[What follows is from an article headlined 2013’s top 10 issues published in the Maltese newspaper The Independent on 1 January:]
7 - Lockerbie anniversary
It may not be a strictly Maltese commemoration, but the bombing of Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland on 21 December 1988 that killed 270 people will always be inextricably tied to Malta. That is because the man found guilty of the heinous act, Abdel Baset al-Megrahi, was found guilty of having loaded the bomb onto a feeder flight at Malta International Airport. Last week’s 25th anniversary of the tragedy, which many believe is still to be solved, was a poignant one, and new calls for fresh inquiries were made. Al-Megrahi, who died insisting in his innocence, had been granted an appeal by the Scottish authorities before being released from a Scottish prison on compassionate grounds. Al-Megrahi has since died but there are many that hope the real truth behind the atrocity has not died with him – and that Malta’s name will eventually be cleared.
I'm tempted to point out that the information necessary to clear Malta's name already exists, and is already in the public domain.
ReplyDeletePicking this up and running with it might be a better use of time and resources than repeated public hand-wringing.
Dear Rolfe,
ReplyDeleteIf you dispute part of an official explanation then this means you cast doubt on the entire explanation.
This doesn’t mean the entire report is untrue (and you may be wrong about the part you dispute), but it means you shouldn’t use words like “incontrovertible” when discussing the evidence.
Particularly as there hasn’t been a public enquiry and you’re not qualified to know.
However as we do know Megrahi is innocent (the Zeist judges said so when they delivered their guilty verdict!) we can speculate, debate and learn about the Lockerbie case.
And that’s why I’m sure many readers are disappointed by your refusal to answer questions, instead telling them to go away and “read about it”.
I appreciate you have your own agenda, but it is cheeky for you to visit this blog and tell readers to go away and “read about it”, because the reason we visit the Lockerbie Case ‘is to read about it’!
I do not dispute evidence of blast damage to the suitcases or to other parts of the plane due to catastrophic explosive decompression.
ReplyDeleteExplosive decompression turns everyday items into IEDs and this would have triggered many explosions throughout the plane.
But to conclude the blast damage to the suitcases was the result of an IED intentionally planted as a ‘bomb’ requires evidence, beyond blast damage.
There is none other than the faked fragment.
The burnt clothing is not evidence beyond being the clothing in which the fragment was found.
But the assumption that because the fragment was found in the clothing then the clothing must be from the ‘bomb case’ is a leap of logic, particularly as the fragment is fake.
But this assumption was needed to trace the clothing to an outlet and for a shopkeeper to identify the purchaser of the clothing, to feed another assumption that the purchaser of the clothes also loaded them into the ‘bomb case’ and loaded the case at Luqa.
And yet even if you think some burnt scraps can be identified as coming from a specific item of clothing and sold from a particular shop to a particular person on a particular day, the fact remains that the shopkeeper didn’t identify the clothes sold from the burnt scraps.
We only have a suspect identification of the purchaser.
Now you may think it an improbable plot that puts ‘Maltese clothing’ in a ‘bomb case’ to be loaded at Heathrow.
But Rolfe needs to affirm this part of the official invented plot, because without it there is not even the pretence of IED evidence and thus no Heathrow plot.
No Dave, we're not talking about decompression. We're talking about an explosive device. If you haven't looked at the pictures of the debris in question, then you're talking out of your arse, quite frankly.
ReplyDeleteI'm sorry you think that reality is improbable, but that's your problem, not mine.
Just putting the word 'explosive' in front of 'decompression' doesn't make the damage caused by decompression identical to the damage caused by the detonation of an explosive charge. It can't explain charring and residues of the principal constituents of Semtex. It can't explain a petalled hole in the fuselage or damage to baggage centred on a position low in the rear left corner of container AVE4041.
ReplyDeleteAnd, Dave, your objection to the identification of the clothing is bollocks. A fragment from a pair of 'Yorkie' brand trousers had enough of its label surviving for the manufacturer to be traced, and hence Mary's House as the sole vendor. Tony Gauci was able to recall a list of items he had sold along with the trousers, and this list matched other recovered clothing fragments which showed evidence of close proximity to the explosive.
