Saturday, 28 June 2014

Megrahi petition on Justice Committee agenda for three years

On this date three years ago the following item, headed MSPs call for independent inquiry into Lockerbie was posted on this blog.

[This is the headline over a report just published on the STV News website. It reads as follows:]

Petition will be referred to Justice Committee as MSP demands 'truth must come out'.

MSPs have said further talks should take place on calls to hold an independent inquiry into the Lockerbie bombing conviction.

Abdelbaset al-Megrahi was convicted ten years ago of the December 1988 bombing of Pan Am flight 103. The attack resulted in 270 deaths.

The Scottish Parliament's Public Petitions Committee agreed to refer a petition calling for an inquiry, lodged by pressure group Justice for Megrahi, to Holyrood's Justice Committee for further consideration.

Committee member SNP MSP Bill Walker said it was important that "the truth" surrounding the issue is revealed.

He added: "I am desperate that the truth of this whole matter should come out. The truth must come out and we must do everything in our power to help it come out.

"This should go to the Justice Committee.

"This terrible thing happened a long time ago now and we must get to the truth sooner rather than later."

The petition, which was lodged by the group last year, calls on Holyrood to urge the Scottish Government to open an independent inquiry into the 2001 conviction.

Justice Committee convener Christine Grahame sat on the Public Petitions Committee in the last session.

During previous discussions on this issue, she said: "There are so many conspiracy theories around now that I think it's time that we had a clean, clear look at the role of Scottish justice in this.

"The issue is not whether Libya, or any other country, was guilty. The issue is, was Mr al-Megrahi rightly convicted, and we have not heard the answer to that yet."

The Scottish Government has already refused the petition's call for an inquiry into the conviction.

[A similar report has now appeared on the BBC News website. A report in Scottish lawyers' magazine The Firm can be read here.

This is a stunning victory for the Justice for Megrahi campaign and for all of those who have supported its petition, particularly since the committee clerk seemed in his agenda note to be gently hinting that the petition be kicked into touch.]

JFM’s petition remains on the agenda of the Justice Committee, three years after it was referred to it by the Public Petitions Committee, so that the committee can maintain a watching brief over Lockerbie developments.


  1. I think it is also worth pointing out that, unlike the cynical sop sold south of the border, and though it has a very long way to go indeed before it even approaches the political value and power it has in Switzerland, public petitioning is proving its worth in Scotland, and something we should be proud of.

    Whilst some on the Justice Committee may not be overly distressed if 1370 were to close, overall, it is a great credit to the Committee that they have remained receptive to JFM's arguments over the last three years. Long may this continue.


  2. It was very encouraging when Christine Grahame became Chairman of the Justice Committee and all Members now support upholding PE1370.

    But what happens if she takes up another position [initially her name had been put forward for Presiding Officer] and the Members change?

    I would suggest by embedding Lockerbie in all parties as a totemic Scottish test in the independence [devolution in EU] referendum campaign.

    Getting the politicians to make an [competing] election promise of support for the truth about Lockerbie will make it more difficult for any new Justice Committee to drop PE1370.

  3. I believe Dave, in his usual ignorant manner, is fatally confusing a referendum on a constitutional issue with a party-political election. There are no political parties standing in September.

    I predict right here and now that no party will include anythign about Lockerbie in its manifesto for the 2016 election, irrespective of the result of the referendum. There simply aren't enough votes in it.

    The referendum campaign is entering its final three-month run-up. There is zero chance of either Yes Scotland or Better Together - No thanks even mentioning the word Lockerbie in this period of campaigning.

  4. A referendum campaign about the future of Scotland is a more appropriate place to raise the issue of Lockerbie than a mundane election campaign.

    Elections are fought on bread and butter issues [the economy stupid] rather than on the more emotional and heart felt issues of identity and self-governance that will apply in the referendum.

    And whereas the parties would not mention Lockerbie they would have to if asked and would be compelled to give a patriotic reply about supporting the integrity of the Scottish justice system.

    On the record replies, that they could be reminded of at a later date – and replies that would incite further awareness and debate about the issue.

    Or does Rolfe think the SNP’s slogan ‘vote yes to get rid of the bedroom tax’ is a pressing constitutional issue whereas restoring the integrity of the justice system is not?

  5. I'm telling you the practical situation on the ground, sunshine. Voters are concerned about the bedroom tax. The only time Lockerbie comes up is when someone declares how proud they were when the Scottish government granted Megrahi compassionate release.

