tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073021351804532798.post3514666874079534255..comments2024-03-15T06:02:30.623+00:00Comments on The Lockerbie Case: Phony forensicsRobert Blackhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03606456028430261555noreply@blogger.comBlogger18125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073021351804532798.post-73724475671889863972012-06-26T20:18:26.061+01:002012-06-26T20:18:26.061+01:00Hello, full circle!
Your pet website is a load of...Hello, full circle!<br /><br />Your pet website is a load of conspiracy-theory bollocks. It's fruitcakes like that who make it harder for everyone else to put forward an evidence-based case for a miscarriage of justice, because it's all too easy to look at the kooks and dismiss everyone as being as divorced-from-reality as they are.<br /><br />How often do I have to say it? John Barry Smith doesn't have a clue. He didn't have a clue years ago when I read his fantasy the first time, and he still doesn't have a clue. Please quit with this uncritical spamming of an idiot's nonsense.Rolfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17849975010197698907noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073021351804532798.post-21401130179086911692012-06-25T10:44:45.267+01:002012-06-25T10:44:45.267+01:00Dear Rolfe, the website: ‘Boeing 747 Pan Am 103 no...Dear Rolfe, the website: ‘Boeing 747 Pan Am 103 not brought down by bomb explanation’ explains the situation regarding explosive residue.<br /><br />You draw attention to A&E9/11truth.org but I think it is better to stick to the subject rather than debate other controversial events.Davehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15213240619989073000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073021351804532798.post-70861212710197139502012-06-24T14:43:57.578+01:002012-06-24T14:43:57.578+01:00What do you mean, without leaving explosive residu...What do you mean, without leaving explosive residue? Of course there was explosive residue. They classified pieces of luggage by whether or not they tested positive for explosive residue, allowing them to guess how close they'd been to the IED.<br /><br />You sound as daft as those fruitcakes shouting "9/11 was an inside job!".Rolfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17849975010197698907noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073021351804532798.post-33536156740996092092012-06-23T12:37:29.765+01:002012-06-23T12:37:29.765+01:00Even when they are under great pressure to be comp...Even when they are under great pressure to be complicit in a cover-up, senior civil servants are extremely reluctant to lie in official reports. Instead they hide the truth with euphemisms and omissions.<br /> <br />And fabricated words can be inserted into reports, by others, just as timer fragments can be inserted into evidence bags.<br /><br />The report can then be spun, by others, to mean something beyond its true content. For example, the AAIB report uses the word IED, but others, only use the word bomb.<br /><br />This is significant because although an IED is a euphemism for bomb, the test for proving the presence of a cobbled together IED using every-day items, is lower than that needed to prove the presence of a factory made bomb!<br /><br />This is because if the component parts of an IED are in a room, but un-assembled, they are not a bomb.<br /><br />But if an external event was to detonate the components parts the resulting explosion could sound like a bomb.<br /><br />And because an IED can be made of every-day items there may be no evidence of the IED remains, whereas you would expect to find remains of a factory made bomb.<br /><br />Therefore it is easier to allege (and difficult to disprove) an IED rather than a bomb. <br /><br />Despite this you may still think it reasonable for the AAIB report to say IED.<br /> <br />But in context it seems odd to me, because of the dubious claim that a ‘450g semtex IED’ destroyed the plane in 3 seconds without leaving any explosive residue!Davehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15213240619989073000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073021351804532798.post-42445972766729643222012-06-22T20:17:30.354+01:002012-06-22T20:17:30.354+01:00You're welcome to espouse any far-fetched cons...You're welcome to espouse any far-fetched conspiracy theory you like, no skin off my nose.