From that first interview onwards, much went wrong with the police handling of Gauci, but his initial unprompted statements show that, first, the clothes sold to a mysterious purchaser were those recovered as blast-damaged fragments from Lockerbie and, secondly, that purchaser could not have been Megrahi.
The battier fringes of conspiracy theorists have a tendency to reject any argument that doesn't line up perfectly with their own personal scenario. Dave isn't the only one. I have a small following of fruitcakes who accuse me of being some sort of CIA or MI5 plant within JFM, apparently tasked with promoting some other scenario so that their own pet theory will be overlooked.
ReplyDeleteThe fact that my work on the damaged suitcases shows categorically that the Malta ingestion theory, the absolute foundation of the entirety of the Crown case, is flat wrong, seems somehow to be overlooked.
I have to admit to some curiosity as to why anyone imagines the British Establishment would set a double agent to destroy their own case. They are absolutely desperate to maintain the Malta/Megrahi explanation. They aren't going to be able to do that for much longer though.
A fragment from a pair of 'Yorkie' brand trousers had enough of its label surviving for the manufacturer to be traced, and hence Mary's House as the sole vendor.
ReplyDeleteThat, actually, is bordering on the miraculous. If it wasn't that the story seems impossible to fake, I'd be incredulous. I mean, how many pairs of trousers are there that are almost unique items and were supplied to only one shop? Outside bespoke tailoring, that is. (I think they were the result of the manufacturer using up off-cuts of cloth, but even so.)
So our criminal mastermind, having devised a plan so cunning that even after the event there was nothing to show it had been done at all, managed to locate this googlewhack of a pair of trousers in a small shop only three miles from the scene of the dastardly cunning plan. And he packed them beside the bomb, labels and all, and then set the timer so ridiculously early that the chances of the explosion happening on or over land were pretty high.
I swear, if there was some way I could figure out how this could have been faked, I'd believe it. I can't, though. There are anomalies, but they don't dent the basic story.
With or without an alternative explanation, the absence of evidence for the ‘ingestion of a bomb case at Luqa’, debunks the official ‘ingestion of bomb case at Luqa’ conspiracy theory.
ReplyDeleteBefore and even after Zeist the authorities expected the matter to be legally forgotten and it almost was except for the remarkable success of PE1370 – in 2010.
This has kept the issue legally alive requiring an official response to a range of questions and comments from JfM and others that they continue to obstruct.
However the State has identified a potential development which they are desperate to avoid.
This is, if Megrahi is innocent then the question becomes ‘if not Megrahi, then Who, or even, What caused it?
If the question remains Who, then this provides the cover for the bogus ‘live’ criminal investigation to continue.
But if the question becomes What, then this becomes a compelling reason to hold the public enquiry that was never held at the behest of US.
Thus it is in the US/UK (and Scottish) establishment interest for the premier pressure group to remain fixated on the Who rather than the What of Lockerbie.
Pete,
ReplyDeleteI do not dispute there may have been an IED in the case that was an intentional bomb, because I have no way of knowing one way or another.
But what can be ascertained from the surviving blast damage is that the IED was not powerful enough to destroy the plane, because the surviving evidence of blast damage i.e. fragment and clothing would not have survived.
I know you say it would or could, but beyond reasonable doubt?
Also you say the fragment of timer, with clear markings, was fake and Gauci’s identification of Megrahi was wrong.
But you say the fragment of clothing, with clear markings, was genuinely unique and identifiable to a tourist shop in Malta.
Except if an item is genuinely unique, bespoke say, then a shopkeeper would have taken the sale as a special order and would know exactly the identity of the purchaser.
But what can be ascertained from the surviving blast damage is that the IED was not powerful enough to destroy the plane, because the surviving evidence of blast damage i.e. fragment and clothing would not have survived.
ReplyDeleteThis is of course complete rubbish, something you just made up. The mechanism whereby the relatively small charge of explosive managed to cause a complete and extremely fast break-up of the plane was the subject of a great deal of expert academic analysis and research, and is well understood.
Except if an item is genuinely unique, bespoke say, then a shopkeeper would have taken the sale as a special order and would know exactly the identity of the purchaser.
ReplyDeleteIf, if, if. There's no need to say "if", because the exact circumstances of the manufacture and sale of that particular pair of trousers are well documented. They were not bespoke, they were simply part of the stock of the small shop, and were sold to a customer who happened to come into the shop looking to buy clothes.