    Attempts to point out that this was concurrent with the second appeal being dropped and that in fact an innocent man was sent home to die with rhetoric about his lack of compassion for his victims and how he would die a guilty man ringing in his ears don't cut much ice. And believe me, I've tried.

    Most people who are even fractionally politically aware realise that Megrahi was innocent, but absolutely nobody believes this is a relevant issue to raise in the referendum campaign.

    Personally, I think it's a point for Yes, because the only way we can get proper control of our own justice system and tackle the ingrained backside-covering within the system is to have full sovereign control. However, there are no particular votes in this. The votes are in the areas of the economy and social justice, as well of course as the inevitable identity issues.

  6. The assumption in Rolfe’s reply is it’s all about votes.

    It isn’t, it’s about asking a pertinent question and getting a pertinent reply about a vital constitutional issue.

    I appreciate the SNP has back-pedaled on actual independence to get a yes vote, but if asked about Lockerbie all politicians must reply with a Scottish voice to retain credibility, with the much smaller but politically minded electorate listening closely.

    Lockerbie is a political issue and JfM will need a political voice to be effective and making Lockerbie a constitutional issue in the referendum is the way to do it.

  7. It's well seen that you don't live in Scotland. I'd guess you've never even been here.

    Scotland is alive with debate, discussion, argument, claim and counterclaim. Grassroots engagement is beyond anything ever experienced in recent decades.

    Nobody is asking anybody about the Pan Am 103 case. Lockerbie, like everywhere else, has far bigger fish to fry this summer.

    That's what Lockerbie is thinking about in 2014.

  8. And just for luck, here's the one I organised a week ago.

    That's what we're about in Scotland, now.

  9. Lockerbie/Zeist does not even register on the Richter Scale as far as the referendum debate is concerned. The referendum is about the independence of Scotland to organise its own affairs, justice and otherwise.

    There are far more serious issues concerning the highly unhealthy relationship between the Justice Directorate and COPFS than L/Z right now.

    Currently, JFM has 1370 and, finally, a splendidly constructive relationship with Police Scotland courtesy of The Chief Constable. Furthermore, a third appeal has been submitted to the SCCRC by some twenty plus bereaved and members of the Megrahi family.

    Unfortunately, Sir Stephen House must report to Mulhoodum. However, I have a suspicion that the Chief Constable may have more clout than he is letting on.

    So, back to politics. We have good folk on our side. And, what's more, every taxi driver in Glasgow knows that Baset was stitched up.


  10. All that you say may be true, but it could easily end without political support.

    The referendum is a golden opportunity to bind the politicians in on Lockerbie by asking a few pertinent questions.

    There may be difficulties in doing so, but to dismiss the chance [for whatever reason] is odd.

  11. Sir,

    The referendum is about redressing the result which accrued from the failure of Darien. A plan with massive potential that failed because of manipulation by Westminster.

    I, as you will be aware, have my differences with Alex Salmond, however, I respect him as being the sharpest politician on the UK scene. and I wholeheartedly support his effort to extract the Saltire from the Union Flag. I do not vote in political elections since I regard our so called 'democracy' a cynical farce. Nevertheless, soon, I will be returning to Glasgow, and the very first thing I shall do will be to register to vote YES in the referendum.

    Trust me my friend, we have plenty of political support insofar as L/Z is concerned. Furthermore, we are going to win, and that's a fact.


  12. Ah, I'm zonked, because I went to Melrose for the second night of the Yestival and didn't get home till after midnight. A big group of artists and musicians touring the whole country giving a performance just about every night in as many village halls as they can manage. They started on Monday in Haddington.

    Everybody is really fired up and positive, with economic and social arguments, and music and dance and poetry. If anyone were to say, vote Yes because Lockerbie, people would look at them like they had two heads or something. Even in Lockerbie.

  13. No doubt the music and dance is to distract attention away from the false prospectus being offered in the [devolution in EU] independence referendum campaign.

    Which due to problems with the Euro currency has become the [continuing but amended devolution in EU and UK, but with less clout, following separation from England] independence campaign, due to a wish to retain the Pound?

    PS. I too disagree with the bedroom tax, but would lawyers also be interested in the legal arguments and implications of the [amended devolution in EU and UK] independence campaign?

  14. Sirrah,

    Scotland does not need England, England needs Scotland. Clearly, you have failed to recognise that. The lady protesteth far too much, methinks.


