Saturday, 26 January 2013

"Justice was never done"

[Destroying Libya and World Order: The Three-Decade US Campaign to Reverse the Qaddafi Revolution is the title of a book by Professor Francis A Boyle which is due to be published on 28 February 2013.  A blurb on the Amazon website reads as follows:]

It took three decades for the United States government -- spanning and working assiduously over five different presidential administrations (Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, Bush II, and Obama) -- to overthrow and reverse the 1969 Qaddafi Revolution in order to resubjugate Libya, seize control over its oil fields, and dismantle its Jamahiriya system. This book tells the story of what happened, why it happened, and what was both wrong and illegal with what happened from the perspective of an international law professor and lawyer who tried for over three decades to stop it. Francis Boyle, who served as Qaddafi's lawyer at the World Court, provides a comprehensive history and critique of American foreign policy toward Libya from when the Reagan administration came to power in January of 1981 up to the NATO war on Libya that ultimately achieved the US goal of regime change. He deals with the repeated series of military conflicts and crises between the United States and Libya over the Gulf of Sidra and the fraudulent US claims of Libyan instigation of international terrorism during the eight years of the neoconservative Reagan administration. He reveals the flimsy factual basis and legal machinations behind the Lockerbie bombing allegations against Libya initiated by the Bush administrations I and II. In 2011, under the guise of the UN R2P "responsibility to protect” doctrine newly-contrived to provide legal cover for Western intervention into third world countries, and override the UN Charter commitment to prevention of aggression and state sovereignty, the NATO assault led to 50,000 Libyan casualties and the complete breakdown of law and order. Boyle analyzes and debunks the doctrines of R2P and its immediate predecessor, "humanitarian intervention”, in accordance with the standard recognized criteria of international law. This book provides an excellent case study of the conduct of US foreign policy as it relations to international law.

[An excerpt from the book on the same website reads as follows:]

After the Bush Senior administration came to power, in late 1991 they opportunistically accused Libya of somehow being behind the 1988 bombing of the Pan American jet over Lockerbie, Scotland. I advised Libya on this matter from the very outset. Indeed, prior thereto I had predicted to Libya that they were going to be used by the United States government as a convenient scapegoat over Lockerbie for geopolitical reasons. Publicly sensationalizing these allegations,in early 1992 President Bush Senior then mobilized the US Sixth Fleet off the coast of Libya on hostile aerial and naval maneuvers in preparation for yet another military attack exactly as the Reagan administration had done repeatedly throughout the 1980s. I convinced Colonel Qaddafi to let us sue the United States and the United Kingdom at the International Court of Justice in The Hague over the Lockerbie bombing allegations; to convene an emergency meeting of the World Court; and to request the Court to issue the international equivalent of temporary restraining orders against the United States and the United Kingdom that they not attack Libya again as they had done before. After we had filed these two World Court lawsuits, President Bush Senior ordered the Sixth Fleet to stand down. There was no military conflict between the United States and Libya. There was no war. No one died. A tribute to international law, the World Court, and their capacity for the peaceful settlement of international disputes. Pursuant to our World Court lawsuits, in February of 1998 the International Court of Justice rendered two Judgments against the United States and the United Kingdom that were overwhelmingly in favor of Libya on the technical jurisdictional and procedural elements involved in these two cases. It was obvious from reading these Judgments that at the end of the day Libya was going to win its World Court lawsuits against the United States and the United Kingdom over the substance of their Lockerbie bombing allegations. These drastically unfavorable World Court Judgments convinced the United States and the United Kingdom to offer a compromise proposal to Libya whereby the two Libyan nationals accused by the US and the UK of perpetrating the Lockerbie bombing would be tried before a Scottish Court sitting in The Hague, the seat of the World Court. Justice was never done. This book tells the inside story of why not.

63 comments:

ebol said...


MISSION LOCKERBIE, 2013 (google translation, german,english):

Hello Mr Paul McBridge QC your blockade of the truth about the manipulated¨ circumstantial evidence of the MST-13 timer fragment (PT/35) is obvious. If you feel you so safe, why you not support a forensic investigation (legal assistance) of the fragments PT/35; PT/35(b) and
DP/31(a)?
In two new documentary film projects over the "Lockerbie Affair", from Ken Dornstein and BBC, Edwin Bollier (MEBO Ltd) demonstrated that can proved, that the fragment (PT/35) from 8 layers of fiberglass is fabricated (Prototype) and thus not derived from a MST-13 timer with 9 layers of fiberglass, supplied to Libya. The Scottish fraud, with the manipulated MST-13 timer "circuit board", is the only circumstantial evidence which implicated Libya in the "Pan Am 103 bombing"...

Mr McBridge QC - your offensive attitude in favor of the Scottish Parliament will soon collapse miserably !
see: dispute over the evidence MST-13 timer (PT/35) between Cristine Grahame MSP - and Paul McBride QC:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9aIFu8RGd7I
+++

In german language:

Hallo Mr Paul McBridge Ihre Blockade gegen der Wahrheit über das manipulierte¨ Indizien Beweisstück des MST-13 Timerfragment (PT/35) ist offensichtlich. Wenn Sie sich derart sicher fühlen, wieso unterstützen Sie nicht eine forensische Nachprüfung (Rechtshilfe) der Fragmente PT/35; PT/35(b) und DP731(a) ?.
In zwei neuen Dokumentarfilmprojekte, über die "Lockerbie-Affäre", von Ken Dornstein und BBC, demonstrierte Edwin Bollier (MEBO Ltd), dass man beweisen kann, dass das Fragment (PT/35) aus 8 Lagen Fiberglas hergestellt wurde (Prototype) und somit nicht von einem nach Libyen gelieferten MST-13 Timer mit 9 Lagen Fiberglas abstammt. Der Schottische Betrug, mit dem manipulierten MST-13 Timer "Circuit Board", ist der einzige Indizienbeweis welcher Libyen in das "PanAm 103 Bombing" verwickelt.

