This is the title of an article by Morag Kerr published yesterday on the Wings Over Scotland website. It contains a masterly analysis of the evidence in favour of Heathrow ingestion of the bomb suitcase, and effectively demolishes the case for Malta ingestion. An interesting discussion by readers follows the text of the article.
Morag Kerr’s booklet Lockerbie: Fact and Fiction can be read here.
Professor, I think we've got them.
ReplyDeleteI don't think they have been expecting the attack to come from the direction of Bedford's evidence. Not because it isn't a wide open avenue for attack, but because it's not an angle anyone has really come from in the past ten years.
They can't answer it. Why was that case not the bomb? On what grounds was it excluded from the investigation in January 1989, so quickly that nobody even began to follow it up as a possibility? On what grounds did the investigation continue to exclude it once the full baggage reconciliation evidence was available?
They're checkmated. They just haven't come to terms with it yet.
As regards the JFM allegations, what can they do? The Crown Office and/or the Dumfries and Galloway police cannot issue a bland stonewall rebuttal. They are simply not competent to ajudicate on these allegations, as the allegations are against their own organisations.
The only legitimate course of action is to pass the entire problem over to a genuinely independent party, which will realistically have to be outwith Scotland as all the Scottish police forces will soon become one.
I don't see how they can avoid doing that. All they can do is procrastinate, but they can't do that forever.
So just to be clear, security at Heathrow was so bad that staff could come and go as they pleased, but person/s unknown devised a plan to break-in and plant an IED rather than use a pass-card or key?
ReplyDeleteAnd this break-in was timed so that the IED could be loaded on an empty plane whilst it was unattended?
This break-in is detected, but no action is taken, despite warnings of bomb plots over the Christmas period?
And the mysterious suitcase is spotted but not investigated?
And yet if, as could easily happen, the suitcase was checked or moved from its fatal spot, the master-plan would be foiled?
And that’s presuming that a 1lb IED is sufficient to destroy a Boeing 747 in 3 seconds?
And yet no IED remains are found and no one claims responsibility!
Sounds perfect, I think we’ve solved it?
Dave wrote:
ReplyDelete"Sounds perfect, I think we’ve solved it?"
Please don't write 'we', you are in a category all by yourself.
"The only legitimate course of action is to pass the entire problem over to a genuinely independent party, which will realistically have to be outwith Scotland as all the Scottish police forces will soon become one."
ReplyDeleteThat's an interesting point Rolfe. I wonder what will happen to all the D & G paperwork on the Lockerbie case, including the "continuing investigation" underway.
Dave wrote: "So just to be clear, security at Heathrow was so bad that staff could come and go as they pleased, but person/s unknown devised a plan to break-in and plant an IED rather than use a pass-card or key?"
ReplyDeleteAn extra suitcase was added to AVE4041 which no-one admitted to having put there. It wasn't one of the legitimate bags which had been loaded so far, and its description doesn't match any passenger's case. If you don't follow that, read Morag's analysis. Of course one could imagine this being accomplished in a single operation without a break-in, but given the time and place of the break-in, it would be daft not to consider that it may be connected with the appearance of the unidentified case. Adam Larsen suggests a possible scenario on his Lockerbie Divide blog.
Dave wrote: "And this break-in was timed so that the IED could be loaded on an empty plane whilst it was unattended?"
So that a suitcase could be secreted somewhere airside, allowing someone to go airside empty-handed, retrieve it and place it in the baggage container which routinely stood, often unattended, in the interline baggage shed, for most of the afternoon.
Dave wrote: "This break-in is detected, but no action is taken, despite warnings of bomb plots over the Christmas period?"
Yes. It was reported, and absolutely zilch was done about it.
Dave wrote: "And the mysterious suitcase is spotted but not investigated?"
Right again.
Dave wrote: "And yet if, as could easily happen, the suitcase was checked or moved from its fatal spot, the master-plan would be foiled?"
The suitcase was loaded flat with the handle inwards, the way baggage handlers liked to do it. It was a hard-shell case, the type they preferred to have at the bottom of the container. It's been pointed out repeatedly that they weren't inclined to over-exert themselves. So it was highly probable that this case would not be disturbed. In any case, to ensure that the fuselage would be holed by a blast from anywhere in the container would have required more Semtex than it is physically possible to fit within the radio.
As for checking, Bedford said it had the required security tape on it, and even if they had taken it out and x-rayed it, they weren't (unlike Frankfurt) on the lookout for an IED in a radio-cassette as no-one had bothered to pass on the warning.
Any plan must carry some element of risk of failure or detection. This plan minimises the risk of either.
Dave wrote: "And that's presuming that a 1lb IED is sufficient to destroy a Boeing 747 in 3 seconds?"
ReplyDeleteA 20-inch hole in the fuselage is sufficient to destroy an aircraft in seconds. It's the air pressure difference that does the work, just as when a pinprick bursts a balloon. It's the same physics as you're appealing to with your cargo door theory.
The size of the explosive charge and its location were calculated from the damage caused, by experts in the field. Reading their findings, it's clear that there is some uncertainty in the exact size and location of the explosion, but as to the possible devastating effect of a relatively small explosion in the right place, none of these experts was in any doubt.
Just to be clear: we do quibble with the investigation's absolute confidence that the blast centre was high enough to put it with certainty in the second layer of suicases. And I think expert opinion would be with us there. It was certain that there was an explosive device ( pace Dave & co) and it bore the signature of the Neuss cell of the PFLP-GC. Putting that together with the exposion taking place in AVE4041, it's a natural response to assume that the device arrived via PA103A from Frankfurt, and would therefore have been on the second layer or higher. Hence a natural tendency to disregard any solution placing the blast in the bottom layer.
What you're apparently suggesting is either that all of these scientists were lying through their teeth, or that they all made a huge error which no reputable scientist has noticed or bothered to correct since. Are you serious?
Dave wrote: "And yet no IED remains are found and no one claims responsibility!"
Do I have to repeat this? There was an explosion. The agent was Semtex, the terrorists' explosive of choice. You don't expect to find much of the mechanism of an IED. In this case we have the pulverised remains of a radio-cassette similar to those used by Khreesat et al to house bombs. ISTR there was also mentio of what could have been part of a barometric timer, which got disregarded by the investigation. How much more do you expect? There isn't much more to an IED than the housing, the explosive and detonator and the timing/triggering device.
The trouble with your theory, Dave, is that although it fits some of the facts, it doesn't account for all of them, whereas the IED theory does.
In another thread you've criticised Rolfe for changing her mind on some matter. But that's one of the reasons she is so respected here: she has a scientist's open mind.
Any theory has to take account of new evidence as it emerges. I've changed my mind on a number of peripheral issues as more facts have reached the public domain. (The one thing I've become more and more certain of is Megrahi's innocence.) If my ideas are contradicted by fresh evidence, or if a new explanation of the existing evidence is shown to explain everything beter, then I'll willingly change my mind again. Are you prepared to change your mind, Dave?
What the hell, I'll have a go myself.
ReplyDeleteDave is quite the whack-a-mole, isn't he? We chew him up and spit the remains on the carpet in one thread, then a day or two later he pops up with exactly the same nonsense in another one.
So just to be clear, security at Heathrow was so bad that staff could come and go as they pleased, but person/s unknown devised a plan to break-in and plant an IED rather than use a pass-card or key?