  15. I am a British and Ireland Unionist who wants Scotland [and Orkney] to remain part of the Union.

    This is why I am anti-EU [ever closer Union], because the EU is too big and diverse to be run as one country and acts against the British and Ireland Union, which is difficult enough to keep together as it is.

    But as a nationalist I recognise the right of self-determination for all nations and the attractions of independence.

    But in an interdependent world there are degrees of independence [depending on size] and the national interest does not always benefit from full independence [ask Poland after WWII].

    And the Scottish independence referendum is in fact a choice between devolution in UK or EU [except now it’s a mix of both and is a complete pig’s ear], with less clout for Scotland as a result.

    And yes England does need Scotland and I hope a No vote in the referendum will incite demands for devolution within England.

    And my interest in Lockerbie is because it was cover-up at the behest of our US overlords and not a UK cover-up at the expense of Scotland.

  16. He doesn't know what the word devolution means either.

  17. Scotland has NO clout in the UK other than what it can leverage by making threats of independence. Once the possibility of making that threat has been thrown away, we'll be right down to zero. You don't throw away your only (and winning) card in the hope that your opponent will come over all generous and make a gift of the prize money to you anyway. Especially not an opponent who has been consistently telling you how rubbish you are for decades, and has been threatening you with bitter retribution for at least a couple of years.

    Scotland as an independent member of the EU in its own right will have clout similar to other countries of similar size and resources. It's hard to find an exact parallel, as although Denmark has a similar population, it lacks the maritime territory, fisheries, renewables potential and hydrocarbon reserves. But just wait till we get our turn at the EU presidency.

    If there is a No vote, Scotland will quickly be emasculated in order to prevent anything like this ever happening again (not that that will necessarily be successful but it will inevitably be very unpleasant). And the chances of any further devolution to regions of England are non-existent. The experience of Scotland has made Westminster very wary of trying that again. Most regions of England don't even seem to want devolution.

    However, the country is alive with debate and getting livelier. The polls are very close and if you factor in some imponderables (differential turnout, new registrations of formerly disenfranchised voters in order to vote Yes, and faulty weighting methods from YouGov in particular) it's possible Yes is actually ahead.

    Everyone knows several people who have moved to Yes. People moving from Yes seem to be as rare as hens' teeth. There are two Scotlands now - sullen, unengaged people saying they'll vote No without accessing any real information, which is the Scotland the media reflects, and a rainbow tide of enthusiastic activists who are completely beyond the control of the official Yes campaign, stirring up insurrection in every village hall and pub.

    The latter is simply not on the radar of the media, but it's bad news for Westminster. Scotland has the internet.

  18. Devolution in England means stronger local council and County government on the back of voting reform with similar powers to the Welsh Assembly.

    Scotland has always retained separate powers designed to protect it once joined with a far larger partner, but you do not qualify as independent unless you have your own currency.

    The SNP position was devolution in EU [and join Euro], but is now separation from England, devolution in EU, whilst retaining the Pound!

    And if the argument is, it’s in England’s [UK] interest to keep Scotland in the Pound well that’s an argument for the status quo.

    PS. Scotland has its own judiciary, but sadly compromised by Lockerbie, an on-going issue that should surely incite interest with lawyers and historians, in a future of Scotland debate?

  19. Devolution means that a central government agrees to pass some powers down the line. It also retains the right to repossess these powers any time it likes. "Power devolved is power retained."

    That is not how the EU works.

  20. Sirrah,

    Unsurprisingly, I agree with Rolfe.

    Speaking as an Anarcho-syndicalist-Sybarite, translates as a fun loving Communist to you probably, I don't give a damn. If the Scots want their independence, well and good. (Oh, I forgot to mention that I was born in Kirriemuir, the place where they swing from chandeliers and piss on the crowds). That I will vote for. If Orkney wants its independence, I would vote for that too. As far as I am concerned, everyone should have a cluster nuke in their back yard, then they just might wake up! Apart from our spectacular imaginations, creativity and supremely efficient communicative skills, the best things we have invented are money and Plutonium.

    As far as I am concerned, small is beautiful. The more power you invest in greatness leads to the kind of self-satisfied abuse that brings about the corruption of L/Z and the like.


  21. ‘Power devolved is power retained’ is true, but if the devolution settlement includes the whole of UK [and hopefully Eire] with the necessary democratic checks and balances the chances of reverting to the old centralised state is greatly reduced.

