Evidence for Israeli involvement in the Lockerbie bombing

Caustic Logic · 16th September 2010, 01:15 AM

I'd like to finally come out with an aspect of the Lockerbie Pan Am 103 incident that I've been hesitant to talk about. But as a few people know, despite the fierce debate about Megrahi's guilt, the controlled media has kept some secrets hidden even from all but the best-informed truth seekers.

If Libya didn't do it, and there's no evidence of Iran's involvement, who else but Israel could have carried it out?

Captain_Swoop · 16th September 2010, 03:40 AM

Why would Israel do it?
If they were 'found out' they would antagonise the USA, their main ally in the world and risk losing US support.

Why does that make any sense?

Caustic Logic · 16th September 2010, 03:43 AM

clearly a victim of Zionist media control

lionking · 16th September 2010, 03:47 AM

Shouldn't this be in humor?

CptColumbo · 16th September 2010, 03:53 AM

So, if not L or I then J. What about A B C D E F G H K M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z?

Caustic Logic · 16th September 2010, 04:10 AM

Originally Posted by lionking

Shouldn't this be in humor?

First, it would have to be funny. And I'm dead serious .

Okay, no I'm not. But it's a CT that pops up occasionally. Not a big one, but maybe worth a thread, and I see it scored me the first Israeli viewer at my blog in over three months. So worth it. I'm not sure how much there is to discuss, and I'm off to bed shortly.

Oh and re: the first post, I don't think there's no evidence of Iranian involvement. There is. That was Kilgore's line, paraphrased. It's in the link.

Rolfe · 16th September 2010, 04:16 AM

I'm not aware of any credible evidence for Israeli involvement beyond the Usual Suspects blathering that of course it must have been!

I'm not going to comment on your blog post because I see you have an infestation of Charles. (Jings, is it possible to get any further up yourself? "An argument put cogently by me...." He has trouble arguing that rain's wet.) However I note you return to the point about the timing of the explosion.

How late was that plane? I submit that it wasn't late, in the ordinary meaning of the word. Specifically, it left the gate on time, and it didn't lose its slot.

Consider the extremely fortunate Mr. Basuta. He was returning home to the USA, and some friends came to see him off and they all retired to the airport bar. He had one or two drinks too many, then suddenly saw the information screen for PA103 reading "gate closing". He leaped to his feet and started to run to the gate.

Meanwhile everybody else was on the plane, including the 49 passengers who'd just landed from Frankfurt at the adjacent gate, and the 6pm departure time had arrived. What to do? Mr. Basuta's luggage was on the plane. The duty manager decided to take the risk and let the plane leave the stand, because they were worried about losing their slot. Maid of the Seas left the stand at 6.03 or 6.04pm, callously abandoning the hastening Mr. Basuta, who was stranded.

While the plane was still on the tarmac heading out towards the runway the inebriated Mr. Basuta was discovered running (or staggering) towards the gate, and that was taken as confirmation that the airline didn't need to worry about this passenger being any more than he seemed. Fine, too bad Mr. Basuta you've missed your plane, it's just going to take off with your luggage aboard.

As Mr. Basuta disconsolately retreated to try to get a place on a later flight, Maid of the Seas was shunted around the taxiways in the queue for takeoff. Heathrow is a busy airport and 6pm is a busy time. There was a lot of traffic coming and going. Maid of the Seas just had to wait her turn, and eventually her wheels left the tarmac at 6.25pm. This is not a late plane. Try telling Mr. Basuta the plane was late in leaving!

Many commentators look at the advertised departure time of 6pm, and the take-off time of 6.25pm, and blithely declare that the plane was late. However, planes do not normally become instantly airborne the very second they leave the stand. There's always a period of footering around on the taxiways before the actual takeoff. I don't have any figures for the average time lapse between advertised departure (that is, leaving the stand) and takeoff (that is, wheels leaving the ground), but it's going to be 10 to 15 minutes a lot of the time, and 25 minutes is probably still within the "normal range", especially for a longhaul route with a flight time of over seven hours.

