerbie following the disaster. He confirmed that he had helped law enforcement agencies from the UK and USA, namely the Scottish Police and FBI. He said that he was not aware of having met anyone from the CIA. Mr Taylor asked about a police statement Mr Berwick gave on 8 February 1990 where in response to a police enquiry he reported on the movement of Ali Nassur Jia. He stated that this man flew from Tehran via Frankfurt, London and Washington to Los Angeles and returned by the same route. On 21 December 1988 as part of his outward flight he flew from London to Washington on PA 107 which departed from Gate 17 in Terminal 3. The aircraft from Frankfurt arrived in London at 11.42 am and the Washington flight departed at 13.31. He confirmed that police officers had asked him to enquire into this man's travels but did not remember it apart from the record of the police interview which recorded what he had discovered. He said he could not remember if he knew that Jia was wanted in connection with a hijacking.

Here is the first paragraph of the article, to reference;

"Heathrow Baggage Procedures Scrutinised
Clare Connelly
24/08/2000
The evidence heard in court today concentrated in the main on baggage handling procedures at Heathrow Airport and in particular the content of AVE Container 4041 which is believed to have held the suitcase containing the bomb that caused the Lockerbie disaster."

[SnidelyW]

As a service to the lurkers, here is a decent overview of most of the alternate theories regarding the PA103 bombing;

http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/top..._Am_Flight_103

[Rolfe]

I don't think I'd seen that, thanks.

Rolfe.

[Caustic Logic]

Likewise. It might be interesting. Will check it out tonight.

[SnidelyW]

Originally Posted by Rolfe

I don't think I'd seen that, thanks.

Rolfe.

Cool. It may offer something of use.

Regarding Ali Nassur Jia, I've been drawing blanks from everywhere. I'd just like to learn a tad more about him.

[SnidelyW]

Have either of you two read the transcript of the first Megrahi appeal?

The section entitled "The Heathrow evidence" begins at para. #178, and continues to para. 245

http://www.terrorismcentral.com/Libr...judgement.html

Enjoy.

[SnidelyW]

Originally Posted by Rolfe

...snip... This all relates to the disapperance of the Frankfurt baggage records and the surprising absence of any explanation or recriminations relating to that disappearance. I'd like to understand that a bit better.
..snip..
Rolfe.

Can I assume this relates to Bogomira Erac, the computer programmer in baggage handling at Frankfurt airport?
Her story begins at the 4:55 mark of this program;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J55ry...eature=related

She provided investigators with the Malta bag link, because she saved the baggage printout for that day.

[Caustic Logic]

On the Erac printout story, there's a whole thread I started here mostly about it: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=155657
Personally I think that paper was faked, in late January 89 or perhaps later if BKA records were backdated.

On the London aspect of Megrahi's appeal, I've at least skimmed the judgment denying the appeal (I think that's what you've got linked). Haven't read the actual appeal's approach. Megrahi's counsel was able to include Mr. Manly's report of a break-in, which allowed it to gel into a more coherent point than it did before. I wrote a piece on the appeal dismissal of the Heathrow evidence:
http://lockerbiedivide.blogspot.com/...-heathrow.html
I thought it was pretty a weak explanation, but clearly necessary.

On this guy I don't think I've heard of before, I still haven't looked. Will do so in a few and report back later. Thanks again, SW.

[Caustic Logic]

Okay, I thought "Clare Connelly" looked familiar. This is from the LTBU daily reports page, for August 28. Apologies for being so omnipotent, but I've got a downloadable PDF of all these in one searchable file.
http://www.4shared.com/document/ca4n...y_Reports.html

Better yet, I've got the full transcripts for that and all days of what was actuall said, but don't feel I should share them. Downside is it's a pain to read through it, so I'll have to come back to it.

Just from this report, it says:

Quote:

Mr Taylor asked about a police statement Mr Berwick gave on 8 February 1990 where in response to a police enquiry he reported on the movement of Ali Nassur Jia. [...] He said he could not remember if he knew that Jia was wanted in connection with a hijacking.

Okay, in Feb 1990 he's being looked at for - I presume - a hijacking, perhaps recent and post Lockerbie (?) He's Iranian, an airplane terrorist, given as passing by air the same route of the alleged bomb (replacing Malta with Tripoli) on the day of the bombing and just hours before - Frankfurt-London-New York.

But to be honest, I'm not seeing the connection. He'd need to get off the plane in London and do something airside before leaving for the states. the time frame, 1140-1330 gives enough time, but it's too late for the break-in at terminal 3 (around 0030) and too early for the Bedford bags (placed around 1600-1630). I'll see if the transcripts give any clue to the alleged relevance, but it might be a red herring coincidence thing.

Another interesting point in that LTBU report I hadn't yet looked at is Mr. Walker's testimony and contradictions with his first police reports, as alluded. Don't get the significance yet, but that's interesting, considering how much conflict there is between what his underling John Bedford and Mr Kamboj said at different times. There has to be something going on here.