    Indeed it was the absence of democracy that allowed Thatcher>Blair to centralise and inflict such damage on local government and feed the separatism in Scotland that appears as localism in England.

    And both separatism and localism are the result of the same sense of disenfranchisement that will not be addressed by belonging to an EU super-state.

    The UK retains influence [despite being outside the Euro and despite what you may read], because we help pay for it, whereas Greece [in the Euro] is put in special measures and run by an appointed EU ‘Governor-General’.

    Don’t think an EU central government will be more benign than a UK government over which Scottish MPs have far more influence.

    Also the election of a UKIP MEP shows this is recognised by many Scots.

    But it remains odd that the extraordinary miscarriage of justice is not deemed worthy of being mentioned in a future of Scotland debate.

    Presumably some must think mentioning Lockerbie and highlighting the need to restore the integrity of the Scottish justice would lose the Yes vote, votes?

  22. Presumably not. It's NOT ON THE RADAR. There are a million and one more important things to be talking about in the independence debate.

    I linked you to four YouTube videos of actual independence debates in the town hall in Lockerbie itself. Did you notice anyone mentioning planes falling out of the sky? No. Not because anyone would have decided to change their vote if that was mentioned, but because NOBODY would change their vote on that account.

  23. Rolfe’s aversion to promoting the extraordinary miscarriage of justice in the future of Scotland debate is consistent with her defence of the official IED explanation.

    Defending the IED line becomes a defence of the decision to pursue a criminal investigation rather than a public enquiry into the crash.

    And not wanting to raise Lockerbie at a time when the audience would be more receptive to the message and its implications [if only lawyers and historians] is a surprising comment from a member of a Lockerbie campaign group.

    And to say “there are a million and one more important things to talk about” contrasts with the regular [and dissembling] posts on this blog.

  24. Dear Sir,

    "dissembling". Wot? JFM has the most serious question marks concerning the forensics surrounding the utter incompetence of those at RARDE charged with their analysis of what occurred to 103. Kerr has done what they ought to have done in the first instance. She has looked at the data put it together and drawn conclusions. This, those at RARDE, already proven to have performed quite comprehensively inadequately in prior cases, and pilloried by the English judiciary for such, were put in charge of the worst act of mass murder to have taken place on UK soil. If I am not mistaken, you have it that this was down to a faulty cargo door. How then do you explain the fact that AVE4041 and the floor of the hold was littered with the remnants of an explosive substance? How do you explain the fact that the hole blasted through floor of AVE4041 revealed only the remnants of a brown, hardshell Samsonite suitcase? How do you explain the damage to the neighbouring luggage? How do you explain the assertion by Patrick Shearer (formerly Chief Constable of Dumfries and Galloway Constabulary) that Patricia Coyle's suitcase was under the Samsonite when not a single baggage handler gave any evidence that any luggage was shuffled around in AVE4041 when the luggage arrived on the rocket chute from Frankfurt? Moreover, why were there no particles from her suitcase found below the Samsonite but only above it?

    Are you a Catholic perchance? The reason I ask is because I recall a well known quote from Galileo Galilei in which he posited to the Vatican, who were persecuting him at the time, that "Ah, so gravity goes up as well as down, does it?" Just a passing thought.

    Since this mini debate also seems to have taken on a political hue, I simply cannot resist the opportunity, before the blog administrator decides to draw a line under it. My views are the following.

    Close all stockmarkets, oblige all industry to become cooperatives and all financial services to become mutuals or credit unions, burn all passports, take down all national borders, adopt one single world currency, overhaul all constitutions in order that they represent and politicise the people from the the base line. That will do me for starters. Will I ever see anything like that in my lifetime? Not a chance. Nobody cares that much, and. if they did, they usually get murdered.

    Pip, pip,

  25. I remember once before saying that I was going to ignore Dave's posts, mainly because they were so far detached from reality, more than because of his insulting insinuations.

    I should have stuck to my original resolution.

  26. Dear Rolfe,

    I'll carry the can for you. But you probably would rather do it yourself, methinks.


  27. Quincey

    The State put dodgy forensic experts in charge of the worst act of mass-murder to have taken place on UK soil!

    Now why would they do that?

    The evidence [remains] of the explosion in AVE4041 is evidence of an explosion, but becomes evidence against the official explanation that the explosion was responsible for the crash because the remains would not have survived an explosion capable of destroying the plane in 3 seconds.