Once again, Dave, you distort what has been repeated innumerable times. Security at Heathrow was so bad that people airside who were wearing the right sort of uniform could go where they like and place suitcases anywhere they liked. There were also many hundreds of airside passes unaccounted-for. That is attested to by multiple witnesses, and nobody has even attempted to contradict it.
Now I don't know whether someone with a stolen airside pass would be challenged if they tried to go through the security cordon carrying a suitcase. Roland O'Neil said they probably could, at Frankfurt, but I could well imagine a terrorist being reluctant to take that risk.
Presumably if they had had a key, they could have used it. Why would you assume they would have had a key, again?
And this break-in was timed so that the IED could be loaded on an empty plane whilst it was unattended?
Absolutely not. This has been explained to you multiple times, and I begin to wonder if you have a reading comprehension problem. The break-in occurred about midnight. The aircraft that became PA103, Maid of the Seas, didn't even arrive from San Francisco until 12 hours after that.
The suitcase was not put on the plane by the terrorist. It was put into a baggage container in such a position that when the container was eventually loaded on to the plane, the IED would be close to the skin of the plane.
The suitcase was put into the baggage container while it was sitting unattended in the shed, about half past four in the afternoon.
The theory is, if the break-in was indeed connected to the disaster (as seems likely, although of course it cannot be certain) this was done so as to conceal the suitcase airside during the night. The terrorist was then able to enter through normal security with a stolen pass, empty-handed, and then retrieve the suitcase and place it into the baggage container.
Honestly, is that clear enough or do I have to draw you a picture?
This break-in is detected, but no action is taken, despite warnings of bomb plots over the Christmas period?
ReplyDeleteYes, that is exactly what happened. It is an undisputed matter of public record.
And the mysterious suitcase is spotted but not investigated?
So says the person who spotted it, but didn't investigate it. He was just about to knock off for the afternoon, which may be relevant.
And yet if, as could easily happen, the suitcase was checked or moved from its fatal spot, the master-plan would be foiled?
If it was checked, it would probably have passed, since the Semtex was well hidden inside the radio. It might have been moved, but there was a damn good chance it wouldn't be. The terrorist seems to have done all he could to minimise the chance of its being moved.
And that’s presuming that a 1lb IED is sufficient to destroy a Boeing 747 in 3 seconds?
You don't need to "presume" that, there is no reputable aviation expert who disputes it. The analogy of bursting a balloon with a single pinprick is absolutely perfect. The balloon will be a limp scrap of latex in a lot less than three seconds.
And yet no IED remains are found and no one claims responsibility!
What's to find? Most of the IED is the lump of Semtex. The detonator itself, pushed into the Semtex, will disintegrate. There does seem to be an amorphous bit of something that might have been a barometer, but it was too badly damaged to be sure and they kind of forgot about that.
And, once more, multiple claims of responsibility were received after the disaster. Please stop repeating falsehoods that you have been corrected on numerous times.
Is the mysterious suitcase real and if real does it contain an IED?
ReplyDeleteWell it is seen but not checked so presumably the witness was only close enough to give a general rather than specific identification – and was it where they say it was?
Because why would you use a conspicuous suitcase that could so easily be noticed and raise suspicions if suddenly appearing on an empty plane?
Particularly an American plane during the Christmas period, when there is heightened security?
The break-in was detected because evidence of the break-in was left to be detected.
But wouldn’t it be prudent to cover your tracks, just in case there was some security on duty – which there was because the break-in was detected?
So the ‘bomb plot’ depended on the size of the radio, rather than whether the IED was big enough to destroy the plane?
But if so wouldn’t it have been more rational to target a smaller plane or the crowded foyer?
And even if the hole was big enough to destroy the plane, wouldn’t the cockpit have detached to the side with the hole with debris entering engine 2, rather than to the cargo door side and engine 3?
You cast doubt on the forensics, but consider that some must be right. So some must be wrong?
And the plot depended on no one being suspicious about a suspicious suitcase because no one had received a specific warning?
I don’t know about the plan ‘minimises the risk of failure’, but it certainly minimises the risk of detection, considering no one has claimed responsibility?
I do retain an open mind and await a public inquiry, but the main attraction of the ‘Heathrow theory’ is it isn’t the ‘Malta theory’!
Oooh, Dave thinks he would have approached the bombing of that plane in a different way, so it couldn't have been done that way! Even though there is a ton of evidence showing it was done that way!
ReplyDeleteDave thinks (or presumes) a lot of things that are demonstrated not to be so by the actual evidence.
The bomb was in that suitcase. Analysis of the entire evidence-set relating to the baggage records and baggage placement, including statements and reports which were not presented in court, demonstrates that to be the case beyond reasonable doubt.
Get over it.
I clearly see work for more than 7 wise men in these questions.
ReplyDeleteDear Rolfe, if the attack was based on a plan it would be an elementary consideration to acquire a pass-card or key to gain access rather than break-in (and leave evidence of the break-in) because you would expect a break-in to be investigated and the plot foiled?
ReplyDeleteAnd even if the break-in wasn’t investigated (security thought there was an innocent explanation?) you would not base a plan on the presumption it wouldn’t be investigated?
The idea of someone breaking in and hiding a suitcase airside and then someone gaining access later and putting it in the right spot of a baggage container that will be loaded into the right spot of a plane is not likely, because such a ‘plan’ presumes the suitcase won’t be checked, moved or stolen?
Dear Rolfe, there were a number of hoax claims of responsibility. Or are you saying one, some or all were genuine?
ReplyDeleteDave, I'm, simply pointing out that you are wrong, and that your posts are riddled with assumptions that have no basis in actual fact.
ReplyDeleteWouldn't it be nice if the world worked the way you propose. No terrorist attack would ever be attempted, because, hey, it might go wrong! Even a fairly small chance of something going wrong - oh well, let's not bother then, I suppose?
Or maybe the terrorists can only do it your way. If Dave thinks he might have done it a different way, well that's that. The way it was actually done, as clearly seen from the evidence, must be some sort of mass hallucination?
"Adequately explained by stupidity"?
ReplyDeleteDr Kerr's central point
is that a reliable witness saw a brown samsonite in AVE4041 before flight PA103A arrived from Frankfurt and that suitcase was never recovered and linked to a specific passenger. It was eliminated it in theory but not in actuality.
Orr claimed (wrongly) "evidence from witnesses was to the effect that the first 6-7 suitcases in AVE4041 were Interline bags." But if the Bedford Samsonite was an Interline bag whose bag was it?
This was an issue the SCCRC never addressed (I suspect for obvious reasons).
Pages 59-60 of Leppard may help explain this "stupidity". Against the wishes of the PM and Home Secretary (who wanted the Met to be given full charge)the new Lord Advocate Lord Fraser argued that as people had died on the ground he would instruct the Chief Constable of the D & G Con. to investigate.
From the start real suspects had been identified - Marwan Khreesat and the Autumn Leaves group.
Leppard page 59-60 also remarks at the animosity between the Met's flash SO12 officers and the locals.
Of course if the bomb had been introduced at Heathrow jurisdiction would be confused or shared. It was less stupidity than a blinkered assumption the bomb had come from Frankfurt (happily cutting out the need to deal with the loathed SO12.)