Some people at the FAI made a big deal about the Basuta incident, declaring that Pan Am was negligent in allowing the plane to take off without him, when his luggage was on board. However, he wasn't the bomber - his luggage was innocent. Their point was more subtle than that. They claimed that if proper procedure had been followed in respect of a no-show passenger, the plane would have missed its slot and probably still been on the tarmac at 7.03pm. So probably nobody would have died.

The sheriff at the FAI rejected that submission on the grounds that if they'd hung on another couple of minutes Mr. Basuta would have made it to the gate and been allowed to board. This would still have allowed the plane to catch its slot, and nothing would have been any different. He's probably right about that.

It's a fascinating question though. If the plane had missed its slot for some reason, as they do (late passenger, mechanical trouble, cock-up on the catering front, whatever), when would the bomb have gone off? At 7.03pm, or over Lockerbie regardless?

This is the central paradox of the MST-13 fragment. If you have such a timer, you absolutely, categorically definitely don't set it for seven o'clock. It's far too big a risk that the plane will still be on the tarmac at that time. (Even as it was, the plane was still close enough to major airports that it might have managed a successful emergency landing if the damage had been less catastrophic than it was.)

This has led to various speculations about a fault in the timer causing it to detonate prematurely, or possibly the bag being on the wrong plane (if you were bombing PA101, then you'd set it for 7pm, right enough). but all these speculations are entirely at odds with what Megrahi was accused of. Giaka tried to claim he'd seen Megrahi and Fhimah with a timer, specifically setting it for 7pm! No hint there of an accidental, premature detonation. And there was no Frankfurt feeder flight connecting in to PA101, so that idea is out - the whole "Malta loading" theory absolutely requires the bomb bag to have been specifically tagged for PA103. Accepting that tray B8849 was the bomb bag absolutely requires the bag to have been tagged for PA103.

This argument applies irrespective of who it is has the MST-13. The JSO, Ahmed Jibril, Mossad, anybody. The minute you decide to use a simple non-barometric timer, it becomes an absolute sine qua non that you set it for about midnight GMT.

Oh but the MST-13 was there, a fragment was found. And the explosion did happen at 7.03pm. So that's what they must have done. Er, there might be a flaw or two in that line of reasoning.

Rolfe.

ElMondoHummus · 16th September 2010, 04:16 AM

Originally Posted by Caustic Logic

If Libya didn't do it, and there's no evidence of Iran's involvement, who else but Israel could have carried it out?

Because of course the best way for Israel to show its appreciation for practically the only real ally it has in this world is to kill that ally's citizens.

Rolfe · 16th September 2010, 04:23 AM

False flag!

Rolfe.

Sword_Of_Truth · 16th September 2010, 05:23 AM

And there went any shred of credibility for the Lockerbie/Pan-Am 103 bombing discussions.

What is it about conspiracy theorists that they just can't stay away from the jews?

SpitfireIX · 16th September 2010, 05:40 AM

Originally Posted by Rolfe

I'm not going to comment on your blog post because I see you have an infestation of Charles. (Jings, is it possible to get any further up yourself? "An argument put cogently by me...." He has trouble arguing that rain's wet.)

Rolfe · 16th September 2010, 06:54 AM

Originally Posted by Sword_Of_Truth

And there went any shred of credibility for the Lockerbie/Pan-Am 103 bombing discussions.

What is it about conspiracy theorists that they just can't stay away from the jews?

I think you may be failing to pick up on a tinge of irony here....

Hint. Lionking got it.

Rolfe.

SpitfireIX · 16th September 2010, 07:16 AM

Originally Posted by Rolfe

I think you may be failing to pick up on a tinge of irony here....

Hint. Lionking got it.

Rolfe.

Poe's Law.

BobHaulk · 16th September 2010, 02:08 PM

Originally Posted by Caustic Logic

If Libya didn't do it, and there's no evidence of Iran's involvement, who else but Israel could have carried it out?