[Rolfe]

Originally Posted by SnidelyW

Have either of you two read the transcript of the first Megrahi appeal?

The section entitled "The Heathrow evidence" begins at para. #178, and continues to para. 245

http://www.terrorismcentral.com/Libr...judgement.html

Enjoy.

I haven't read the appeal as carefully as the original evidence. You're right, there could be more there of interest, since a Heathrow introduction was specifically what the appeal was about.

It seems to me that the appeal was wrongly formulated in law, and was in effect dismissed on a technicality - since the original court case had "proved" the bomb was introduced at Malta, all this Heathrow stuff is irrelevant (I simplify, but that seems to have been about it).

Rolfe.

[Rolfe]

Originally Posted by SnidelyW

Can I assume this relates to Bogomira Erac, the computer programmer in baggage handling at Frankfurt airport?
Her story begins at the 4:55 mark of this program;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J55ry...eature=related

She provided investigators with the Malta bag link, because she saved the baggage printout for that day.

If we're going to discuss the Erac printout again, maybe we should move that over to the appropriate thread. We've been over who she is and what she did in quite a lot of detail. I'm not as convinced as Caustic Logic that the printout was manufactured or tampered with - her story hangs together quite well.

However, there are huge warning signs all over that aspect. The bulk of the baggage records from Frankfurt disappeared under extremely mysterious circumstances, despite the knowlege even from the first hours of the incident that Frankfurt was possibly/probably implicated, and despite the existing alert for PFLP-GC bombs. The mystery isn't just that the records vanished, but the amazingly laid-back attitude of all concerned to this. It's never explained, it's just "oh dear what a pity never mind".

Also, although Bogomira handed over her printout in late January, and it appears the Frankfurt police made enquiries at Luqa shortly after receiving it, they then sat on the thing until August and didn't pass it on to the Scottish police who were the main investigating body. Taken at face value, this could be said to have delayed the identification of Gauci as a possible witness for six months - from 3 months after his enounter with the mystery shopper, to 9 months after.

I very much wish I knew what happened to the Frankfurt baggage records - who was responsible for purging them from the computer and destroying all the printouts and backups, and when and why, and of course why nobody seems to care and nobody's head was ever on a platter with full explanations.

However genuine Bogomira appears to be, the fact remains that her printout is probably the single most crucial piece of evidence that fingered Megrahi. It provided the trail of an unidentified piece of luggage apparently coming off KM180 and going towards PA103A. I'm not sure when it was discovered that Megrahi was right there when that plane was checking in, but even before the bombing Giaka was telling the CIA that he was in Luqa on 7th December (the day he was alleged to have bought the clothes from Gauci).

It's hideously tempting to suspect that Megrahi's known presence when KM180 was checking in was used to fabricate evidence to show that aircraft was the feeder flight that carried the bomb. However, I can't substantiate that at present.

Rolfe.

[Caustic Logic]

Excellent summation of the context I didn't ave the 'breath' for. The main thing is the absence of records in the first weeks after the attack. The central computer file that allows one to have any clue what moved through was just nada, it seems. And it was 8 months for the actual investigators. That's a big hole for fakery to fester in, if it chose to do so. The apparent acceptance of that as a casual mystery is also telling - elephant in the living room kind of stuff.

Snidely, considering what I said about Jia, do you feel that he's a sidetrack or worth looking at closer? I'm thinking it's a coincidence, unless a luggage-based transfer with a pause at heathrow and ground help to delay its last leg could be shown to make sense. It's physically possible, but procedurally? I don't know these things well enough to say...

And it couldn't be a Khreesat bomb of the one-takeoff type we know of. Big minus in my book, kills the 38 minutes clue.

[Rolfe]

Unless a second timer was used to stop the thing detonating on an earlier leg, enter the MST-13. I'm not saying this is a perfect scenario, but it can't be completely discounted.

Rolfe.

[SnidelyW]

Originally Posted by Caustic Logic

Excellent summation of the context I didn't ave the 'breath' for. The main thing is the absence of records in the first weeks after the attack. The central computer file that allows one to have any clue what moved through was just nada, it seems. And it was 8 months for the actual investigators. That's a big hole for fakery to fester in, if it chose to do so. The apparent acceptance of that as a casual mystery is also telling - elephant in the living room kind of stuff.

Snidely, considering what I said about Jia, do you feel that he's a sidetrack or worth looking at closer? I'm thinking it's a coincidence, unless a luggage-based transfer with a pause at heathrow and ground help to delay its last leg could be shown to make sense. It's physically possible, but procedurally? I don't know these things well enough to say...

And it couldn't be a Khreesat bomb of the one-takeoff type we know of. Big minus in my book, kills the 38 minutes clue.

Caustic, it wasn't my intent to re-examine Erac and her role in all this, other than to emphasize what it all meant in the great scheme, regarding the link to Malta.

As for Jia, the break-in, and a possible arming of the device at Heathrow - IF we allow ourselves the fanciful jump (and I emphasize fanciful!) to the introduction of the bomb at Heathrow, or possibly the arming of the bomb there, then Jia could work into the puzzle. Perhaps the break-in could have introduced the device into the luggage system, and Jia was tasked with arming it.