In May 1989, the BKA's forensic section produced a report that argued that a Khreesat barometric bomb could not have survived the Frankfurt-Heathrow leg.
This was refuted by a RARDE document created in June 1989 that (unconvincingly) rubbished the BKA report on the grounds that the Khreesat bomb may have been faulty. (Not that it may not have been a barometric bomb).
I prefaced my own article "Lockerbie - the Heathrow Evidence" with a quotation from page 145 of Leppard from the chapter tited "Frankpfurt or London The Forensic Row"-
"As the Kamboj episode showed, there had always been ,the outside chance that a bag had been smuggled into the container at Heathrow. That possibility aside, Orr had effectively ruled out Heathrow within three weeks of the bombing."
However the passage continues
" Now the Germans were suggesting they were all wrong."
"Moreover the BKA were ignoring the wealth of circumstantial forensic evidence that was by now ineluctably pointing to Khressat".
(Forensic evidence that the Scottish Police also came to ignore. However the Germans were not saying that Khreesat did not build the bomb but that a Khreesat bomb must have been introduced at Heathrow.)
"Orr recalled the words of the report commissioned from his research team. There can be little doubt that Marwan Khreesat is the bombh-maker for the PFLP-GC, that he was brought to West Germany for that express purpose and there is a possibility that he prepared the IED which destroyed PA103.
As such he should not be at liberty but should be closely questioned regarding his activities with a view to tracing his associates in the attack."
Of course the sweaty filth never interviewed Khreesat at all!
In the "Camp Zeist" version of events this lengthy spat never happened and the investigation proceeded smoothly from (Feraday's) Indian Head tests that "proved" the primary suitcase had come from Frankfurt to Dr Hayes supposed discovery of the PT35b fragment on the 15/5/89(just as or before this spat developed.)
The Germans were right a barometric "Khreesat" bomb must have been introduced at Heathrow. Yet while RARDE were claiming a Khreesat bomb was introduced at Frankfurt they yhey supposedly had already discovered evidence that indicated that the bomb was detonated by a simple timer, not a barometric bomb at all, which would in due course exonerated Khreesat and implicated Libya.
Dave, the break in at Heathrow is significant more than anything because of the efforts made to keep it out of the trial.
ReplyDeleteThe prosecution wanted to focus only on the Luqa route and raising the prospect of a (I would say) more compelling possibility would have hindered them more than just a little. The fact that Air Malta presented documentation that every back to travel on the plane was accompanied and accounted for, that nothing went unaccompanied was dismissed. Why?
Plus, and I've never understood this, how on earth did that bomb, if it went from Luqa, go undiscovered at three (Luqa, Frankfurt and Heathrow) separate airports on the way? How much luck would you need for that to work? Luck? I think you'd need a miracle!
Baz, I have heard others claim that it was Thatcher who favoured a D&G investigation, although I don't know the truth of that.
ReplyDeleteYou pinpoint my "least evil" explanation for the ignoring of Bedford's evidence. That the D&G wanted the action to themselves, without the Met muscling in. Crawford gives a graphic account in his semi-literate little pamphlet of the ill-feeling and resentment at the very beginning when the Met did show up at Lockerbie and try to muscle in. They were peremptorily put back in their box, apparently.
I still can't imagine it as sufficient motivation to scupper such an important inquiry, and potentially let the culprits go free. But I wonder. Could the desire to keep control have been so strong that Orr and the rest of the senior officers simply didn't let themselves see what was in front of their faces? The evidence certainly indicates that they buried Ray Manly's statement almost as soon as it was received, and nobody but HOLMES seems to have been aware of it. They also don't seem to have allowed the full details of Bedford's statement to be widely known - the investigation team handling the luggage reconciliation knew there had been a suitcase on the floor of the container, but not that it had appeared mysteriously, or that it had been described as a brown Samsonite.
People can be funny. It's obvious to us, but factor in sufficient bull-headedness and ego, and I wonder.
Leppard's text is a bit peculiar, read in context. I get the feeling he has absolutely no idea how the Bedford suitcase was conclusively ruled out, or at least in the 3-4 months between Bedford testifying to its existence and the Indian Head results being available. There is actually no sign that Orr had ruled Heathrow out within three weeks "that possibility aside". There is every sign that Orr had ruled Heathrow out within ten days, that is before he even knew there were Heathrow cases in the container at all, and no sign at all of him reconsidering that after Bedford's statement came in.
Nobody ever asked Kamboj or Parmar where they were while Bedford was on his break, what they were doing, whether they were keeping an eye on the container or not, or if they saw anyone else in the vicinity of the container. Nobody even asked Bedford whether it was the left-hand or the right-hand suitcase he was describing as being a brown Samsonite. All this at a time when according to the BKA records, the explosion was believed to have been right at the bottom.
Does any of that make any sense to anyone?
Jo, the oddity is that Manly's statement was buried right at the beginning. It would have been impossible to keep it out of the trial if it had been common knowledge, and referred to in reports and summaries and so on. But it wasn't. Nobody knew about it because it was buried on 2nd February 1989.
ReplyDeleteIt appears that nobody in the investigation actually went to BAA and checked up regarding Heathrow security prior to the disaster. It took BAA themselves to take the initiative to approach the Met in late January and tell them about what Manly had reported. The Met said, not our case mate, and told Lockerbie. Lockerbie said, ah, well since you're on the spot, would you mind taking a statement from this person, there's a good chap. So someone from the Met (Dixon again?) trotted out to Heathrow on 31st January and interviewed Manly, and sent his statement back to Lockerbie. It got to Lockerbie and was entered into HOLMES on 2nd February. And never heard of again.
It's quite possible the prosecution at Camp Zeist never even saw it.
It's the efforts made to keep Sidhu's statement and Henderson's baggage reconciliation reports out of the trial that interest me more, really. The prosecution sure as hell knew about these.
Of course, you're right, the alleged plan to send that bomb on the three-flight hop was brain-dead. Not that that would necessarily stop anyone, but you'd think they might at least have had the sense to set the timer for late enough so that the plane would probably be airborne even if it had been delayed. And that someone capable of devising an absolutely supernaturally perfect and undetectable plan to get the suitcase on to a flight at Malta might have had enough sense not to fill it with brand new, locally-manufactured, easily-traceable clothes bought in a rather conspicuous manner in a small shop only three miles from the airport. Especially when the plan had a very high chance of the suitcase being on the ground somewhere (or failing that, over land) when the bomb went off. And then for the same person to show up at the airport while this supernaturally perfect plan was being put into operation, for no readily apparent reason.
Aye, right.
Is the mysterious suitcase real and if real does it contain an IED?
ReplyDeleteWell it is seen but not checked so presumably the witness was only close enough to give a general rather than specific identification ? and was it where they say it was?
Dave, why not check the facts before you post? John Bedford was clear about this extra case and how it was positioned. And Amarjit Sidhu, who loaded the baggage transferred from Pan Am 103A on top of it, confirmed this.
Because why would you use a conspicuous suitcase that could so easily be noticed and raise suspicions if suddenly appearing on an empty plane?
It wasn't particularly conspicuous. It just happened that no-one travelling on Pan Am 103 had a case of that type and colour, so we can be sure it wasn't legitimate baggage. Distinctive isn't the same as conspicuous.