Maybe it was Argentina or Wales, how about the Maldives? The Swiss have been mighty quiet, what are they hiding? Maybe the Americans did it, like in practice for 9/11.

Spindrift · 16th September 2010, 02:16 PM

Originally Posted by Caustic Logic

I'd like to finally come out with an aspect of the Lockerbie Pan Am 103 incident that I've been hesitant to talk about. But as a few people know, despite the fierce debate about Megrahi's guilt, the controlled media has kept some secrets hidden even from all but the best-informed truth seekers.

If Libya didn't do it, and there's no evidence of Iran's involvement, who else but Israel could have carried it out?

Grenada's had it out for the US ever since Clint Eastwood conquered the island at Ronald Reagan's request. Notice they haven't denied it?

16th September 2010, 01:15 AM	#1
Caustic Logic Illuminator Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 3,979	Evidence for Israeli involvement in the Lockerbie bombing I'd like to finally come out with an aspect of the Lockerbie Pan Am 103 incident that I've been hesitant to talk about. But as a few people know, despite the fierce debate about Megrahi's guilt, the controlled media has kept some secrets hidden even from all but the best-informed truth seekers. If Libya didn't do it, and there's no evidence of Iran's involvement, who else but Israel could have carried it out?

16th September 2010, 03:47 AM	#4
lionking In the Peanut Gallery Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Melbourne Posts: 29,673	Shouldn't this be in humor?
	__________________ A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject. Sir Winston Churchill

16th September 2010, 03:53 AM	#5
CptColumbo Just One More Question Join Date: May 2004 Location: Minneapolis, MN Posts: 9,130	So, if not L or I then J. What about A B C D E F G H K M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z?
	__________________ I've been involved in a lot of cults, both as a leader and a follower. You have more fun as a follower, but you make more money as a leader.--Creed, "The Office" The tools of conquest do not necessarily come with bombs and explosions and fallout. There are weapons that are simply thoughts, attitudes, prejudices to be only found in the minds of men. Prejudices and suspicion can destroy, and a thoughtless frightened search for a scapegoat has a fallout all its own.--Rod Serling