I think I need to create a flow chart with timing etc regarding possible movements to see if this might be possible, and then re-examine things.

I have a legal star assisting me in examining the appeal transcripts, so when that is sorted, I'll be in a better position to offer more.

[SnidelyW]

Regarding arming the bomb... this little snippet implies arming a bomb for the next 'leg' of a journey, doesn't it?

"Through Khreesat and the GID, the Germans learned that the cell was surveying a number of targets, including Iberia Flight 888 from Madrid to Tel Aviv via Barcelona, chosen because the bomb-courier could disembark without baggage at Barcelona leaving the barometric trigger to activate the IED on the next leg of the journey. The date chosen, Khreesat reportedly told his handlers, was October 30, 1988. He also told them that two members of the cell had been to Frankfurt airport to pick up Pan Am timetables."

from this web page
http://www.martinfrost.ws/htmlfiles/locherbie2.html

Does anyone have a link to the original German source material? I am assuming it was a Khreesat device which was actually used.

[SnidelyW]

Here is just a tad more speculation, and I'm tossing this out there to swing in the wind.

Let's assume the Iranians were behind it, as Baer from the CIA confirmed that two days after the December 21 1988 bombing the PFLP-GC received U.S. $11million (£7.6m), paid into a Swiss bank account by Iran.¹

So, Talb gets the clothes, two bags are procured, and the rest is done through the Iranian Air Heathrow connection.

Perhaps the break-in was to 'deliver' the bags to the interline area by the PFLP-GC rep, for placement at the appropriate time?

Can we construct a possible scenario which coalesces available information with a bit of speculative thinking regarding a Heathrow introduction of the bags?

[Caustic Logic]

I'm going to be brief and skim a little time off Lockerbe to look at the Cheonan sinking story tonight.

On the Jia thing, you seem to have some worthwhile ideas, though I'm still leaning to coincidence. Introducing a whole other person who'd have to disembark to arm it seems silly if it's already there. If the break-in is coincidence, maybe he brought the bomb(s) in and set them up somehow, but someone else would have to get them in the container.

As far as a timetable, my site has a chronology of the Beford story, though all you need to know is he says the bags appeared there before 4:40 pm, but after app. 4:00.

I'll come back to the transcripts later and check if there's anything interesting/useful on the Jia angle and post it here.

Quote:

Regarding arming the bomb... this little snippet implies arming a bomb for the next 'leg' of a journey, doesn't it?

"Through Khreesat and the GID, the Germans learned that the cell was surveying a number of targets, including Iberia Flight 888 from Madrid to Tel Aviv via Barcelona, chosen because the bomb-courier could disembark without baggage at Barcelona leaving the barometric trigger to activate the IED on the next leg of the journey. The date chosen, Khreesat reportedly told his handlers, was October 30, 1988. He also told them that two members of the cell had been to Frankfurt airport to pick up Pan Am timetables."

from this web page
http://www.martinfrost.ws/htmlfiles/locherbie2.html

Does anyone have a link to the original German source material? I am assuming it was a Khreesat device which was actually used.

Interesting. I'm hazy on the details of their other planned attacks (seen allusions to this and another plane besides 103, plus a nightclub and some trains). But if this were checked luggage, it would indeed require a modification to prevent the first triggering. If it were carry-on, he could push in the headphone jack, etc. to arm it, and then just wander off and forget it.

Which German material did you want? I've got none in original, but some might be read in court or some clues in testimony (translated and transcribed real time). There are some good insights on Khreesat's bombs, from the maker, in this PDF:
http://www.4shared.com/document/RnGR...shman_FBI.html

Quote:

Can we construct a possible scenario which coalesces available information with a bit of speculative thinking regarding a Heathrow introduction of the bags?

Yes we could, and what you outlined sounds about like what I expect. We have about zero specifics, and that alone makes it feel real to me, unlike Juval Aviv's cartoon version.

Keep it up.

[Rolfe]

If you remember, I ran a speculation where the bomb suitcase arrived at Heathrow as ordinary accompanied luggage on a much earlier flight, with the MST-13 wired in to prevent detonation of the barometric device on that leg. The passenger who checked that bag in then simply walked off without claiming it, while at the same time an airside accomplice, who had gained entry to the airport by way of the midnight break-in, intercepted the case and in due course introduced it into AVE 4041 just after 4pm.

While it would obviously have been possible for the airside accomplice to arm the bomb by pushing in the jack plug, that would of course require opening the case, which is rather suspicious behaviour on the part of someone dressed as a baggage handler. Thus the speculation that the MST-13 was rigged up to substitute for this exercise. Maybe the "improvements" Khreesat reported making to the mixture?

I'm not massively wedded to this, but I thought it had a chance of flying.

Rolfe.

ETA: Snidely - why do you think the idea of the bomb being introduced at Heathrow is "fanciful"? I think it's the least fanciful of all the possible scenarios.