Mr McBridge Ihre abwehrende Haltung zu Gunsten des 'Scottish Parliament' wird bald jämmerlich zusammenbrechen !
see: Streitgespräch über das Beweisstück MST-13 Timer (PT/35) zwischen Cristine Grahame MSP - und Paul McBride QC:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9aIFu8RGd7I

by Edwin Bollier, MEBO Telecommunication Ltd. Switzerland, URL: www.lockerbie.ch

Robert Black said...

Edwin, Paul McBride QC has been dead for 10 months.

ebol said...

Dear Professor Robert Black, thanks for the sad information.

Sorry it was not known that QC Paul McBride was died.
Our late condolence from Edwin and Mahnaz Bollier, MEBO Ltd. Switzerland. URL: www.lockerbie.ch

baz said...

Professor Boyle's book seems like my cup of tea. I would also recommend "Lockerbie & Libya a Study in International Relations" by Matar, Khalil and Thabit, Robert (McFarland and Co.) and my own modest, if presciently, titled article "Lockerbie - Criminal Justice or War by Other Means" at part III of "The Masonic Verses".

Dave said...

The recent events in Mali (which Cameron cast as a clash of civilisations, a neo-con idea), has been linked to the destruction of Libya because the network of alliances that had maintained order in the Sahel was broken too.

This point was raised in Parliament and in response Cameron defended regime change in Libya, citing again, Gaddafi’s responsibility for Lockerbie!

It’s shameless really.

Robert Black said...

The House of Commons exchange that Dave refers to can be read here (columns 25 to 43): http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmhansrd/cm130121/debtext/130121-0001.htm

Dave said...

I overheard Cameron’s comment on a news item and assumed he was blaming Gaddafi for Lockerbie. I’m sure others must have thought this too. Indeed that was the motive behind his words.

And it is notable that this was the bit the BBC chose to broadcast from a long question and answer session, about events in North Africa.

But having read the Hansard text it’s another case of an inference of Libyan guilt rather than a specific accusation.

Lockerbie is inserted within other accusations and becomes ‘guilt by association’!

This deceit has always been the way the Government has handled their accusation of Libyan guilt and allows the media to spin the Ministers words to mislead the public without Ministers having to actually lie to Parliament!

See: Government Lies about Libya – Labour & Trade Union Review 2004

And this is why the IED euphemism is used rather than bomb and why Rolfe spins ‘trace elements of ingredients of semtex’ as incontrovertible evidence of semtex?

Rolfe said...

Oh, Dave, Dave. You were doing so well until that last sentence.

What blasted the baggage container and the suitcases inside it if it wasn't a Semtex IED? We've waited a long time for your answer.

SM said...

"...why the IED euphemism is used rather than bomb..."

Among the oddest and poorest argumentation I have seen.

Yes, it was also on the page you referred to earlier - that "if it had been a bomb authorities would have called it a bomb" - and as they didn't, something fishy is going on!

Realities are, that an IED is simply a more precise classification. A "bomb" is everything made to explode, like grenades dropped by an airplane, something factory made.

It is usually good language to be more precise. Saying "he came in a taxi" is usually preferable to "he came in a vehicle". Comprendo?

And Dave, this is why "an IED" is used. Also in the mainstream press. You can google for IED plus the name of any newspaper, like "guardian" and "wasthington post".
Thousands of articles using IED.

Do you conclude that there is something fishy about the story, and maybe the soldiers wasn't killed by something explosive, but the cars brakes failed?

People accepting arguments like yours - while discarding blown-up suitcases and baggage containers - will find it easy to support any theory.

- - -

Ooops. Here we go again... :-)

Dave said...

Of course the use of the term IED rather than bomb is not evidence that there was no bomb/IED.

But when considered with the other evidence, or lack of evidence, it does take on a significance in official reports that is revealing.

Particularly as it is easier to allege an IED rather than a bomb, because the chances of IED remains being found are in the circumstances, non-existent.

Indeed in previous posts I have been told that “you would not expect the IED detonator to survive the explosion”. Yes but without the detonator remains, you have no IED evidence.

And then I’m told there is evidence of a semtex explosion. Except when pressed Rolfe says there is ‘evidence of trace elements of ingredients of semtex’.

This is why the matter is not as clear cut as some claim - and for them to explain.

Rolfe said...

We've explained the extensive evidence of blast-damaged blown-apart suitcases and a blast-damaged disintegrated baggage container.

You haven't.

David Howard said...

Dave, Lockerbie bombing: http://selectiveuseofpolygraphs.blogspot.com/

pete said...

Particularly as it is easier to allege an IED rather than a bomb, because the chances of IED remains being found are in the circumstances, non-existent.

Dave, please would you explain to us in words of one syllable the difference, as you understand it, between an IED and a bomb. Because I really can't get my head around the point you're making here.

Indeed in previous posts I have been told that “you would not expect the IED detonator to survive the explosion”. Yes but without the detonator remains, you have no IED evidence.

For heaven's sake, Dave!

(1) We have undeniable evidence of an explosion in the form of blast damage to the luggage, the container and that bloody great hole in the fuselage;

(2) We have evidence that the explosive agent was Semtex, and you don't find 450g lumps of Semtex innocently lying around in someone's personal baggage;

(3) The detonator of any explosive device would not survive the explosion, so it's pointless to argue from its absence. Semtex is extremely stable - it needs a detonator to make it explode. If there was an explosion, and if it was Semtex that exploded, then there was a detonator, and the explosion has to be deliberately caused.