16th September 2010, 04:16 AM	#7
Rolfe Anti-homeopathy illuminati member Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: NT 150 511 Posts: 34,340	I'm not aware of any credible evidence for Israeli involvement beyond the Usual Suspects blathering that of course it must have been! I'm not going to comment on your blog post because I see you have an infestation of Charles. (Jings, is it possible to get any further up yourself? "An argument put cogently by me...." He has trouble arguing that rain's wet.) However I note you return to the point about the timing of the explosion. How late was that plane? I submit that it wasn't late, in the ordinary meaning of the word. Specifically, it left the gate on time, and it didn't lose its slot. Consider the extremely fortunate Mr. Basuta. He was returning home to the USA, and some friends came to see him off and they all retired to the airport bar. He had one or two drinks too many, then suddenly saw the information screen for PA103 reading "gate closing". He leaped to his feet and started to run to the gate. Meanwhile everybody else was on the plane, including the 49 passengers who'd just landed from Frankfurt at the adjacent gate, and the 6pm departure time had arrived. What to do? Mr. Basuta's luggage was on the plane. The duty manager decided to take the risk and let the plane leave the stand, because they were worried about losing their slot. Maid of the Seas left the stand at 6.03 or 6.04pm, callously abandoning the hastening Mr. Basuta, who was stranded. While the plane was still on the tarmac heading out towards the runway the inebriated Mr. Basuta was discovered running (or staggering) towards the gate, and that was taken as confirmation that the airline didn't need to worry about this passenger being any more than he seemed. Fine, too bad Mr. Basuta you've missed your plane, it's just going to take off with your luggage aboard. As Mr. Basuta disconsolately retreated to try to get a place on a later flight, Maid of the Seas was shunted around the taxiways in the queue for takeoff. Heathrow is a busy airport and 6pm is a busy time. There was a lot of traffic coming and going. Maid of the Seas just had to wait her turn, and eventually her wheels left the tarmac at 6.25pm. This is not a late plane. Try telling Mr. Basuta the plane was late in leaving! Many commentators look at the advertised departure time of 6pm, and the take-off time of 6.25pm, and blithely declare that the plane was late. However, planes do not normally become instantly airborne the very second they leave the stand. There's always a period of footering around on the taxiways before the actual takeoff. I don't have any figures for the average time lapse between advertised departure (that is, leaving the stand) and takeoff (that is, wheels leaving the ground), but it's going to be 10 to 15 minutes a lot of the time, and 25 minutes is probably still within the "normal range", especially for a longhaul route with a flight time of over seven hours. Some people at the FAI made a big deal about the Basuta incident, declaring that Pan Am was negligent in allowing the plane to take off without him, when his luggage was on board. However, he wasn't the bomber - his luggage was innocent. Their point was more subtle than that. They claimed that if proper procedure had been followed in respect of a no-show passenger, the plane would have missed its slot and probably still been on the tarmac at 7.03pm. So probably nobody would have died. The sheriff at the FAI rejected that submission on the grounds that if they'd hung on another couple of minutes Mr. Basuta would have made it to the gate and been allowed to board. This would still have allowed the plane to catch its slot, and nothing would have been any different. He's probably right about that. It's a fascinating question though. If the plane had missed its slot for some reason, as they do (late passenger, mechanical trouble, cock-up on the catering front, whatever), when would the bomb have gone off? At 7.03pm, or over Lockerbie regardless? This is the central paradox of the MST-13 fragment. If you have such a timer, you absolutely, categorically definitely don't set it for seven o'clock. It's far too big a risk that the plane will still be on the tarmac at that time. (Even as it was, the plane was still close enough to major airports that it might have managed a successful emergency landing if the damage had been less catastrophic than it was.) This has led to various speculations about a fault in the timer causing it to detonate prematurely, or possibly the bag being on the wrong plane (if you were bombing PA101, then you'd set it for 7pm, right enough). but all these speculations are entirely at odds with what Megrahi was accused of. Giaka tried to claim he'd seen Megrahi and Fhimah with a timer, specifically setting it for 7pm! No hint there of an accidental, premature detonation. And there was no Frankfurt feeder flight connecting in to PA101, so that idea is out - the whole "Malta loading" theory absolutely requires the bomb bag to have been specifically tagged for PA103. Accepting that tray B8849 was the bomb bag absolutely requires the bag to have been tagged for PA103. This argument applies irrespective of who it is has the MST-13. The JSO, Ahmed Jibril, Mossad, anybody. The minute you decide to use a simple non-barometric timer, it becomes an absolute sine qua non that you set it for about midnight GMT. Oh but the MST-13 was there, a fragment was found. And the explosion did happen at 7.03pm. So that's what they must have done. Er, there might be a flaw or two in that line of reasoning. Rolfe.
	__________________ "The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012. Last edited by Rolfe; 16th September 2010 at 04:19 AM.

16th September 2010, 04:16 AM	#8
ElMondoHummus 0.25 short of being half-witted Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Somewhere north of the South Pole Posts: 11,945	Originally Posted by Caustic Logic If Libya didn't do it, and there's no evidence of Iran's involvement, who else but Israel could have carried it out? Because of course the best way for Israel to show its appreciation for practically the only real ally it has in this world is to kill that ally's citizens.
	__________________ must take this very carefully....booze is wise men's drink..... -pillory "... I'm quite willing to have everyone use my rejection of the 9/11 conspiracy theory as a basis for assessing my intelligence, judgment, and trustworthiness" -Prof. Ann Althouse

16th September 2010, 03:40 AM	#2
Captain_Swoop Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: North Yorkshire Posts: 3,948	Why would Israel do it? If they were 'found out' they would antagonise the USA, their main ally in the world and risk losing US support. Why does that make any sense?

