tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073021351804532798.post8543002491847246415..comments2024-03-15T06:02:30.623+00:00Comments on The Lockerbie Case: "Justice was never done"Robert Blackhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03606456028430261555noreply@blogger.comBlogger63125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073021351804532798.post-54116361178607980682013-02-19T12:36:02.243+00:002013-02-19T12:36:02.243+00:00The positions have now been sufficiently rehearsed...The positions have now been sufficiently rehearsed. This thread is closed.Robert Blackhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03606456028430261555noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073021351804532798.post-67597220222880730532013-02-19T12:36:01.011+00:002013-02-19T12:36:01.011+00:00This comment has been removed by the author.Robert Blackhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03606456028430261555noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073021351804532798.post-62199503259023307802013-02-19T00:17:50.710+00:002013-02-19T00:17:50.710+00:00Oh, it was probably the little green men from Mars...Oh, it was probably the little green men from Mars. You've got as much evidence for that, anyway.Rolfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17849975010197698907noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073021351804532798.post-53367531365993254152013-02-18T17:38:12.268+00:002013-02-18T17:38:12.268+00:00Rolfe, when investigating a crime scene a detectiv...Rolfe, when investigating a crime scene a detective needs to look for the evidence that is there and understand what it means.<br /><br />For example blast damage would indicate an explosion of some sort.<br /> <br />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.<br /><br />Therefore if it survives this means there was no 450g semtex IED explosion.<br /><br />To keep saying it would is shameless, because this conflicts with common sense and tests that say it would not.<br /><br />See, ‘Crown challenged to prove semtex link to Pan Am 103’.<br /> <br />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.<br /><br />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’?<br /><br />And the way the plane disintegrated could offer an explanation of the cause.<br /><br />Therefore details about the condition of the forward cargo door would be useful.<br /><br />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?<br /><br />Therefore this becomes evidence by omission and worthy of investigation!<br /><br />Over and out.<br />Davehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15213240619989073000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073021351804532798.post-17200380466193994672013-02-18T09:25:43.925+00:002013-02-18T09:25:43.925+00:00Oh for goodness sake. The plane came apart by exp...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.<br /><br />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.Rolfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17849975010197698907noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073021351804532798.post-77777615700924894722013-02-18T09:09:25.737+00:002013-02-18T09:09:25.737+00:00Rolfe, catastrophic explosive decompression would ...Rolfe, catastrophic explosive decompression would have inflicted blast damage throughout the plane as everyday items exploded.<br /><br />But to blame the blast damage as the cause rather than consequence of the explosive decompression is called ‘jumping to conclusions’.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /> <br />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.<br /><br />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?<br />Davehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15213240619989073000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073021351804532798.post-5000472770945576052013-02-17T14:12:32.356+00:002013-02-17T14:12:32.356+00:00And?
Dave, you are a fine one to call anyone sham...And?<br /><br />Dave, you are a fine one to call anyone shameless, with your constant twisting, turning and evasion.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />I'm unsure why you are so convinced of this evidence-free fantasy, but coming up with some actual evidence would be a help.Rolfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17849975010197698907noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073021351804532798.post-77926954934813871212013-02-17T07:38:45.608+00:002013-02-17T07:38:45.608+00:00Rolfe you are shameless.