(3) We also have pulverised remains of a radio-cassette recorder which had been intimately involved in the explosion. Khreesat was using devices of this type to disguise his IEDs. Not direct evidence of an IED, maybe, but certainly consistent with one.

And then I’m told there is evidence of a semtex explosion. Except when pressed Rolfe says there is ‘evidence of trace elements of ingredients of semtex’.

That's the same thing. Traces of explosive residue are found on objects involved in an explosion. The chemical composition of the residue is analysed, and the identity of the explosive agent is deduced. In this case the compounds identified in the residues are ingredients of Semtex.

Do you get it now?



Dave said...

Yes and now you need to explain how you conclude the blast damage was the result of a semtex IED, when only ‘trace elements of ingredients of semtex’ and no IED remains were found?

Dave said...

Pete, both Rolfe and SM have explained the difference between an IED and a bomb and the difference is revealing.

You may think the difference is academic, but for the purposes of this debate I agree with them.

The fact you are still confused confirms my point how the term IED has been successfully spun to mean bomb, without actually saying bomb.

The difference is, the component parts of an IED could be made of everyday items, but a bomb denotes military ordinance specially designed and made in a factory.

Therefore if an IED explodes (or the components parts of an ‘unassembled IED’ are destroyed in an explosion) the remains are not obviously part of an IED, whereas remains from a factory made bomb are clearly the remains of a factory made bomb.

Therefore you can easily allege an IED, because it can’t be proved or disproved because there are no IED remains - particularly in this case.

Therefore you would need additional evidence and allegedly this is the evidence of a semtex explosion.

But ‘trace elements of the ingredients of semtex’ is not the semtex evidence you think it is, because ingredients can be shared by many different things.

For example flour is an ingredient of bread, but also of cakes.

Therefore to believe the presence of flour must mean the presence of bread is just a case of reaching a conclusion to fit a theory.

Rolfe said...

That's forensics for you. These ARE the findings that lead forensics officers to the conclusion tha a Semtex IED was used. Unless you think the IRA never blew up anything and maybe it was a gas main went up in Warrington?

And how are you getting on with your explanation for the blasted-apart baggage container and the blasted-to bits suitcases and the 20 cm hole in the fuselage overlying where that baggage container was loaded?

'Cos there are multiple photos of all of these things, with police production labels and so on.

pete said...

Dave wrote: Yes and now you need to explain how you conclude the blast damage was the result of a semtex IED, when only ‘trace elements of ingredients of semtex’ and no IED remains were found?

Dave, will you please try to understand before one of us dies!

(Deep breath)

Ok, firstly: I'm really getting fed up of all this semantic wrangling and hair-splitting. Yes, we change the way we express things, partly to avoid monotonously repeating the same thing and partly to try to find a form of words you'll understand. It's not evasion, it's not back-tracking, it's just an attempt to communicate. An attempt which seems so far to have failed.

Secondly: the primary evidence for an explosion is the physical damage caused. Further to that, an explosive agent leaves traces of residue on surfaces. Analysis of this residue reveals which active ingredients were present, and therefore identifies the explosive used. In the case of Pan Am 103, traces of the active ingredients of Semtex (PETN and RDX) were found. There is no other plausible explanation for the presence of these compounds, hence we can say conclusively that the blast damage was caused by the detonation of Semtex.

Thirdly (I shouldn't have to repeat this, but I'm going to): Semtex isn't something you would find innocently among passengers' luggage. And it won't explode without a detonator. Therefore the explosion was intentional. In other words, there was an explosive device.

Fourthly (I shouldn't have to repeat this, either): please could you explain what you mean by `IED remains.' What exactly do you think would have been found if there had been an IED, the absence of which proves that there wasn't one?

An IED doesn't leave much behind - it's at the centre of a blast that reaches 5000 Celsius. We know that Marwan Khreesat used Toshiba radio-cassette recorders to disguise his IEDs, and a Toshiba radio-cassette recorder was blown to tiny fragments by the explosion on board Pan Am 103.

Finally, yes, I know this isn't really important, but would you mind awfully not putting a question mark at the end of a sentence unless it's a question? (Unless it's your way of telling us you're an Australian.)

Dave said...

Rolfe, there are websites ‘Pan Am 103 cockpit – technical theories about the crash’, that explain things better than I.

But it is for you prove the semtex IED conspiracy theory, not for me to explain the blast damage.

Just as in a fair trial, it was the prosecutions job to prove Megrahi’s guilt at Zeist, rather than for him to prove his innocence.

pete said...

Dave, I think our recent posts have crossed. Thanks for explaining what you mean by the difference between `IED' and `bomb'. I agree with your definitions, but I don't agree that there is any `spin' involved. The word `bomb' is often used more loosely to mean an explosive device used to cause death or damage. Letter-bombs were a big scare at one time. No-one thought they contained a massive great metal cylinder with fins on the end. Whenever terrorist `bombings' are reported, it's generally understood that the bomb in question is a home-made - improvised - explosive device.

We're also in agreement that an IED leaves very little evidence behind. I've explained in my previous post why the evidence in the case of Pan Am 103 points to an IED.

Your flour analogy is only valid if the chemical traces have a credible alternative explanation, bearing in mind the context. In this case there is evidence of an explosion, and on explosively-damaged surfaces there are traces of PETN and RDX - the two explosive substances that are combined with plasticisers to make Semtex. For my money that's evidence of a Semtex explosion which, as I've said, has to have been deliberately caused.

Dave said...