<br /><br />As I already said, I have no objection at all to a re-examination of the AAIB report. I doubt anything significant will be found, and in particular I doubt that any conspiracy sufficiently advanced to include everyone involved with the Lockerbie investigation then planted deliberate clues in the report so you could say, ooh look they didn't say "bomb", that proves it was an inside job. But hey, knock yourself out.Rolfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17849975010197698907noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073021351804532798.post-14136996692165185812012-06-22T10:08:13.048+01:002012-06-22T10:08:13.048+01:00Dear Rolfe, if a Public Inquiry into Lockerbie is ...Dear Rolfe, if a Public Inquiry into Lockerbie is held, it would inevitably involve a re-examination of the AAIB report.<br /><br />Therefore if you support a Public Inquiry, it is inconsistent to oppose a re-examination of the AAIB report.<br /><br />The AAIB report may be beyond reproach, but should you take that for granted? <br /><br />Maybe it has avoided some revealing scrutiny because the CIA has encouraged people to only speculate about who did it, rather than about what caused it.<br /><br />This is why research into the size of the ‘bomb’ is relevant. You say a ‘450g semtex IED’ would be enough, but I found the Firm website report more convincing.Davehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15213240619989073000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073021351804532798.post-44083208714467870722012-06-22T02:24:53.675+01:002012-06-22T02:24:53.675+01:00Who are you to dictate to the AAIB what vocabulary...Who are you to dictate to the AAIB what vocabulary they should use? You're digging yourself deeper with every post. The AAIB report is perfectly clear. It is you who are confused.<br /><br />I'm afraid the Firm is one of the outlets that is rather prone to promoting scientifically implausible conspiracy theories.Rolfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17849975010197698907noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073021351804532798.post-90385341390638766632012-06-20T10:09:26.220+01:002012-06-20T10:09:26.220+01:00Rolfe, you draw a distinction between IEDs and mil...Rolfe, you draw a distinction between IEDs and military ordinance but a bomb is a bomb, whether assembled in a factory or the garden shed.<br /><br />Therefore the AAIB report should use the word bomb and then explain what type of bomb was used, particularly as an IED is not necessarily a bomb.<br /><br />You say the IED was a cobbled together device containing 450g of semtex! <br /><br />Is this amount of semtex sufficient to destroy a Boeing 747 in 3 seconds and without leaving any explosive residue?<br /><br />See the Firm website: Explosive analysis concludes semtex “scientifically implausible” in Pan Am 103 explosion.Davehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15213240619989073000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073021351804532798.post-90582934086270077982012-06-19T21:40:19.791+01:002012-06-19T21:40:19.791+01:00They do mean IED. That's what 450g Semtex wit...They do mean IED. That's what 450g Semtex with a detonator stuck in it hidden in the innards of a ghetto-blaster actually IS! WE call it a bomb, loosely speaking, just as we call what the IRA was playing with "bombs", but these were all IEDs. The AAIB report uses the correct term, which is IED, to distinguish it from military ordnance, you know, the things armies equip themselves with.<br /><br />So if you think you're seeing something highly significant in the AAIB report calling an IED an IED, I think you need to think again.Rolfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17849975010197698907noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073021351804532798.post-4023642180074008702012-06-19T08:19:03.885+01:002012-06-19T08:19:03.885+01:00And another thing:
The AAIB report uses the term ...And another thing:<br /><br />The AAIB report uses the term Improvised Explosive Device (IED).<br /> <br />This is very significant because an IED is not the same as a bomb.<br /><br />An IED can be a fire extinguisher or any other everyday item that in a situation of catastrophic de-compression becomes explosive.<br /><br />And yet some have used IED as a euphemism for bomb, but if a bomb was responsible the official AAIB report would have called it a bomb for accuracy.<br /><br />Therefore you should reasonably conclude that if they say IED rather than bomb, it is because they mean IED rather than bomb.