Re. Lockerbie Case 24th ...Rolfe you are shameless.<br /><br />Re. Lockerbie Case 24th Sept 2009<br /><br />‘Crown challenged to prove semtex link to Pan Am 103’.<br />Davehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15213240619989073000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073021351804532798.post-1490159821986574182013-02-16T20:05:47.726+00:002013-02-16T20:05:47.726+00:00It's not a question of believing, it's a q...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.Rolfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17849975010197698907noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073021351804532798.post-76164141490947626572013-02-16T17:46:45.198+00:002013-02-16T17:46:45.198+00:00Pete, sorry but if you believe a 680g semtex explo...Pete, sorry but if you believe a 680g semtex explosion would leave identidfiable clothing and fragment from the 'bomb-case', you will believe anything.Davehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15213240619989073000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073021351804532798.post-2136564694987473432013-02-15T21:54:50.731+00:002013-02-15T21:54:50.731+00:00Dave wrote, In a recent post I said “Unlike you (R...Dave wrote, <i>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”.<br /><br />Rolfe chose to ignore this comment and ask me again “what caused the blast damage”, prompting you to do the same.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />But not knowing what caused it doesn’t make the IED explanation true.</i><br /><br />We have <br /><br /> - a pattern of violent shattering and damage centred on a paricular point inside a suitcase inside a container of passenger baggage;<br /><br />- a similar pattern of charring and soot deposits;<br /><br />- a corresponding pattern of explosive residue, for which there just isn't a convincing alternative explanation;<br /><br />- a hole in the aircraft skin consistent with the effects of an explosion;<br /><br />- a complete lack of evidence of any cause for all the above other than an explosion;<br /><br />- and I won't bore everyone by repeating the reasons why the cause of this explosion has to be the intentional detonation of Semtex.<br /><br />If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, etc.<br /><br /><br /><i>Particularly when Rolfe’s dramatic description of the blast damaged container is not evidence of a semtex explosion.<br /><br />This is because a 450g semtex IED would have destroyed the ‘bomb case’ and not left identifiable clothing or fragment.<br /><br />Rolfe disagrees but [citation not required] just applied</i> common sense. (my emphasis)<br /><br />Dave, that's just plain <b>wrong.</b> 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 <b>not</b> completely destroyed, and identifiable fragments of clothing <b>were</b> left behind. <br /><br />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.<br /><br />So do yourself and us a favour, and don't come back at us with `at a guess' or `common sense'<br /> - make the effort and check your facts, and we can have a more constructive discussion.petehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05831322202596781171noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073021351804532798.post-68127316059024574932013-02-15T20:52:15.100+00:002013-02-15T20:52:15.100+00:00Pete, you say “the plane was in a 100 knot cross w...Pete, you say “the plane was in a 100 knot cross wind”, but how fast was the plane flying?<br /><br />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.<br /><br />In other words the headwind would out-blow the cross wind? <br />Davehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15213240619989073000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073021351804532798.post-64218769455729539932013-02-15T14:07:57.809+00:002013-02-15T14:07:57.809+00:00So, can we be clear about this? We have a ton of ...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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />For example, a series of tests done in 2012 using 450 g Semtex gave the following results.<br /><br />Approximately 65% (suitcase and contents) of the primary suitcase survives.<br />Approximately 95% of the secondary suitcases (also suitcase and contents) survives.<br />Approximately 10% of the circuitboard survives.<br /><br />But you don't believe that, so you invent a totally imaginary hole on the other side of the plane.<br /><br />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.Rolfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17849975010197698907noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073021351804532798.post-59654702360666570932013-02-12T20:30:36.745+00:002013-02-12T20:30:36.745+00:00Professor Robert Black, you ask me to answer Rolfe...Professor Robert Black, you ask me to answer Rolfe’s question “what caused the blast damage”. I already have.<br /><br />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”.<br /><br />Rolfe chose to ignore this comment and ask me again “what caused the blast damage”, prompting you to do the same.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />But not knowing what caused it doesn’t make the IED explanation true.<br /><br />Particularly when Rolfe’s dramatic description of the blast damaged container is not evidence of a semtex explosion.<br /><br />This is because a 450g semtex IED would have destroyed the ‘bomb case’ and not left identifiable clothing or fragment.<br /><br />Rolfe disagrees but [citation not required] just applied common sense.<br />Davehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15213240619989073000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073021351804532798.post-21973873422048517852013-02-12T10:05:39.007+00:002013-02-12T10:05:39.007+00:00.... if the plane had transported munitions or eve...<i>.... if the plane had transported munitions or even personal who had handled explosive or similar material trace elements could remain.</i><br /><br />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 <i>where</i> the traces of explosives were found), it doesn't even address my main point, which was the evidence of an actual <i>explosion</i>.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />All that evidence is easily available, with photos and forensics descriptions and even press reports dated early in 1989.<br /><br /><i>....if the plane had transported munitions or even personal who had handled explosive or similar material trace elements could remain.</i><br /><br />Whether or not the plane had transported munitions at some time is utterly irrelevant to the evidence that an explosion actually <i>happened</i>, and that explosion was inside a baggage container which contained nothing but suitcases and holdalls loaded as passenger luggage.