Pete, a semtex explosion capable of destroying a Boeing 747 in 3 seconds would leave more than ‘trace elements of the ingredients of semtex’.

And there are innocuous explanations for trace (extremely small) elements that give rise to reasonable doubt about a semtex explosion.

These explanations can be found on the website previously mentioned, under finding the bomb.

Rolfe said...

Pete, it most certainly is for you to explain the blast damage. There is no physical evidence that is not explained by the hypothesis of a Semtex IED hidden in a radio-cassette recorder, wrapped in a blue Babygro, inside a bronze Samsonite suitcase on the bottom level of baggage container AVE4041, at the front left-hand side.

You are just handwaving away a mountain of stuff that contradicts your pet theory.

Rolfe said...

Sorry, that last post was addressed to Dave, not Pete, obviously.

Dave said...

Rolfe, the same outcome can have different causes and you need to produce evidence for your trace theory, before asking others to disprove it?

Rolfe said...

There were 26 suitcases showing physical blast damage, including two that were absolutely pulverised. There was a baggage container which showed physical evidence of being blown apart from the inside. There were clothes and other personal items with evidence of blast damage, including fragments of certain clothes blasted into other items, and fragments of the disintegrated suitcases blasted into clothes.

There was a neatly-petalled hole in the hull of the plane, at a spot which perfectly aligned with the known loading position of that baggage container.

And, as Pete has pointed out, these items had traces of PETN and RDX on them.

You have a theory. How does your theory explain these findings? Unless of course this is all just a complicated and drawn-out troll I suppose.

pete said...

Dave wrote: Pete, a semtex explosion capable of destroying a Boeing 747 in 3 seconds would leave more than ‘trace elements of the ingredients of semtex’.

Dave, you're still coming out with this `it had to be a big explosion' line. The page you're referencing says,

"The technical investigators found out, that the blast, which brought down Pan Am 103 wasn't a very big one. The plane wasn't blown to pieces by the bomb.....it was the mach stem waves that ruptured the plane into pieces together with the gravitational and aerodynamical forces in flight."

In other words, as we've been saying all along, it only takes a small hole in the fuselage to destroy an aircraft at high altitude. The charge of approximately 450g of Semtex in the lower outboard side of container AVE4041 would have been sufficient to do that, in the opinion of the explosives experts.

As to exactly how much residue one would expect to find, again, none of the experts who took part in the investigation found any discrepancy between the amount and distribution of the residue and the supposed size and location of the charge.


And there are innocuous explanations for trace (extremely small) elements that give rise to reasonable doubt about a semtex explosion.

I'm not sure where you get the term `trace elements' from. If we're going to press the argument to this level of detail, let's be accurate. What was detected was evidence of two explosive compounds, PETN and RDX. Many explosively-damaged items were found to be contaminated with these substances. As far as I can tell, PETN has one other use as a vasodilator, but RDX is only used as an explosive. And in combination they imply Semtex to a degree of probability that it is just perverse to argue against.

But it is for you prove the semtex IED conspiracy theory, not for me to explain the blast damage.

Just as in a fair trial, it was the prosecutions job to prove Megrahi’s guilt at Zeist, rather than for him to prove his innocence.


Rolfe, the same outcome can have different causes and you need to produce evidence for your trace theory, before asking others to disprove it?

If there's disagreement over the facts of a case then indeed it's for the prosecution to prove their case. That's not what we're talking about here. It's not `Rolfe's theory', or mine, or that of any of the other posters here. We have a general concensus among a number of accredited experts, with a few lone dissenting voices. In that case it's for you to say why you're right and all those reputable experts in the field are wrong.





Dave said...

“26 cases showing blast damage and 2 pulverised” – and “these items had traces of PETN and RDX on them”. (What items?)

Rolfe you make it sound so dramatic, but cases are only made of light material and contain leather and cloth.

Therefore at a guess I would consider it more likely that,

•more than 26 cases would show blast damage
•more than 2 would be pulverised
•more than ‘trace elements of the ingredients of semtex’ would be left

by a ‘semtex IED’ capable of destroying a Boeing 747 in 3 seconds!

And that’s presuming such a definite count could be made -giving rise to reasonable doubt?

Dave said...

Pete I agree it was the hole that did it, but was it the small hole on the IED side or the large hole on the cargo door side?

If God forbid you’re kicked in the left leg do you drop to the left or right?

If the hole is on the IED side, why did the cockpit detach to the cargo door side and engine 3 detach from the plane first?

Rolfe said it was due to the way the wind was blowing, do you agree?

And the website mentioned that if the plane had transported munitions or even personal who had handled explosive or similar material trace elements could remain.

Rolfe said...

As you said, Dave, you're guessing.

You have no evidence of any fault with the cargo door. You can't even point to any evidence showing it was open when that part of the plane was recovered. Therefore there is nothing to explain as regards the cargo door.

Many, many air accident investigators have looked at this incident. It's a classic case, and widely studied. Only one man, of dubious credentials, has expressed any doubt about what caused the crash.

It's fairly irrelevant whether you "guess" more luggage would have been damaged. The bomb was right in one corner of the luggage container, thus with only a quarter of the cases surrounding it than might otherwise have been the case. Most of the blast was directed outwards, at the hull of the plane.

The fact remains that this blast-damaged luggage was recovered, some of it showing very up-close-and-personal involvement with the explosion. The baggage container was recovered in pieces, blown apart from the inside. The reconstructed aircraft showed a petalled hole in the part of the hull immediately overlying the spot where that baggage container had been loaded.

I am tired of pointing this out to you. So what do you think caused that? Are you ever going to tell us?

Dave said...