<br /><br />And even if the rest of the AAIB report is as accurate as its use of the term IED, is it telling the whole story? <br /><br />This is why it should also be re-examined for omissions.Davehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15213240619989073000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073021351804532798.post-44268275719306256442012-06-18T23:46:12.323+01:002012-06-18T23:46:12.323+01:00No, sweetie, you first. You explain what it is ab...No, sweetie, you first. You explain what it is about that drivel that convinces you.<br /><br />Most of us have a pretty good idea how the IED got on the plane, and why it was so devastating.Rolfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17849975010197698907noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073021351804532798.post-36233086346571375902012-06-18T20:06:34.202+01:002012-06-18T20:06:34.202+01:00Rolfe, please read your comments before you post t...Rolfe, please read your comments before you post them. You say “not a bomb in the sense of military ordinance rather the cobbled together device terrorists use”!<br /><br />So an anonymous cobbled together device did it, and yet no one knows how it got on the plane, why it was so devastating and why the culprits never claimed responsibility.<br /><br />I’ve invited you to look at websites that dispute a bomb and all you say is they must be bonkers. Please explain why, if you can.Davehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15213240619989073000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073021351804532798.post-51349849958918426292012-06-18T12:04:36.919+01:002012-06-18T12:04:36.919+01:00Dave, the AAIB report doesn't support your con...Dave, the AAIB report doesn't support your contentions. The AAIB report provides ample evidence of an IMPROVISED EXPLOSIVE DEVICE. Not a "bomb" in the sense of military ordnance, rather the sort of cobbled-together device terrorists use.<br /><br />You have been reading John Barry Smith. I have read it too. The man is bonkers.Rolfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17849975010197698907noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073021351804532798.post-55800037529217082972012-06-17T03:58:48.452+01:002012-06-17T03:58:48.452+01:00Hello!
Today I made a video/voice recording expla...Hello!<br /><br />Today I made a video/voice recording explaining WHY I think Carlos Ghosn knows information about the crash. Yesterday I was told by Mark Silverman (former Ben Bradlee winner... top News editor in the USA) that the goal "most likely" is for the "issues to fade away" and I think that's morally wrong. Many Americans like myself believe the Lockerbie families deserve better than that. I do NOT know who did it all I know is that there was a cover up. My hope is someday the mainstream media will give you respect.<br /><br />http://youtu.be/W-c2k_TH4Uo<br /><br />Sharyn Bovat<br />extra links<br />http://youtu.be/19jkxO2yLHs<br />http://youtu.be/XD5bsZgYux8Sharyn Bovathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06113414288669328756noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073021351804532798.post-79939332871565999692012-06-16T20:53:10.408+01:002012-06-16T20:53:10.408+01:00MISSION LOCKERBIE, 2012 (google translation, germa...MISSION LOCKERBIE, 2012 (google translation, german/english):<br /><br />Disclose of the Scottish "Lockerbie- Affair" (not meant the real bombing of PanAm 103) is a legacy of courage...<br /><br />Today - 40 Years after be known, is the Watergate Crime Scene almost Forgotten.<br />The media reporter Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein had helping to uncover this Criminal Scene in the USA -- congratulations.<br /><br />Almost, after 24 Years, the Lockerbie- Crime Scene Is still concealed under National Security of the Scottish Parliament.<br />Which Politician or Lord Advocate in Scotland has the courage to uncover finally, the Backgrounds in the "Lockerbie- Affair" ?<br />Justice for Libya, now (NTC of Libya) and for Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, who died.<br /><br />by Edwin and Mahnaz Bollier, MEBO Ltd Switzerlnd. URL: www.lockerbie.chebolhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12681382726604052927noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073021351804532798.post-84847006465195662142012-06-16T08:52:25.029+01:002012-06-16T08:52:25.029+01:00It requires a leap of logic to blame a ‘Syrian bac...It requires a leap of logic to blame a ‘Syrian backed Palestinian group funded by Iran’ for the ‘bomb’ because of a break-in at Heathrow.