    I suggest you count 3 seconds to appreciate this point and all the evidence and witness statements should be viewed in this context.

    Galileo said the Earth revolved around the Sun, he was right, but was imprisoned for saying so at the time.

    And I thought your last paragraph was a good mix of ideas, some impractical, but all worthy of a mention in the great future of Scotland debate.

  28. It has been repeatedly explained how the fairly small explosion in the baggage container led to the break-up of the plane within about three seconds. Also that it is not at all remarkable that blast-damaged items will be recovered. While some material very close to the explosion will indeed be vaporised, material somewhat away will be charred and blackened but not vaporised. Inevitably.

  29. Dear Dave,

    Yesterday I spent over an hour with a physicist admiring the stupendous beauty of the ceiling in Carlisle Cathedral. We spent most of our time perusing on the subject of what we are doing at CERN and how God fits into the picture. I am a very simple man, however, I believe that physics is our best shot at understanding how the universe, or, indeed, how universes operate. I happen to be acquainted with a number of physicists. I find them interesting.

    It would take a mere speck of dust to destroy the space shuttle. Imagine, if you will, a hole - even a small one - blasted in an ideal position on an aircraft travelling at around five hundred miles an hour some five miles high. Three seconds? Irrelevant. Terminal destruction! And two hundred and seventy fatalities! End of story.


  30. My dear friend,

    That plane was reassembled at the sheds on the MoD weapons establishment in Longtown. I live there, I know these people. I don't know what variety of self medication you are on right now but I strongly recommend that you change your GP. You are wrong. So wrong.


  31. Dear Quincey,

    You say that because a speck of space dust [missile] could destroy a space shuttle in 3 seconds, a small blast could do the same to a 747.

    You may be right, but you do not reference your material sources from the fatal accident enquiry or independent experts to substantiate this explanation [beyond saying a small hole did it and you know the rest!].

    Indeed any actual qualified and expert advice disputing the official explanation [found on this, the Firm and other websites] is normally attacked by blog patrol officer Rolfe, despite having a million better things to talk about.

    But if a small hole on one side of the plane could do it, then a much larger hole on the other side of the plane could definitely have done it [and fits with the break-up sequence of the plane].

    An examination of the forward cargo door would settle the question, which is why there is resistance to the idea!

  32. Dear Dave,

    I feel confident that you and I would find our mutual company most entertaining, should we ever have the opportunity to encounter each other.

    What perplexes me is your denial of the facts surrounding AVE4041. Kerr has proved beyond any shadow of doubt what occurred to 103 and how it was achieved. How can you possibly maintain that a faulty cargo door brought that 747 down when the evidence of AVE4041 is staring you in the face? Have you read her book? How do you explain the fact that explosive residue was found littering AVE4041? How do you explain the hole in the cargo bay in the exact location of AVE4041? Kerr is a forensic scientist, who has taken it upon herself to do what RARDE proved themselves comprehensively incompetent at.

    However you want to play it, at least we agree on one thing, thank God, Baset was stitched up.


  33. But the forward cargo door was examined, and there was nothing untoward about it. I'm sorry you can't accept that, but that's not my problem.

  34. If the plane wasn't brought down by an IED in a suitcase in the bottom front corner of container AVE4041, then someone went out on the night of 21st/22nd December 1988 and removed the wreckage of the actual plane that crashed and replaced it with wreckage of a plane that did crash that way. And they were able to make sure not just that it was indistinguishable from the actual plane that took off from Heathrow, but the details of the damaged items (especially the suitcases) perfectly matched the luggage that was known to have been loaded into that container.

    Even better, they distributed the substitute wreckage around the countryside in a pattern that was consistent with the way the break-up could be seen to have happened.

    But amazingly, after doing all that, they actually used wreckage that when analysed carefully showed that the bomb suitcase was in a position occupied by an item of luggage from Heathrow, when their dastardly plan required it to have come off the feeder flight.

    But before we even get to that - Dave, where did they get such a huge amount of fake wreckage in such a short time, to cover up a simple accident they couldn't have known was going to happen? How did they get it all in place and remove the real wreckage in less than 12 hours?

    You have to think these things through you know.

  35. I haven't bothered to look, but I think we could fill a small encyclopedia with the cargo-door-theory ("CDT").
    If it wasn't for the fact, that all the content we have seen could also be written on, say, two pages.