Pete, after all these years you need to engage a little bit of scepticism when reading official reports.

For example to summarise, you say the AAIB report says the blast wasn’t a big one because it wasn’t big enough to disintegrate the plane, but was just big enough to make a hole in the fuselage!

Yes but this only makes sense if the definition of big, is big enough to disintegrate the plane.

But in truth to disintegrate the plane it would need to be a colossal IED to do that.

But if the definition of big, is big enough to make a hole in the fuselage and big enough to detach the cockpit from the plane in 3 seconds, then that is big, except experts say 450g of semtex isn’t big enough to do that.

See: Lockerbie Case - semtex theory, scientifically implausible for Pan Am 103 explosion.

And that’s assuming there was a semtex explosion.

See: Lockerbie Case - Angiolini backs away from semtex challenge.

Also you said the evidence for an IED was the semtex explosion.

By the same token the evidence for which hole caused the explosive decompression is shown by how the plane disintegrated.

Rolfe said...

There is only evidence for one hole. The one that lines up with the blast-damaged luggage container AVE4041.

What caused that hole, Dave?

Dave said...

“There is only evidence for one hole”!

That is known as a Sir Humphrey because it’s true, but only because the AAIB report does not mention the condition of the forward cargo door.

And this absence of information becomes evidence by omission and worthy of a closer examination, particularly as an open door would, if true, explain the crash.

See: Boeing 747 explosive decompression accidents.

Rolfe said...

Yes, it is true there is evidence for one hole. Lots and lots of detailed evidence.

Which you have entirely failed to explain, Dave.

Dave said...

Rolfe, you say there is incontrovertible evidence for one hole and then say the fuselage showed a petalled hole, next to where the container was loaded.

At a guess why would the blast make a petalled hole, as opposed to one spherical hole in the fuselage and yet only pulverise two cloth suitcases.

Wouldn’t most of a blast head in the direction of least resistance and pulverise the cases rather than the fuselage?

What do you think and please confirm whether it was one hole or a petalled hole?

Rolfe said...

If you imagine that a blast behind the fuselage would punch out a circular (oh sorry, "spherical", that's an interesting concept) hole like a tin-opener, then you don't have much insight into basic physics.

If you think that a thin lightweight aircraft skin offers more resistance to an explosive blast that a couple of hundred kg of suitcases packed tight with luggage, then you really need to move to the remedial grade.

You claim to have read the AAIB report. Don't come to me asking what shape the hole was, in that case.

Dave said...

Dear Rolfe, you say there is incontrovertible evidence for one hole, but you don’t think it was a round hole, but a petalled hole! I see?

And you say a Boeing 747 only has a ‘thin lightweight skin’ that is ‘easily punctured by a 450g semtex IED’, but believe the same IED would only pulverise two cloth suitcases! I see?

And yet even after being pulverised you believe these cases provided identifiable clothing that could be traced back to Mary’s House! I see?

Very convincing, but I’m sure you can clinch it by explaining the ‘petalled hole’ which you have never mentioned before, for the benefit of the other readers of this blog?

Rolfe said...

Oh for goodness sake. The petalled hole was made by the IED, obviously. An explosion doesn't punch out a round circle like a tin-opener. That's the hole there is actual evidence for. Pictures and so on, you know?

The baggage container was also blown to bits from inside, with the damage showing the explosion was located in the bottom front left-hand corner.

TWENTY-SIX suitcases were damaged by the blast. Two were particularly badly damaged, that is damaged sufficiently that the IED might have been inside either one of them. 24 others were also shredded to a greater or lesser extent.

There is a shed-load of evidence for all that.

WHAT CAUSED IT, DAVE?

Dave said...

Dear Rolfe, so you are now saying the two suitcases were not pulverised but only ‘particularly badly damaged by the 450g semtex IED’, and the contents remained identifiable and were traced back to Mary’s House! Really?

Rolfe said...

I made no comment on that. The photographs of the suitcases (and the recovered clothes) are freely available for you to look at for yourself and come to your own conclusions.

I am asking you what you propose as the cause of the blast-damaged suitcases (26 in total), and the blast-damaged baggage container, and the petalled hole in the aircraft fuselage which exactly overlaid the position where that baggage container was loaded. Nowhere near any cargo door.

This evidence EXISTS. It was brought in from the fields in the days immediately following the crash. Photographs of the stuff are freely available.

You have a fantasy hole that only you can see because nobody ever recorded such a hole and there is no evidence for it. You can speculate all you like about your fantasy hole, of course.

What you can't do, is make the evidence for the REAL hole go away. Something caused that, and the blast damage to the stuff that was immediately behind it.

What do you think that was, Dave?

Dave said...

The website, Boeing 747 Pan Am 103 not brought down by bomb explanation, provides an answer to your question.

You say you have read it and think it is bonkers, but you think all expert reports that challenge the official conspiracy theory are bonkers.

That in itself is bonkers, because even if you disagree with them, they are impressive reports and in the absence of a public enquiry should give rise to reasonable doubt.

And for anyone to claim a ‘450g semtex IED’ is powerful enough to blast a hole in a baggage container and fuselage, but would still leave identifiable cotton clothing from the ‘bomb case’, is also bonkers?

Rolfe said...

Dave, I don't think you have the foggiest idea what you're talking about. You seem to worship that one kooky web site above all else. You've seen something shiny and you can't take your eyes off it. You can't even explain it - you can only parrot it.

You imagine interpretations for evidence that is itself imaginary, while refusing to acknowledge what is in plain sight. If something actually exists, it is not sufficient to claim you believe it's impossible. If it exists, it is possible.