And it wasn't placed on an empty plane. It was placed in a partially-filled baggage container.
Particularly an American plane during the Christmas period, when there is heightened security?
I know of no evidence that the baggage handlers were being more security conscious than usual at this time. If you do, please produce it.
The break-in was detected because evidence of the break-in was left to be detected.
But wouldn't it be prudent to cover your tracks, just in case there was some security on duty ? which there was because the break-in was detected?
As I said before, the proximity in both position and time of the break-in to the appearance of the Bedford bag requires us to consider that they may be related. If so, the terrorists, who appear to have had inside information on the running of Heathrow, considered it a risk worth taking. But the break-in isn't central to our thesis. If you can't get your head around it, concentrate on the Bedford bag itself. It matched the bomb bag (and Bedford described it before the bomb bag had been identified from the wreckage,) it didn't belong to any passenger, it was loaded close to where the explosion was determined to have occurred, and it's logically impossible to explain as legitimate baggage.
So the 'bomb plot' depended on the size of the radio, rather than whether the IED was big enough to destroy the plane?
ReplyDeleteYou're missing the point again. Khreesat hid his IEDs in radio-cassette recorders and other household electronic devices so that they could evade detection. Naturally that limited the amount of explosive he could use. But the 450g used in this IED was sufficient to bring down the aircraft, since the terrorists had control over where it was positioned. If the plan had been to allow for random placement of the bag containing the IED, they'd have used more Semtex and hidden it in a larger device. But that wasn't what they did. Why use more explosive than necessary?
But if so wouldn't it have been more rational to target a smaller plane or the crowded foyer?
If, as we suspect, Iran was the paymaster behind this because of the Vincennes incident, a USA-bound plane would have to be the target. And if you have control over its placement, a small IED can destroy a large aircraft.
And even if the hole was big enough to destroy the plane, wouldn't the cockpit have detached to the side with the hole with debris entering engine 2, rather than to the cargo door side and engine 3?
I don't know enough about aviation to answer this. Trouble is I suspect you don't either.
You cast doubt on the forensics, but consider that some must be right. So some must be wrong?
I think you're saying that if we believe the forensic scientists may be wrong regarding the exact placement of the IED we must agree that they may be wrong in their conclusion that PA103 was brought down by an IED. That's nonsense. We've told you about a zillion times, including in this very thread, why it's established beyond doubt that an IED close to the lower outboard side of container AVE4041 was the cause of the destruction of PA103. The question of the exact placement of the IED is a completely different kind of conclusion, based on mathematical modelling of an explosion and on a limited series of tests. There's room for debate here, and all we're saying is that given the margin of error it's illegitimate to rule out an explosion in the bottom layer of luggage.
And the plot depended on no one being suspicious about a suspicious suitcase because no one had received a specific warning?
You're garbling what I said. Firstly, the case didn't look suspicious. It had a bit of security tape on it and was loaded the way baggage handlers would load a case. It's only from our vantage point that it becomes as suspicious as hell because no-one remembered loading it.
Secondly, I'd say the plan was to place the case directly in AVE4041 while no-one was around. If for some reason the case had ended up being x-rayed, the radio disguise might well have worked because the warning from Frankfurt had not been passed on. The gang, having inside information, would have been aware of this.
So the plot didn't depend on the absence of a specific warning. That just increased it chances of success in the (unlikely) event of the handlers being unusually diligent and x-raying the bag.
"And even if the hole was big enough to destroy the plane, wouldn't the cockpit have detached to the side with the hole with debris entering engine 2, rather than to the cargo door side and engine 3?"
ReplyDelete"I don't know enough about aviation to answer this. Trouble is I suspect you don't either."
This is not a matter of knowing about aviation. It is a matter of understanding, that there are people who will make up any argument they want, without the slightest attempt to substantiate any part of it or its premises, neither by argumentation based on logic, nor by pointing to examples, let alone statistics.
They will put any importance into this argument, and repeat it endlessly at any occasion, as they never felt proven wrong.
This is not surprising. Much more surprising is, that there are people to take them seriously.
- - -
BTW, I would like to announce my agreement towards the fact that Panam 103 was not brought down by an IED.
Because, if an IED had been used -
- more people have been found with ruptured eardrums.
- the windows would have exploded too.
- a receipt for the purchase for explosives had been found somewhere, given the huge investigation.
- easily melting objects in nearby suitcases would have been melted, but there is no report of that.
- there would be traces from strongly elevated acidous gas levels as a result of the explosion.
- the plane would first have broken in two parts.
- the nose would have broken towards the explosion. (Or upwards, downwards, any other direction than was the actual case.)
- at least 16,7 kg would have been needed for the damage caused.
- more fragments would have been detected in the engines.
- we would have found very small unused pieces of Semtex and the detonator.
- authorities would have called it a 'bomb', not an IED
- the military's heat monitors would have detected it.
- well, it wouldn't have been used at all, as the result would be much too uncertain. Hijacking the plane is a much more sure method.
In addition proper explosives are too hard to get hold of, and need expert handling.
There are many more arguments, but this should suffice for considerable time.
The real reason for the crash was metal fatigue in the fuselage - a completely simple and rational reason - the fact of which would have been so damning for Boeng that evidence was made up to support a bomb-theory.
I sincerely hope that all this will be discussed by qualified posters and be brought up by JfM when ever the chance comes.
Remember always to keep an open mind.
Beautiful, SM! Reminds me of Swift's "A Modest Proposal" http://www.universalteacher.org.uk/prose/modestproposal.htm#full
ReplyDeleteWithout wishing to go off-topic can I ask what people think the impact will be, of the huge change coming in the Scottish Police Force set-up, on the on-going "investigation" into Lockerbie being handled currently by Dumfries and Galloway?
ReplyDeleteThe reason I ask is that you wrote recently, Rolfe, about the case needing fresher, more clever and younger minds in the investigation, or words to that effect. (I can't remember the exact quote but it jumped out at me.) I'm wondering whether, even if we got that, those minds wouldn't just protect their own and simply go with the old findings?
Also, even if we got that, would they not be kept in their place by a Crown Office that is rabidly defending the original verdict?
Or do you think the Team currently involved will simply be left to continue their work undisturbed by the merger of all eight forces in Scotland into one?
Yes indeed, that gave me a smile!
ReplyDeleteAs I said to Quincey Riddle the other day, in relation to someone else with an idee fixe over an implausible and evidence-free theory who was putting forward rather similar arguments - if we can't trust any of the evidence at all, and indeed we must assume that it's all false, I suppose it was probably a DC10 that crashed? On Torthorwald? Due to a bird strike in the port engine? Ah, that'll be it.
I know some people feel that posters like Dave, who continually post free-associating nonsense which they appear to be making up as they go along, with no apparent knowledge of the actual facts of the case, may be doing this deliberately to disrupt the discussion.
I don't think so. I don't think it would be an effective way of doing it. If you look at the discussion, far more people have posted fact-based well-reasoned arguments to rebut Dave's word-salad than would have posted such arguments spontaneously. I think Dave is what he seems. Someone who has only the most superficial knowledge of the case, but who has become enchanted with what he sees as an attractive and rather quirky alternative theory. Rather than acknowledge that that theory is as full of holes as a Swiss cheese, he amuses himself by posting a stream of internally contradictory what-if speculation to distract from his own lack of critical thinking skills.