    Nobody should get me wrong. I am not a know-better, and I readily admit also having spend what would add up to be days on end participating in the CDT-debate. In fact, I have written numerous posts that I in the end didn't submit. "Are you mad, Frank, spending your precious time on this?" I said to myself.
    Don't blame others for wasting your time, but yourself for allowing them to.

    The fact that the CDT continues to up over the the years with ever-repeated arguments, and nothing ever new, is a phenomenon that we should give some attention.

    It is the driving force of annoyance? That somebody really seems to believe something others find so poorly founded and so heavily contradicted?

    Is it the simple need for debating something?

    Is it the fact that while some things are maybe complicated and uncertain, the CDT is easy to debate against?

    It is the fact that with each new post from Robert, a clean wall is made, and the CDT statements posted on it will become somehow glaring, and stand undisputed?

    Probably a combination of all of it.

    I have no problem with it, really.
    The entertainment value is quite good, comparable a bit to a soap-opera. Not being a native English speaker myself, I enjoy the written language from all of those who so clearly are.

    But if I was a member of the Evil Empire I think I'd be thrilled to see the some of the driving forces and brilliant minds of JfM to spend so much time with the CDT.

    One solution could be to write a "CDT rebuttal" and link to it when the topic comes up.

    - - -

    Conclusively, I am not saying that CDT-debating should stop. I thank all for very entertaining posts!

    But we don't live forever, and so neither will JfM.

    If there is anything serious about the cause of JfM, then this must somehow be a serious waste of time.

  36. SfM

    Normally there are a flood of conspiracy theories to explain a Lockerbie style event, as there has been about Lockerbie, but the remarkable thing about Lockerbie is the almost absence of the Cargo Door Theory!

    Indeed I initially only noticed this explanation on the Guardian A to Z of conspiracies [that led me to JBS], but then it [alone] was removed from the list.

    But cargo doors are failing all the time and are normally detected and seldom fatal due to the planes location at the time.

    But it’s not beyond reasonable doubt to believe a fatal accident could occur and 103 [an old plane] may have suffered because its cargo door opened as it was ascending to its flight height above Scotland during bad weather [i.e. at the worst possible time] because it only has to open an inch and the slipstream along the frame of the plane will do the rest.

    Hence the cockpit detaching [in 3 seconds] and knocking out engine 3.

    But in a sense your right it’s all academic really [except for those with an interest] because we all know the Government ‘lie, cheat and steal’ to get their way. E.g. WMDs, Libya etc!

  37. Good point, Frank. This debate is ultimately a waste of time and resources, as well as frequently becoming tiresome, and I'm not surprised that Robert frequently cuts it off.

    However, thanks to our friend Dave seizing every opportunity to make his point on each new post, it's possible that a visitor to this forum could get the false impression that anyone takes this theory seriously.

    Maybe the solution, in keeping with Robert's policy of freedom of expression, is to have a dedicated thread for the CDT - Robert could start one by posting "CDT is bollocks" - and not allowing discussion of the CDT anywhere else.

    OTOH, we face a long wait before the SCCRC decides about the new application, and debating with Dave does at least serve to pass the time...

  38. Ah, it's just entertainment.

    Also, it's just Dave. And John Barry Smith of course, assuming they're not one and the same person. I don't think I've heard anyone else propounding this silliness.

    I don't even know if he really believes it, or if he's just trolling for the sake of it. As you say, each comments thread is a tabula rasa, to go back to the beginning and repeat oblique insinuations that have been shredded multiple times in previous threads. It's an idée fixe, and he won't let it go. Or it's just a mischievous hobby he has.

    Sometimes I think it would be nice to shred the illegal ordnance thing, the supposed bomb that was being carried as cargo and was triggered by a radio transmission. Or the related one about the "flechettes" littering the crash site. Just for variety.

    But the proponents of these daffy ideas seem to have gone to ground, leaving Dave and his cover-up of a simple air accident ploughing his lonely furrow.

    I actually have some evidence that the opposite was the case. That at the very beginning, before the Semtex-damaged aluminium was found on 24th December, word was out that the Powers that Be really, really did not want evidence of a terrorist attack to be found. They were extremely keen that it should be a simple air accident. Unfortunately the evidence of an IED was way too strong to be covered up.

    So they went with the next best thing and covered up the evidence that poor security at Heathrow airport had allowed the terrorists to accomplish their mission.

  39. This thread is now closed.

    No further comments punting the cargo door theory will be accepted on ANY thread on this blog unless and until some evidence (and I repeat EVIDENCE) emerges which supports it.