So, the hole in the plane - the one on the left-hand side, the one that's really there, I mean - the baggage container blasted from the inside, and the 26 explosion-damaged suitcases. They exist. You have to explain them.

Parroting a kooky web site that says something else happened, but doesn't have any evidence for that, and can't explain the evidence that does exist, doesn't cut it.

Dave said...

Unlike you I do not pretend to know what caused the petalled hole, but your IED explanation is full of holes.

Because a ‘450g semtex IED’ would destroy the cotton contents of the ‘bomb case’ and leave more than trace ingredients of semtex.

Therefore we have evidence of a hole but not a semtex explosion.

However if we assume the hole did it, without knowing how it got there, we can also assume a bigger hole on the other side of the plane could have caused the crash too.

The evidence for this hole is the speed and way the plane disintegrated and the absence of information about the forward cargo door in the AAIB report is revealing.

And whereas a normal person would welcome an explanation for this omission, a troll would not?

ebol said...

MISSION LOCKERBIE, 2013:

THERE WAS NO EXPLOSION INSIDE CONTAINER AVE 4041 ON PAN-AM 103
The Bomb was placed in front of the container - between the aircraft wall and before the container AVE 4041 PA - by whom is still unknown ?

While MEBO AG already has more than sufficient proof that the alleged fragment from the MEBO MST-13-timer is from a non-functioning PC-board, it is no surprise at all that MEBO has meticulously researched any and all details that are in any way connected to the alleged explosion that allegedly caused the PanAm-103 tragedy.The forensic research results, released by the Crown-/prosecution and relating to the radio-recorder (Toshiba "BOMBEAT"),the Samsonite-suitcasse, the umbrella, the Malta-purchased clothing, the luggage-container and the PanAm-103 (section 14L), gave MEBO plenty of leadway for the MEBO-internal research-strategy.We have received, highly sensitive photographs and technical information fully confirmed the several year-long MEBO inquiry and analysis, culminating in the clear and logic summary that will demonstrate, that the alleged explosion orginated from an impact directly on the skin of the PanAm-103 fuselage;- AND NOT from within the luggaged container AVE 4041 PA (fuselage station-position no.700)!

Before the process, Case 1475/99, in Kamp van Zeist was start (May 3, 2000)MEBO has forwarded a 16-page report of these findings to the Scottish Crown Office-/Lord Advocate Colin Boyd, in order to ask the Crown to fully investigate the MEBO-findings whit a very unbiased group of specially gifted aircraft-engineers and explosive-experts...

by Edwin Bollier, MEBO Ltd. Switzerland. URL: www.lockerbie.ch

Rolfe said...

".... a ‘450g semtex IED’ would destroy the cotton contents of the ‘bomb case’ and leave more than trace ingredients of semtex.

[citation required]

That is simply rubbish, as anyone who has been involved in trial explosions of that nature will tell you.

I note you still have absolutely no explanation for the evidence that actually exists, and continue to imagine fantasy evidence that does not exist.

"The evidence for this hole is the speed and way the plane disintegrated...."

[citation required]

And don't come to me with your kooky web site, show us you have some actual expertise in this area.

Really, Dave, if you won't say a syllable about how the blast-damaged luggage container and suitcases and aircraft hull got to be like that, then I'll just go on asking you.

Dave said...

Dear Rolfe, Pete said the ‘IED’ was at the centre of a blast that reached 5000 Celsius.

Is he right and would cotton clothing in the ‘bomb case’ all burn at that temperature and if not would it remain identifiable?

I know you have said it would and only leave the suitcase seriously damaged, but [citation required].

Rolfe said...

The question is not simply how high the temperature of the blast was, but the duration of the heat flash.

Now, we have a petalled hole in the side of the plane. We have a baggage container with physical evidence of its having been blasted apart from the inside. And we have 26 suitcases with identifiable blast damage, some severe. We also have a fair collection of blast-damaged clothes, from various suitcases. The ones that were entirely consumed by the blast, well, we don't have any bits of them, fancy that.

What caused these things to be in that condition, Dave?

Dave said...

Dear Rolfe, you say ‘the question is not simply how high the temperature of the blast was, but the duration of the heat flash’.

Well the cockpit detached from the frame in 3 seconds, is that a guide?

Robert Black said...

Dave, in various different formulations, Rolfe has asked you the following question:

"Now, we have a petalled hole in the side of the plane. We have a baggage container with physical evidence of its having been blasted apart from the inside. And we have 26 suitcases with identifiable blast damage, some severe. We also have a fair collection of blast-damaged clothes, from various suitcases. The ones that were entirely consumed by the blast, well, we don't have any bits of them, fancy that.

"What caused these things to be in that condition, Dave?"

Until you answer this question, no further comments from you will be posted on this thread.

pete said...

Pete I agree it was the hole that did it, but was it the small hole on the IED side or the large hole on the cargo door side?

If God forbid you’re kicked in the left leg do you drop to the left or right?


If the hole is on the IED side, why did the cockpit detach to the cargo door side and engine 3 detach from the plane first?


(a) The small hole on the IED side was sufficient to destroy the plane thorough the propagation of cracks, the pressure difference and possibly some contribution from the Mach stem effect.

(b) There's no evidence for any other hole.

(c) Your illustration is invalid. If I'm standing with my legs under compressive stress due to gravity, and you kick away my left leg, yes, I'll drop to the left. If I hang from a high bar so my arms are under tensile stress, and you dislodge my left arm, I'll swing to the right. Now, is the fuselage of an aircraft at high altitude under compression or tension? Clue: it isn't compression.

Rolfe said it was due to the way the wind was blowing, do you agree?