16th September 2010, 03:43 AM	#3
Caustic Logic Illuminator Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 3,979	clearly a victim of Zionist media control

16th September 2010, 04:10 AM	#6
Caustic Logic Illuminator Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 3,979	Originally Posted by lionking Shouldn't this be in humor? First, it would have to be funny. And I'm dead serious . Okay, no I'm not. But it's a CT that pops up occasionally. Not a big one, but maybe worth a thread, and I see it scored me the first Israeli viewer at my blog in over three months. So worth it. I'm not sure how much there is to discuss, and I'm off to bed shortly. Oh and re: the first post, I don't think there's no evidence of Iranian involvement. There is. That was Kilgore's line, paraphrased. It's in the link.

16th September 2010, 04:23 AM	#9
Rolfe Anti-homeopathy illuminati member Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: NT 150 511 Posts: 34,340	False flag! Rolfe.
	__________________ "The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.

16th September 2010, 05:23 AM	#10
Sword_Of_Truth Penultimate Amazing Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 11,497	And there went any shred of credibility for the Lockerbie/Pan-Am 103 bombing discussions. What is it about conspiracy theorists that they just can't stay away from the jews?

16th September 2010, 05:40 AM	#11
SpitfireIX Master Poster Join Date: May 2007 Location: Fort Wayne, Indiana, USA Posts: 2,829	Originally Posted by Rolfe I'm not going to comment on your blog post because I see you have an infestation of Charles. (Jings, is it possible to get any further up yourself? "An argument put cogently by me...." He has trouble arguing that rain's wet.)
	__________________ Handy responses to conspiracy theorists' claims: 1) "I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question." --Charles Babbage 2) "This isn't right. This isn't even wrong." --Wolfgang Pauli 3) "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." --Inigo Montoya

16th September 2010, 06:54 AM	#12
Rolfe Anti-homeopathy illuminati member Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: NT 150 511 Posts: 34,340	Originally Posted by Sword_Of_Truth And there went any shred of credibility for the Lockerbie/Pan-Am 103 bombing discussions. What is it about conspiracy theorists that they just can't stay away from the jews? I think you may be failing to pick up on a tinge of irony here.... Hint. Lionking got it. Rolfe.
	__________________ "The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.

16th September 2010, 07:16 AM	#13
SpitfireIX Master Poster Join Date: May 2007 Location: Fort Wayne, Indiana, USA Posts: 2,829	Originally Posted by Rolfe I think you may be failing to pick up on a tinge of irony here.... Hint. Lionking got it. Rolfe. Poe's Law.
	__________________ Handy responses to conspiracy theorists' claims: 1) "I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question." --Charles Babbage 2) "This isn't right. This isn't even wrong." --Wolfgang Pauli 3) "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." --Inigo Montoya

16th September 2010, 02:08 PM	#14
BobHaulk Muse Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 690	Originally Posted by Caustic Logic If Libya didn't do it, and there's no evidence of Iran's involvement, who else but Israel could have carried it out? Maybe it was Argentina or Wales, how about the Maldives? The Swiss have been mighty quiet, what are they hiding? Maybe the Americans did it, like in practice for 9/11.
BobHaulk Muse Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 690

16th September 2010, 02:16 PM	#15
Spindrift Enturbulator Extraordinaire Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Right here! Posts: 8,460	Originally Posted by Caustic Logic I'd like to finally come out with an aspect of the Lockerbie Pan Am 103 incident that I've been hesitant to talk about. But as a few people know, despite the fierce debate about Megrahi's guilt, the controlled media has kept some secrets hidden even from all but the best-informed truth seekers. If Libya didn't do it, and there's no evidence of Iran's involvement, who else but Israel could have carried it out? Grenada's had it out for the US ever since Clint Eastwood conquered the island at Ronald Reagan's request. Notice they haven't denied it?
	__________________ I've always believed that cluelessness evolved as an adaptation to allow the truly appalling to live with themselves. - G. B. Trudeau A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it. - Kay, Men in Black.