There's only one person on this blog I truly suspect of trying to disrupt the discussion for ulterior motives, and it's not Dave. Talking of Swiss cheese, and all that.
Jo, I'm cross-posting with you I think. You ask questions I don't have the answers to. I think Baz was implying in another thread that policemen know where the boundaries are and won't make the sort of waves that will impair their promotion chances. And we all know what happened to Shirley McKee over a trivial little incident that shouldn't have taken ten minutes to correct. If they can destroy Shirley's career over that, what could they do to someone who started getting awkward over something really important?
ReplyDeleteIt would be nice to think the police was full of open minds just gagging to take on board a new and illuminating insight into an old and controversial case. But I think realistically we have to accept that it ain't necessarily so.
As regards the way the plane broke up and which engine received the debris, I recall that there was confusion and misunderstanding about this when the AAIB people first started to piece the thing back together. It had been assumed that the hole was at the opposite side from where it actually turned out to be, because of which engine was affected, or something like that.
ReplyDeleteAs I recall, when they progressed further with the reconstruction it was recognised that there had been an anomalous effect caused by the 90 mph gale that was blowing at 31,000 feet that night. The gale was blowing at right angles to the plane's course (that was exactly why it was on that course, because the same gale would have been a headwind on the usual flight path), and had sent debris in an unexpected direction.
Some people, and here I'm not just getting at Dave because he's not the only one, can't accept that there is a degree of "fog of war" surrounding early reports and even early conclusions relating to a disaster such as this one. It can't be that the investigators made a simple error in the early stage which they later corrected - oh no, it's got to be a cover-up!
I see the same thing with early reports of the actual crash. The noise and the confusion in the darkness at the time were extreme. In particular people who were inside their homes often misinterpreted where the sound was coming from. People outside caught vague glimpses of things falling through the darkness for a second or two, and misinterpreted what they saw.
In the morning it was clear with the daylight more or less what had happened. Also the ATC records and radar traces and so on showed what had happened. But before that, reporters were taking statements from people who had been at the middle distance (those right in the middle were in no condition to be talking to the press), and ran these stories in the Thursday morning papers. So papers printed before the sun had risen on the scene have tales of the plane coming in from several impossible directions, including one guy who insists it was still intact when it glided over the A74 from west to east, and one who says it hit a hilltop to the east of the town but sort of bounced off and continued on its westerly course.
There are people who believe all this implicitly, and insist that the Air Traffic Controllers who recorded the plane's actual course and saw it break up in front of their eyes at cruising height right there on the radar screen are all lying. They're supposed to be in the pay of the New World Order or the Illuminati or something.
Dave's just one of that sort.
Pete said:
ReplyDeleteDave, why not check the facts before you post? John Bedford was clear about this extra case and how it was positioned. And Amarjit Sidhu, who loaded the baggage transferred from Pan Am 103A on top of it, confirmed this.
A third person also confirmed it. Another baggage handler, Tarlochan Sahota, was asked to to and look into the container during the time it was sitting outside Walker's office, to check that there was enough room left to allow it to be used for the Frankfurt luggage. He also confirmed the arrangement of the cases as Bedford had described, more or less. He specifically confirmed that the floor of the container was covered but there were no cases on the second layer. Bedford and Sidhu both said the same - a row upright across the back and two flat side-by-side at the front.
Sidhu just said the front two cases were "dark", but bear in mind he was outside in the dark when he saw them, as opposed to Bedford being in a lit shed, so he would have had little perception of colour.
The totality of this evidence shows pretty clearly that nobody tampered with the container or the arrangement of the luggage between the time Bedford left it outside Walker's office, and the time Sidhu started to chuck the Frankfurt cases on top. Which is helpful, because it fills in another time period.
Bedford, Sahota and Sidhu were the three baggage handlers who were asked to carry out a trial loading exercise on 25th January 1989. Each one was given a pile of random luggage and asked to put whatever he liked in the container to make it look as much like the way he remembered AVE4041 to have been on the afternoon of 21st December. Quoting John Ashton, all of them put either seven or eight cases in the container.
All were certain the floor had been completely covered. Nobody could completely cover the floor with only four cases in the row across the back - it needed at least five to make the 62-inch width look complete. That is, with the two at the front, seven cases in all.
When the final report on the Heathrow interline passengers was complete, it became clear that there should only have been six cases in the container at that point.
Pete, I agree I’m not an aviation expert, but why not ask some experts about the way the cock-pit detached from the plane to see if it fits your theory?
ReplyDeleteAnd SM, I’m surprised you think saying ‘the hole did it’ is explanation enough, but otherwise a good effort, although you forgot to mention Rolfe’s green lizards?
Hi Dave!
ReplyDeleteYou wrote:
"Pete, I agree I’m not an aviation expert, but why not ask some experts about the way the cock-pit detached from the plane to see if it fits your theory?"
Cool! :-) Whatever I may say about your debating qualities, you will never hear me accuse you of 'lack of consistency'!
I suddenly come to think about a game we had in the earliest school years.
We'd find some victim, accuse him some something horrible, usually a bit on the absurd side, and upon his denial we'd all point at him, shouting "Prove it! Prove it!".
But one day somebody felt intimidated and complained to mom and dad, and some spoil-joy teacher with authority warned us, and taught us about 'the burden of proof'.
Dammit. It was much easier - and fun - before.
- - -
Jo G said...
"Without wishing to go off-topic..."
That one made my day.
Thanks also to Robert for the link to Jonathan Swift's brilliant suggestion.
He may have felt the same way as you, Dave: here you come with a genuinely good idea - and all you find is a wall of stubborn conservatism from traditional-thinkers!
Pete, is there an innocent explanation for the Heathrow break-in and mysterious suitcase?
ReplyDeleteWas the break-in actually a break-out by workers taking a short cut home late at night?
And did they inform security of the broken padlock so that it could be replaced and is this why the matter wasn’t taken further?
And could the mysterious suitcase be a smuggled suitcase that was put in its specific spot so that it could be easily identified and unloaded last at the other end?
You say it’s highly unlikely that an IED detonator could survive or be found after the explosion considering the plane’s location. I agree, but without it, its existence is speculation.
You say 450g of Semtex was involved, but say only traces of Semtex was detected on debris and baggage remains. Are you sure it was Semtex and if so wouldn’t you expect to find more than a trace and could these traces be the result of other things in the plane exploding?
But if the trace residue is so small is it proof that 450g of Semtex was used or are we back to speculation?
This is why an examination of how the cock-pit detached from the frame is necessary to confirm an IED explanation.
Also some have said the State wouldn’t blame an IED for a simple accident?
But it would not be a simple accident if it was due to a design fault that was known to the airline and Government.
This would not just be embarrassing it would have required large compensation payments and put Pan Am out of business.
And this would have opened up the protected American market to international competition.
Claiming a ‘bomb’ was responsible provided time for American airlines to re-tool and stay in business.
And this does not need a vast conspiracy to hide the truth, just the failure to hold a public inquiry will do.
This would not just be embarrassing it would have required large compensation payments and put Pan Am out of business.
ReplyDeleteI suppose it escaped your notice that in the actual real world we inhabit, Pan Am was indeed held to be at fault in the disaster and required to pay out a large sum of money in compensation, which - put the airline out of business.