The plane was in a 100 knot cross wind. At ground level that wind would cause some structural damage to buildings and possibly blow down trees. So, yes, I'm sure it had some effect on the way the plane broke up.



And the website mentioned that if the plane had transported munitions or even personal who had handled explosive or similar material trace elements could remain.

That could perhaps explain some traces of PETN on the structure of the aircraft itself. However, the baggage containers weren't part of the plane - they had arrived at Heathrow on various different aircraft. So that theory doesn't explain the contamination of AVE4041 and its neighbours with PETN and RDX. And it certainly doesn't explain explosive residues on the contents of the bags inside the container.

You seem to have some difficulty with the fact that the hole was `petalled'. It's simply an effect of the physics of an explosion. The explosion caused a shock wave to travel outwards at supersonic speed. This shattered the metal of the fuselage to create a hole. The shock wave was followed by a rapidly expanding bubble of hot gas which forced its way out of the hole, causing blistering and petalling around the edges.

I hope all this is of some help.

Rolfe said...

.... if the plane had transported munitions or even personal who had handled explosive or similar material trace elements could remain.

Whether or not that fanciful explanation is held to be sufficient to explain the traces of explosives that were found (actually, no it isn't, because of where the traces of explosives were found), it doesn't even address my main point, which was the evidence of an actual explosion.

There was a petalled hole in the fuselage, which was itself not large but which very rapidly enlarged due to the effects Pete described, leading to the very rapid break-up of the plane.

The petalled hole was immediately overlying the part of the forward baggage hold where container AVE4041 had been loaded. That container was recovered from the ground in rather a lot of pieces, with pitting and charring and deformation showing that it had been blown apart from inside.

25 items of passenger luggage were found with evidence of explosives damage, some very badly damaged indeed. These were, funnily enough, items of luggage belonging to passengers whose luggage was recorded as having been loaded into container AVE4041. Most of these suitcases still contained some or all of the personal possessions belonging to these passengers. Then there was one suitcase which didn't have an owner and which had been blown apart from the inside.

Then there were clothes with burned holes and similar damage, and these were the clothes belonging to passengers whose luggage had been found with the severe blast damage. Karen Noonan's jogging pants, recognisable from a photo of her wearing them, found burned and blast-damaged for example. No doubt there were other items so badly damaged that nothing of them was recovered.

All that evidence is easily available, with photos and forensics descriptions and even press reports dated early in 1989.

....if the plane had transported munitions or even personal who had handled explosive or similar material trace elements could remain.

Whether or not the plane had transported munitions at some time is utterly irrelevant to the evidence that an explosion actually happened, and that explosion was inside a baggage container which contained nothing but suitcases and holdalls loaded as passenger luggage.

Dave has still not indicated what he thinks caused this.

Dave said...

Professor Robert Black, you ask me to answer Rolfe’s question “what caused the blast damage”. I already have.

In a recent post I said “Unlike you (Rolfe) I do not pretend to know what caused the petalled hole, but your IED explanation is full of holes”.

Rolfe chose to ignore this comment and ask me again “what caused the blast damage”, prompting you to do the same.

Therefore to be clear I do not know what caused the blast, but hopefully this question can be answered by experts at a public enquiry.

But not knowing what caused it doesn’t make the IED explanation true.

Particularly when Rolfe’s dramatic description of the blast damaged container is not evidence of a semtex explosion.

This is because a 450g semtex IED would have destroyed the ‘bomb case’ and not left identifiable clothing or fragment.

Rolfe disagrees but [citation not required] just applied common sense.

Rolfe said...

So, can we be clear about this? We have a ton of evidence of blast damage to the plane itself, and to the baggage container located at the site of that damage, and to suitcases that were loaded inside that baggage container, and to clothing that was packed inside some of these suitcases. And these suitcases and the baggage container and the aircraft at that point were the things on which traces of the components of Semtex were found.

You have no idea what caused that. No explanation at all. So you dismiss it? Or what? I'm sorry, but these things exist, and can't just be hand-waved away.

But you, personally, can't believe that's what brought the plane down. Despite this not being questioned by any of the explosives or aviation experts who have studied this, apart from one person who claims to be such an expert and has his own web site to prove it.

No matter that repeated tests utilsing the proposed amount of Semtex in similar baggage containers doing exactly what was described, and leaving fragments of suitcase, clothes and even circuit board, you just don't "think" this would happen.

For example, a series of tests done in 2012 using 450 g Semtex gave the following results.

Approximately 65% (suitcase and contents) of the primary suitcase survives.
Approximately 95% of the secondary suitcases (also suitcase and contents) survives.
Approximately 10% of the circuitboard survives.

But you don't believe that, so you invent a totally imaginary hole on the other side of the plane.

I don't have to explain your hole, because it is entirely a figment of your imagination. However the blast-damaged items are not a figment of my imagination. Something caused them, Dave. Something virtually all experts who have looked at this over almost 25 years agree was perfectly capable of causing the plane to break up exactly as observed. You see, it really doesn't matter which side of the hull the hole is on.

Dave said...

Pete, you say “the plane was in a 100 knot cross wind”, but how fast was the plane flying?

I read on a previously mentioned website, that the headwind blowing along the frame of the plane is extremely strong and when entering a hole in the frame would collapse the side of the plane with the hole.

In other words the headwind would out-blow the cross wind?

pete said...

Dave wrote, In a recent post I said “Unlike you (Rolfe) I do not pretend to know what caused the petalled hole, but your IED explanation is full of holes”.

Rolfe chose to ignore this comment and ask me again “what caused the blast damage”, prompting you to do the same.

Therefore to be clear I do not know what caused the blast, but hopefully this question can be answered by experts at a public enquiry.