<br /><br />Dave has still not indicated what he thinks caused this.Rolfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17849975010197698907noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073021351804532798.post-69748707533364813142013-02-11T20:13:38.214+00:002013-02-11T20:13:38.214+00:00Pete I agree it was the hole that did it, but was ...<i>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?<br /><br />If God forbid you’re kicked in the left leg do you drop to the left or right?<br /><br /><br />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?</i><br /><br />(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.<br /><br />(b) There's no evidence for any other hole.<br /><br />(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.<br /><br /><i>Rolfe said it was due to the way the wind was blowing, do you agree?</i><br /><br />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.<br /><br /><br /><br /><i>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. </i><br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />I hope all this is of some help.petehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05831322202596781171noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073021351804532798.post-66987043120673765442013-02-11T18:28:52.450+00:002013-02-11T18:28:52.450+00:00Dave, in various different formulations, Rolfe has...Dave, in various different formulations, Rolfe has asked you the following question: <br /><br />"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.<br /><br />"What caused these things to be in that condition, Dave?"<br /><br />Until you answer this question, no further comments from you will be posted on this thread.Robert Blackhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03606456028430261555noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073021351804532798.post-1764944058198330042013-02-11T18:20:27.750+00:002013-02-11T18:20:27.750+00:00Dear Rolfe, you say ‘the question is not simply ho...Dear Rolfe, you say ‘the question is not simply how high the temperature of the blast was, but the duration of the heat flash’.<br /><br />Well the cockpit detached from the frame in 3 seconds, is that a guide?<br />Davehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15213240619989073000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073021351804532798.post-72162654952152454472013-02-11T16:27:26.768+00:002013-02-11T16:27:26.768+00:00The question is not simply how high the temperatur...The question is not simply how high the temperature of the blast was, but the duration of the heat flash.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />What caused these things to be in that condition, Dave?Rolfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17849975010197698907noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073021351804532798.post-30440833298995555062013-02-11T07:25:11.771+00:002013-02-11T07:25:11.771+00:00Dear Rolfe, Pete said the ‘IED’ was at the centre ...Dear Rolfe, Pete said the ‘IED’ was at the centre of a blast that reached 5000 Celsius. <br /><br />Is he right and would cotton clothing in the ‘bomb case’ all burn at that temperature and if not would it remain identifiable?<br /><br />I know you have said it would and only leave the suitcase seriously damaged, but [citation required]. <br />Davehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15213240619989073000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073021351804532798.post-27228452307750451122013-02-09T18:20:20.158+00:002013-02-09T18:20:20.158+00:00".... a ‘450g semtex IED’ would destroy the ...".... a ‘450g semtex IED’ would destroy the cotton contents of the ‘bomb case’ and leave more than trace ingredients of semtex.<br /><br />[citation required]<br /><br />That is simply rubbish, as anyone who has been involved in trial explosions of that nature will tell you.<br /><br />I note you still have absolutely no explanation for the evidence that actually exists, and continue to imagine fantasy evidence that does not exist.<br /><br />"The evidence for this hole is the speed and way the plane disintegrated...."<br /><br />[citation required]<br /><br />And don't come to me with your kooky web site, show us you have some actual expertise in this area.<br /><br />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.Rolfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17849975010197698907noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073021351804532798.post-82152184740871173632013-02-09T08:58:42.753+00:002013-02-09T08:58:42.753+00:00MISSION LOCKERBIE, 2013:
THERE WAS NO EXPLOSION I... MISSION LOCKERBIE, 2013:<br /><br />THERE WAS NO EXPLOSION INSIDE CONTAINER AVE 4041 ON PAN-AM 103 <br />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 ?<br /><br />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)!<br /><br />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...<br /><br />by Edwin Bollier, MEBO Ltd. Switzerland. URL: www.lockerbie.chebolhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12681382726604052927noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073021351804532798.post-4816468989889566972013-02-08T15:30:37.156+00:002013-02-08T15:30:37.156+00:00Unlike you I do not pretend to know what caused th...Unlike you I do not pretend to know what caused the petalled hole, but your IED explanation is full of holes.<br /><br />Because a ‘450g semtex IED’ would destroy the cotton contents of the ‘bomb case’ and leave more than trace ingredients of semtex.<br /><br />Therefore we have evidence of a hole but not a semtex explosion.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />And whereas a normal person would welcome an explanation for this omission, a troll would not?<br />Davehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15213240619989073000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073021351804532798.post-12789090528122369862013-02-07T21:57:24.323+00:002013-02-07T21:57:24.323+00:00Dave, I don't think you have the foggiest idea...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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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 <i>does</i> exist, doesn't cut it.Rolfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17849975010197698907noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073021351804532798.post-41728708268976932013-02-07T15:49:40.985+00:002013-02-07T15:49:40.985+00:00The website, Boeing 747 Pan Am 103 not brought dow...The website, Boeing 747 Pan Am 103 not brought down by bomb explanation, provides an answer to your question.<br /><br />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.<br /> <br />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.<br /><br />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?<br />Davehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15213240619989073000noreply@blogger.com