That worked well!
Lots of 747s still flying. Have you any evidence of the massive engineering effort put in to rectify this design fault, without anyone even noticing what was being done or remarking on it? Were all 747s mysteriously out of service in 1989?
Ray Manly described the break-in as the worst security breach he had encountered in 20 years, and was quite clear that the break-in was from landside to airside rather than the other way around. I do think it's sweet the way Dave uncritically believes all the retcon effort that went into trying to make the broken padlock seem innocuous, after it was realised what a horrendous boo-boo had been made in not acting on Manly's report at the time. Too trusting and innocent!
The break-in is a bit peripheral, though. As the Zeist appeal judges noted, the break-in was actually unnecessary for the plan to have worked. There's no question there were other ways of getting that suitcase airside. It's just that, knowing about the break-in, it seems vaguely likely this was how it was done. If there had been no break-in, however, the basic argument remains unchanged.
There is no innocent explanation (or even non-explosive explanation) for the Bedford suitcase, because it reconciles to the suitcase identified by forensics as containing the bomb. Clearly and unambiguously. There was a suitcase in that position at Heathrow, which does not reconcile to any item of legitimate passenger luggage. Nor does it reconcile to anything found on the ground, apart from the bomb suitcase.
QED.
Add to that the incontrovertible evidence of a Semtex explosion having occurred within baggage container AVE4041, in exactly the position where that suitcase was loaded, and we're done, really.
SM
ReplyDelete"Jo G said...
"Without wishing to go off-topic..."
That one made my day."
: )
Once Pan Am was the premier international American ‘state’ airline, but was struggling at the time and big factors other than, but including Lockerbie led to its final demise.
ReplyDeleteHowever the cover story was not primarily made to protect Pan Am but Boeing and the American airline industry.
True accidents happen and are overcome, but in the short term such accidents can be very damaging, because they can require the grounding of aircraft and the loss of brand status.
Fortunately design faults are not necessarily dangerous, the risk is greater in old planes, and can be easily rectified, but it takes time.
Rolfe, you say Ray Manly said it was the worst breach he had encountered in 20 years. If so it is unlikely to be the modus operandi in an IED plot, because it was soon detected.
And please can you confirm how much Semtex residue was found on the remains of the Bedford suitcase and contents and other baggage and debris?
We need a special thread for "previously whacked moles".
ReplyDeleteAs to the amount of explosives residue, the answer is, "sufficient". An explosive device exploded within a suitcase in the bottom front left-hand corner of baggage container AVE4041, puncturing the hull and causing rapid explosive decompression, just like pricking a balloon. The evidence of that happening is overwhelming, as has been confirmed multiple times.
Whether or not the Heathrow break-in was related to the planting of the device is really neither here nor there. It's mainly relevant because the report of the break-in was buried at an early stage and then not disclosed to the defence. If there had been no break-in, the case for the Heathrow introduction of the bomb would still be exactly as it is.
I suppose Dave's response, on hearing that an acquaintance had been injured in a car accident, would be to declare that he doesn't think it likely that person would have been driving down that street, and he's a careful driver anyway, so obviously it can't have happened.
I thought Rolfe's initial comment was a bit optimistic. "They can't procrastinate for ever". Why not?
ReplyDeleteThe script will stay the same - i.e. three Judges - five Appeal Judges, the SCCRC, several Lord Advocates ect.
They might also point out that most critics of the official version claim the bomb arrived on PA103A.
Can senior Police Officers be thick and/or incompetent? Yes of course. I don't know if Orr was just a professional bungler, or a man out of his depth, but I am pretty confident he made a colossal blunder assuming the objective was to solve the case (in the normal sense).
Leaving the Scots in charge was not only practical but good politics when the Tories had to throw money at Prestwich to keep a single MP.
Orr's (false) claim that the first seven bags were Interline bags comes from the minutes of a conference. Presumably he did not make clear at that conference that one of these supposed Interline bags was a bronze samsonite!
Yet Orr's obvious blunder was supported to the hilt by the Crown Office.
Could the defence at Camp Zeist have done more? Possibly but I suspect they took the old-fashioned view that it was up to the prosecution to prove their case which they manifestly did not. Still the Trial Judges bent over backwards to "eliminate" the Bedford brown samsonite speculating that it had been moved "out of harms way." (I suspect their attitude was conditioned by their loathing of "Camp Zeist".) Of course if it had been it would have been recovered and linked to a specific passenger. Curiously the Judges "elimination" of Heathrow completely undermined the logic by which Orr had "eliminated" Heathrow.
If Ray Manley had given evidence at Zeist would it have made any difference? I suspect not a jot.
I do not see the alleged "suppression" of Ray Maley's statement as an issue.
I figured out the primary suitcase was introduced at Heathrow, or rather that the purported elimination of the Bedford bag was just plain wrong in 1996. I didn't keep this to myself but who was interested? Nobody.
Did Megrahi drop his appeal, not as part of a deal, but because he understood it was going nowhere?
Did his defence team even raise the question of Heathrow ingestion with the SCCRC or did they leave that to the towering intellects of Charles Norrie and Patrick Haseldine? I think the revelation that Tony Kelly employed the researcher of the Maltese Double cross and co-author (with his friend Ian Ferguson) of "Cover-up of Convenience" may cast some light on Megrahi's decision.
Dear Rolfe, I say ‘Semtex residue’ and you reply ‘explosive residue’?
ReplyDeleteI ask how much was detected and on what remains and you say ‘sufficient’ for the former and fail to answer the later!
Why the evasion?
For more information read internet site: ‘Pan Am 103, scientific scrutiny, the Firm’, Scotland’s Independent Lawyers magazine.
Oh dear. One conspiracy theorist calls to another, I see.
ReplyDeleteBaz said:
ReplyDeleteI thought Rolfe's initial comment was a bit optimistic. "They can't procrastinate for ever". Why not?
Because they have had a move made against them that they have no choice but to respond to.
The script will stay the same - i.e. three Judges - five Appeal Judges, the SCCRC, several Lord Advocates ect.
Not now the identities of the accused have changed. A modification to the script is necessary, at the very least.
They might also point out that most critics of the official version claim the bomb arrived on PA103A.
Is that actually the case? Certainly not the critics I've encountered, which range from rational to fruitbat.
Can senior Police Officers be thick and/or incompetent? Yes of course. I don't know if Orr was just a professional bungler, or a man out of his depth, but I am pretty confident he made a colossal blunder assuming the objective was to solve the case (in the normal sense).
[Rolfe checks calendar.] Ah, it's an odd-numbered day. I agree with you then. On odd-numbered days I ascribe this to a bunch of cops who couldn't find their arses with both hands and an Ordnance Survey map, who were catastrophically out of their depth.
On even-numbered days I ascribe this to a deliberate conspiracy to do everything from keep control of the case of the century and protect BAA's share price, to covering up some appalling blunder of the US security services.
Leaving the Scots in charge was not only practical but good politics when the Tories had to throw money at Prestwich to keep a single MP.
Orr's (false) claim that the first seven bags were Interline bags comes from the minutes of a conference. Presumably he did not make clear at that conference that one of these supposed Interline bags was a bronze samsonite!