But not knowing what caused it doesn’t make the IED explanation true.


We have

- a pattern of violent shattering and damage centred on a paricular point inside a suitcase inside a container of passenger baggage;

- a similar pattern of charring and soot deposits;

- a corresponding pattern of explosive residue, for which there just isn't a convincing alternative explanation;

- a hole in the aircraft skin consistent with the effects of an explosion;

- a complete lack of evidence of any cause for all the above other than an explosion;

- and I won't bore everyone by repeating the reasons why the cause of this explosion has to be the intentional detonation of Semtex.

If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, etc.


Particularly when Rolfe’s dramatic description of the blast damaged container is not evidence of a semtex explosion.

This is because a 450g semtex IED would have destroyed the ‘bomb case’ and not left identifiable clothing or fragment.

Rolfe disagrees but [citation not required] just applied
common sense. (my emphasis)

Dave, that's just plain wrong. I've just been looking at the reports of the test detonations carried out on Pan Am aluminium luggage containers of the same design as AVE4041, loaded with suitcases full of clothing and with one case containing an IED, using from 360 to 680 grams of Semtex. Apart from one test, which went wrong, the explosion caused severe damage to the case containing the IED and its immediate neighbours, and blew out the side and base of the container. The cases were not completely destroyed, and identifiable fragments of clothing were left behind.

You see, we can't apply `common sense' to the physics of an explosion. The rapid release of energy causes extremes of pressure and temperature, but that violence and rapidity causes effects which are in some cases counter-intuitive. For example, as you mention elsewhere, Feraday, arguing from `common sense' suggested that the lead in tin-lead solder would evaporate in an explosion which reached 3800C (a more accurate value.) Tests show that lead has to be held at that temperature for much longer than the duration of an explosion before it will evaporate - you could say that in an explosion it `doesn't have enough time' to absorb sufficient heat to make the transition.

So do yourself and us a favour, and don't come back at us with `at a guess' or `common sense'
- make the effort and check your facts, and we can have a more constructive discussion.

Dave said...

Pete, sorry but if you believe a 680g semtex explosion would leave identidfiable clothing and fragment from the 'bomb-case', you will believe anything.

Rolfe said...

It's not a question of believing, it's a question of having read the results of dozens of such tests, carried out by a wide range of people including explosives experts working for the defence and independent forensics investigators.

Dave said...

Rolfe you are shameless.

Re. Lockerbie Case 24th Sept 2009

‘Crown challenged to prove semtex link to Pan Am 103’.

Rolfe said...

And?

Dave, you are a fine one to call anyone shameless, with your constant twisting, turning and evasion.

What we have is a stack of actual evidence, which was brought in from the fields in the days following the crash, of a serious explosion inside a suitcase inside a baggage container, and a hole in the hull immediately overlying the place that baggage container was loaded. We have extensive traces of the components of Semtex found on that luggage and that baggage container.

What you have is - well nothing at all, actually. No evidence that anything else untoward happened beyond the catastrophic consequences of that penetration of the hull, and no explanation (rational or otherwise) for the evidence that does exist.

I'm unsure why you are so convinced of this evidence-free fantasy, but coming up with some actual evidence would be a help.

Dave said...

Rolfe, catastrophic explosive decompression would have inflicted blast damage throughout the plane as everyday items exploded.

But to blame the blast damage as the cause rather than consequence of the explosive decompression is called ‘jumping to conclusions’.

It may be true, but your description of the blast damage, with varying degrees of exaggeration and omission is not evidence of a semtex explosion.

You can’t have it both ways. If the IED was powerful enough to punch a hole through the container and fuselage, then it would have destroyed the ‘IED circuit board’ too.

An open mind would accept this and it would be better if readers used this blog to debate the issues rather than just defend entrenched assertions.

Indeed your comments remind me of the Israeli PM at the UN, who drew attention to a cartoon bomb with a lighted fuse and said shamelessly this was evidence of an Iranian bomb?

Rolfe said...

Oh for goodness sake. The plane came apart by explosive decompression in your fantasy scenario too. The only difference is that you refuse to believe the hole we know about on the left side of the fuselage was the cause, and you postulate a hole on the right side did it. A hole we have no evidence for at all.

You're simply sitting there making things up. You don't seem to have looked at the actual evidence at all. This isn't a fiction writing competition you know.

Dave said...

Rolfe, when investigating a crime scene a detective needs to look for the evidence that is there and understand what it means.

For example blast damage would indicate an explosion of some sort.

But a circuit board can be ignited by one swan vesta match. Therefore if it is at the centre of a 450g semtex IED explosion, it would be completely destroyed by the extreme heat.

Therefore if it survives this means there was no 450g semtex IED explosion.

To keep saying it would is shameless, because this conflicts with common sense and tests that say it would not.

See, ‘Crown challenged to prove semtex link to Pan Am 103’.

That said detectives also need to look for the evidence that isn’t there, but should be there, if what is alleged to have happened, really happened.

For example, the absence of a distress signal from the Captain tells you the break-up of the plane was instantaneous. Not even time for a ‘what the .. was that’?

And the way the plane disintegrated could offer an explanation of the cause.

Therefore details about the condition of the forward cargo door would be useful.

But to keep saying there is no evidence regarding the cargo door on the basis that it isn’t mentioned in the AAIB report is shameless, because it ignores the possibility that it‘s condition was unreported to avoid bad news?

Therefore this becomes evidence by omission and worthy of investigation!

Over and out.

Rolfe said...

Oh, it was probably the little green men from Mars. You've got as much evidence for that, anyway.

Robert Black said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Robert Black said...

The positions have now been sufficiently rehearsed. This thread is closed.