<br /><br />Heathrow is an airport teeming with people and is allegedly broken into all the time by crooks hoping to steal from baggage and these ‘break-ins’ allegedly often involve staff using a key Hopefully things have improved!<br /><br />In other words you don’t have to actually break-in, to break into Heathrow, unless your aim is to leave evidence of a break-in!<br /><br />And if you don’t have a key, why not just leave the bomb in the crowded foyer?<br /><br />And yet speculation about this break-in is the ‘evidence’ for believing the ‘bomb’ must have been put on board at Heathrow, because the time of take-off and explosion fits with how a known air pressure bomb works.<br /><br />And yet the AAIB report doesn't mention a bomb.<br /><br />However another explanation is the plane crashed because of its location in the sky. It was ascending to its flight height during stormy weather when the air pressure on the cockpit would be extremely high.<br /> <br />This combined with old age and a door malfunction could explain why the cockpit broke from the plane in 3 seconds and was the first part of the debris trail.<br /><br />So why not speculate about this explanation and re-examine the AAIB report.Davehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15213240619989073000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073021351804532798.post-59301805513113892132012-06-15T17:09:48.886+01:002012-06-15T17:09:48.886+01:00Some dubious claims:-
(a)Alan Feraday claimed to ...Some dubious claims:-<br /><br />(a)Alan Feraday claimed to have found the timer fragment in a Police evidence bag.<br /><br />(b)The present Chief Constable of Dumfries and Galloway admitted that evidence of the Manley break-in had been suppressed. The text says "see below" but where?<br /><br />(c) "The Crown office failed to pass on any information to the Defence about the break-in until after the verdict against Megrahi was reached. Did they not pass on Manley's statement?bazhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02338162927520376063noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073021351804532798.post-18179013824280685132012-06-14T01:14:11.644+01:002012-06-14T01:14:11.644+01:00MISSION LOCKERBIE, 2012. doc. 8139.rtf. (google tr...MISSION LOCKERBIE, 2012. doc. 8139.rtf. (google translation, german/english):<br /><br />The Court at Kamp van Zeist presented to witness Edwin Bollier, a fragment of a MST-13 timer, PT/35(b) which had no fire damage on it and was a green coloured DUPLICATE ! <br />It was not like the original MST-13 timer fragment (PT/35) pictured on the lab photo no. 334 of expert Allen Feraday (RARDE)<br /><br />Witness no. 335, Mr. Allen Feraday testified that the black carbonize MST-13 circuit board (PT-35) on photo no.334, was the original timer fragment as examinated in the laboratory. <br />Excerpts from court documents of Kamp van Zeist: <br /><br />Q- I see. Could we then, whilst keeping that photograph on the screen, look at photograph 334. And is it possible to have 330 as well. And if it's possible,<br />could we magnify 330. If we look at no. 334, Mr. Feraday, what does that show us?<br />A- That's a photograph of fragment PT/35 as recovered in the laboratory. <br />Q- Is that prior to the removal of any samples? <br />A- That is correct. Yes, sir.<br />Q- We have on the screen the photograph number 334, which you told us a moment ago was one of the orginal photographs of the fragment taken at your laboratory? (Allen Feraday) A- It is indeed, sir, yes.<br />+++<br />Witness number 548, Edwin Bollier. <br />On Court in Kamp van Zeist, witness Edwin Bollier, desired by advocate depute Mr. Turnbull, to assessment the original MST-13 Timerfragment (PT-35) tested by expert Allen Feraday (RARDE). Evidence photo no. 334.<br /><br />The fragment (PT-35) was sawn into two parts of the company Siemens on 27th April 1990. Both cuts, nr. 353 = PT/35(b) and nr. 419 = DP/31(a) was given at the witness table by Edwin Bollier for assess. <br />The larger section of (PT-35) was not agreed with the original black carbonized PT/35, on photo No. 334. The section now known as PT/35(b) was not black carbonized, but with green colour solder stop paint coated (no fire damage !) <br />The small section of DP/31(a) was still original (black carbonized) from a prototype MST-13 circuit board. <br /><br />by Edwin Bollier, MEBO Ltd. Telecommunication Switzerland. URL: www.lockerbie.chebolhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12681382726604052927noreply@blogger.com