No, he didn't. Nobody in that investigation knew the bottom-layer suitcase they were all busy ruling out had been described as a brown Samsonite hardshell, and had appeared mysteriously in the container while the loader was away on a break. (The German cops knew, because they were given copies of all the statements and had them translated, but when they came calling to ask what that brown hardshell had turned out to be, at first the Scottish cops they asked had no idea what they were talking about, and then they were given the brush-off.)
He also didn't tell anyone about the break-in. He didn't approach BAA to ask if there had been any security alerts, BAA came forward with Manly's report. So he asked the Met to interview Manly, and once he got Manly's statement, he buried it. It was never referred to again. Manly wasn't even re-interviewed.
Is this just incompetence?
Yet Orr's obvious blunder was supported to the hilt by the Crown Office.
Maybe they had no option, even if they realised. I suspect they didn't have any detail about the inquiry until they were putting together the case for the FAI, in mid 1990. The investigation was well committed to Malta by then. For whatever reason, the decision was taken to try to discredit Bedford's evidence. Andrew Hardie worked hard to persuade him he hadn't seen a brown or maroon Samsonite after all.
Could the defence at Camp Zeist have done more? Possibly but I suspect they took the old-fashioned view that it was up to the prosecution to prove their case which they manifestly did not. Still the Trial Judges bent over backwards to "eliminate" the Bedford brown samsonite speculating that it had been moved "out of harms way." (I suspect their attitude was conditioned by their loathing of "Camp Zeist".) Of course if it had been it would have been recovered and linked to a specific passenger. Curiously the Judges "elimination" of Heathrow completely undermined the logic by which Orr had "eliminated" Heathrow.
ReplyDeleteThe judges were determined to convict, that's for sure. I kind of hope it was political, because if that's a sample of the reasoning unbiassed Scottish judges are capable of, maybe we all need to emigrate.
Indeed, was the Heathrow interline luggage rearranged when the Frankfurt luggage was added? It was such an important point, it's kind of funny nobody thought of asking the man who actually did it.
If Ray Manley had given evidence at Zeist would it have made any difference? I suspect not a jot.
I do not see the alleged "suppression" of Ray Maley's statement as an issue.
Who knows? There has to be some tipping point where the see-saw swings. More interesting I suspect would have been if Manly had heard about the FAI and insisted on giving evidence there in 1990. But really, it's mainly an issue because it shows the investigators and/or the Crown were up to no good.
I figured out the primary suitcase was introduced at Heathrow, or rather that the purported elimination of the Bedford bag was just plain wrong in 1996. I didn't keep this to myself but who was interested? Nobody.
And this surprises you why? You spotted it. Nobody else did. Have a coconut.
Did Megrahi drop his appeal, not as part of a deal, but because he understood it was going nowhere?
No. By all accounts he was very very keen on that appeal and very reluctant to drop it. In any case, it wasn't going nowhere. Despite their protestations, I suspect the Crown were fairly resigned to losing that appeal, on the grounds that the Gauci identification was unreliable. And then they were going to lament that the stupid Yanks had given the man all that money meaning the court had to allow the appeal on a technicality.
They would then have continued just as they're continuing now, running round Libya and Malta trying to find these evil people who really did put the bomb on KM180 (with heavy implications that of course Megrahi was involved, it was just a technicality).
Did his defence team even raise the question of Heathrow ingestion with the SCCRC or did they leave that to the towering intellects of Charles Norrie and Patrick Haseldine? I think the revelation that Tony Kelly employed the researcher of the Maltese Double cross and co-author (with his friend Ian Ferguson) of "Cover-up of Convenience" may cast some light on Megrahi's decision.
It doesn't appear that they did. We get it that you don't have any time for John Ashton, you've made your point. However, Megrahi trusted him to write his biography, and as I said the clothes purchase thing would have swung the appeal anyway.
It seems that a certain ebol(a) was the prime mover in trying to rubbish the Malta evidence. He had the right idea, but the execution was quite mindbogglingly bad. All he did was get the SCCRC's backs up.
One wonders if that was the idea.
Baz
ReplyDelete"Did Megrahi drop his appeal, not as part of a deal, but because he understood it was going nowhere?"
I think quotes, direct quotes, which we have from Megrahi suggest he was determined to have his name cleared.
His illness was advancing remember and we have heard that he was told by Libyan aides that they had been told by MacAskill's people that the dropping of the appeal would assist in his release. Maggie Scott, his QC, told the court Megrahi had been told it would help with the release to drop the appeal. At that point, being so ill, did he have the fight, himself, to fight? Almost certainly not I would say. Would any of us in such circumstances? I think there had to have been pressure somewhere to make him drop the appeal.
The other clue was that not long after Mr MacAskill stepped in (again) to make sure any future new appeal wouldn't make it past a judge by stripping the SCCRC of its power to refer a case directly back to the appeal court. Job done.
"For more information read internet site: ‘Pan Am 103, scientific scrutiny, the Firm’, Scotland’s Independent Lawyers magazine."
ReplyDeleteUh-oh.
Dear Rolfe I do agree, ‘a hole appeared leading to rapid explosive decompression’ in a way that detached the cock-pit from the frame in 3 seconds!
ReplyDeleteAnd this rapid break-up was witnessed by traffic control and is proven by the absence of a distress signal from the Captain.
Therefore the question becomes how big was the hole and on what side or sides of the plane did it appear to inflict such damage, bearing in mind that explosive decompression can itself trigger off other explosions on the plane?
An examination of how the cock-pit detached and the debris trail would provide the answer?
Rolfe has said investigators initially thought the hole was on the cargo door side partly because of the debris entering engine 3, but then changed their minds saying the hole was on the other side and blaming the fierce wind for detaching the cock-pit to the cargo door rather than ‘Bedford suitcase’ side?
Unfortunately this explanation was not referenced to the AAIB report.
Dear Rolfe the legal and criminal profession deal with conspiracies every day which is presumably why you consider the Editor of the Firm a ‘conspiracy theorist’?
ReplyDeleteHowever if you mean the term in a derogatory way, then of course it applies to yourself as a defender of the ‘Bedford suitcase conspiracy theory’.
However whatever your views of the Editor it is irrational to infer that the reports on the Firm website are ‘conspiracy theories’ and therefore without merit.
It is also quite rude because most of those reports also appear on this blog which you are happy to appear on?
I referred to the ‘Pan Am 103 scientific scrutiny the Firm’ site simply because it listed the many reports together for convenience.
However it is notable that you played your ‘conspiracy theorists’ get out of jail free card, to evade again, my question about your evasive answers in an earlier post?
Dave, as you should have worked out long before now, appearance of an article or report on this blog in no way signals that I personally endorse it. The blog is intended as a resource and is not restricted to material with which I agree.
ReplyDeleteProfessor Robert Black, the Lockerbie Case is a very good resource and the blog discussion does throw up some interesting perspectives on the case that informs some and annoys others!
ReplyDeleteBut my point was not to say you personally support what appears, but that it is odd for a blogger on this site to denounce other sites for hosting reports that appear here.
Or put another way, if I had invited readers to read the reports on this site, would the response from Rolfe of “one conspiracy theorist calls to another” still be valid?
"But my point was not to say you personally support what appears, but that it is odd for a blogger on this site to denounce other sites for hosting reports that appear here."
ReplyDeleteWhat on earth is in the slightest degree odd about it? I post articles here, usually without comment from me, and encourage others to draw their own conclusions and, if so minded, share those conclusion in a blog comment. It is in no way odd for a reader to criticise such an article merely because it has been featured here. That is precisely what my readers are encouraged to do!
I've kind of lost track of what Dave is trying to say. I'm not entirely convinced he knows himself. Because I comment on this blog, that means I have to agree with everything in every article? Maybe even any article written by anyone whose writing has ever featured here? I doubt it.
ReplyDeleteThe Firm is characterised by the systematic promotion of a completely different conspiracy theory from John Barry Smith's. They can't both be true. I just find it interesting the way Dave is prepared to swallow way-out evidence-free theories he finds a bit shiny, with apparently no critical thought at all, and then spend so much time fighting against those who produce actual evidence for their proposals.
Dave, I'm getting tired of your constant evasion and shifting of your ground, as well as your repeated returning to assertions that have been shown repeatedly to be false.
Which side of the plane was the hole on, you ask? The side it turned out to be on when they put the bits back together. Why you imagine that the cockpit couldn't have detached due to a hole in one place, but would inevitably have detached due to a hole in a different place, is quite unclear to me.
You still haven't explained why there is incontrovertible evidence of an explosive device having detonated in the bottom front left-hand corner of baggage container AVE4041, inside one of the suitcases loaded in that position. By a staggering coincidence, that baggage container was loaded immediately behind to the hole they found in the hull of the plane. The positions lined up perfectly.
There were explosives-damaged fragments of the luggage container, and suitcases, and contents of suitcases, as well as that hole in the plane. Traces of the explosives which are found in the product called "Semtex" were found on all these items. These things were seen by numerous people, including the civilian volunteer searchers who brought them in, and the first of the items were brought in on 24th December.
So where is the evidence for any of your pet theories? And fair warning, if your reply has a question mark in it, I will not be responding.
Professor Robert Black, I agree it’s not odd for a reader to criticise or agree with an article that appears here or elsewhere.
ReplyDeleteBut it is odd (or a way to evade questions) for Rolfe to infer reports on other sites are for ‘conspiracy theorists’ and without merit, when this site hosts the same reports?
"But my point was not to say you personally support what appears, but that it is odd for a blogger on this site to denounce other sites for hosting reports that appear here."
ReplyDeleteMany of the items we comment on here involve articles from other "sites" like newspapers, here and elsewhere in the world, and from other internet sites too including Firm Magazine.
Comments lead from all of those things. Its how a blog works.
I'd also say that when it comes to the conviction of Megrahi the questions raised aren't mere "theories", far less "consiracy theories": they are backed by clear evidence starting right at the trial. You only have to check out the trial transcripts and you see judges reaching conclusions that were absolutely not supported by the evidence. The SCCRC didn't rule on a "theory" but on evidence.
Other information to emerge since their findings is evidence too, not theory.
Personally I have never become involved in the "technical" stuff concerning how the plane was actually brought down. That stuff, even reading it, creates a mental block that I have, despite many attempts, never managed to climb over so I can't comment on who is saying what in that part of the debate.
I have seen some items on Robert's blog that I did not like but I think it is a very good thing indeed that the blog here is a place where everything that is being said about Lockerbie and that conviction can be, pretty much, found. I took a wander through the blog myself, starting with the earliest post, just the other night and quite a few hours passed. It is packed with information of all sorts and that is a good thing. Indeed we've had some interesting visitors along the way too. It's in a healthy state I would say. I've been on other types of sites, say, that are political, and they are just a waste of time if the Blogger is of a particular persuasion and will not tolerate an opposing political view. That sort of approach kills any debate stone dead.
Pete said to Dave:
ReplyDeleteWhat you're apparently suggesting is either that all of these scientists were lying through their teeth, or that they all made a huge error which no reputable scientist has noticed or bothered to correct since. Are you serious?
That kind of encapsulates it. If Dave is serious and not just trolling, he'll answer. As in, an actual answer, as opposed to disingenuous questions designed to divert the discussion.
I wasn't aware that the identities of the accused had changed.
ReplyDeleteI suppose it is a matter of opinion as to why Megrahi dropped his appeal. It does seem to me bizarre that two of his defence teams would employ the researcher for the fraudulent "Maltese Double Cross" whose ludicrous claims provided straw men for the SCCRC to demolish.
I thought Rolfe was referring to himself with that quip about one conspiracy theorist to another!
I'm curious who these critics are that Rolfe has encountered who support the idea that the primary suitcase was introduced at Heathrow?
Not David Leppard, Juval Aviv, John Pilger, John Ashton, Ian Ferguson,Tam Dalyell, Robert Black, Robert Fisk, Alan Francovich, Heather Mills, the crew at the Herald, Oswald Le Winter, Jim Swire, Gareth Peirce, Lester Coleman, Paul Foot or even Ludwig de Braeckeleer. (Until I pointed it out to him.)
Those in favour Charles Norrie and Patrick Haseldine whose accounts I for one find deeply flawed.
I'm not sure where Susan Lindauer or the brilliant Sharyn Bovat stand on the issue.
I do not think this was "some appalling blunder by the US Security Services" but that the bombing was at best tolerated and at worst planned for.
David Wolchover largely got it right until he started making claims unsupported by evidence.
Well I figured it out in 1996 but obviously as Dr Kerr has now come to the same conclusion the Scottish Legal establishment and the Scottish, British and US Governments are going to fold.
"I suppose it is a matter of opinion as to why Megrahi dropped his appeal."
ReplyDeleteHave to disagree again there Baz. Megrahi was adamant that he wanted to continue with the appeal. It was an important development to say the least and those six grounds were there just waiting to be examined. He had no need to abandon it and had it been heard the chances of his conviction being overturned had to have been pretty high. With compassionate release allowing him to both go home and have his appeal heard there was no reason for him to drop it.
His own QC told the court, when she withdrew his appeal, that Megrahi had been told it would improve his chances of being released. We learned later that this advice came from the Lord Advocate's office via Libyan aides. I think it is fairly clear there was political pressure applied. We saw how quickly MacAskill moved later to lock the door against any new appeal making it to the appeal court by putting a judge in the way of that.
Dear Rolfe, rudeness, evasions, dissembling and the regular use of the ‘green lizard’ get out of jail free card when faced with expert reports that challenge the official line are all characteristics of a troll!
ReplyDeleteRing any bells?
And the, “are you saying all the experts are wrong” put down, implies that all the experts agree, except they don’t and probably never will!
Apologies:
ReplyDelete" We learned later that this advice came from the Lord Advocate's office via Libyan aides."
That should say from the office of the Justice Minister.
13/1/13 11.05 am
Not going to answer, Dave? Your choice.
ReplyDeleteI omitted to mention from my list of critics who had nothing to say about Heathrow JfM committee members Andrew C. Kilgore and his protoge Warren Russell Howe, Christine Graham MSP (who ludicrously "outed" "Abu Elias" and the batty Angifaarn blog.
ReplyDelete"Megrahi was adamant he wanted to continue with his appeal". (Joe G.) On what evidence? I recall Megrahi was going leave Jim Swire material after his death proving his innocence. Presumably that never panned out either.
His appeal was going nowhere - they were just keeping the meter ticking.