Dear Dave,
ReplyDelete"But what can be ascertained from the surviving blast damage is that the IED was not powerful enough to destroy the plane, because the surviving evidence of blast damage i.e. fragment and clothing would not have survived."
Utter codswallop. Yes, the Semtex doubtless reached temperatures of between 3 to 4,000c. But for only an instant. The Wyatt and other tests were done in containers at ground level. That is not an accurate method of assessing what the dynamics at some 5 miles high with external temperatures of minus 50c when a pound of Semtex goes off right next to the skin of an aircraft which is internally pressurised and not designed to withstand such an incident. One only needs the a slight puncture in the fuselage in such circumstances to pitch the craft into a terminal disaster. Furthermore, because of the aforementioned conditions, it is not at all unlikely that certain 'debris' may remain sufficient;y intact to become forensically examined.
I don't know what kind of medication you are on, but, I'll pass if it's all the same to you.
Robert.
One only needs the a slight puncture in the fuselage in such circumstances to pitch the craft into a terminal disaster.
ReplyDeleteIt wasn't just the slight puncture, either. That was in a bad place and probably disabled most of the aircraft's electrical systems, which itself was potentially catastrophic of course. However, the overpressure was perhaps the most critical thing.
If you look at the AAIB report you'll see this illustrated. The position of the IED was such that it didn't just blow out that hole in the hull, it propagated a wave of increased pressure through internal spaces inside the fuselage. This was more than the skin of the plane could take, and it separated from the airframe in several places and began to peel off.
If you look at Till Nowak's extraordinary animation, this is illustrated. The hole in the hull happens, but almost at the same time you see the skin start to peel off in places quite distant from the actual explosion. Overpressure. Which catastrophically ruptured the hull so that all internal pressure was lost within a second or two. Breakup was extraordinarily rapid as a result of that, and the original hole being right at the junction of the nose-cone and the main fuselage.
The AAIB report is fascinating, including a bunch of recommendations for possible modifications to the structure of these planes so that they might withstand an explosion of that nature without the propagation of the overpressure.
There is one single sentence in that report, which has been transferred verbatim from a preliminary report dated April 1989 which only referred to the two damaged baggage containers, that Should. Not. Be. There. It is something the author of that report, Peter Claiden, was not qualified to determine, and was not required to determine. It has no place in the AAIB report.
And yet it is there. It is the earliest of a number of almost identical statements of the same concept, by about six investigators in total. And it is the fundamental point that governed the reasoning of the investigators and eventually the FAI about the origin of the bomb. And it is flat wrong.
I really wonder how that sentence found its way into that report.
“Till Nowak’s extraordinary animation” aka the false animated simulation of the break-up that inspired the front-cover of your book!
ReplyDeleteThe cock-pit detached first and knocked off engine 3, which is not shown in the animation!
You've read the AAIB report, then? Where does it say that?
ReplyDelete"The cock-pit detached first and knocked off engine 3, which is not shown in the animation!"
ReplyDeleteRemarable interest you suddenly have for details when it suits some argument of yours.
Isn't there anything else you can point out? E.g. "The light in the horizon shouldn't be there, it is pitch dark on that time of the day, that time of the year."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j5naaWe3nLI
Details in an animation.
That comes from a man who do not seem to worry too much about other details like
- a reassembled plane showing a hole in the aft side
- completely blown-to-pieces suitcases and containers
- explosives resid
hey, I am spending my time on this?
You got me again! :-(
I do appreciate your sense of humour and the moments of levity you bring to a serious debate.
ReplyDeleteNOT read the AAIB report, then? (I think there would still have been light on the horizon at 31,000 feet, as it was only 7 pm.)
ReplyDelete"I think there would still have been light on the horizon at 31,000 feet"
ReplyDeleteI looked up the below.
Times are for 22 Dec 2013, but they will have been very close for any year.
http://www.ukweathercams.co.uk/sunrise_sunset_times.php
Lockerbie
Sunset: 15:46:47
Dusk - civil twilight ends 16:32:23
Nautical twilight ends 17:20:14
Astronomical twilight ends 18:04:50
When civil twilight ends, most people will say that it is 'dark'.
At the end of nautical twilight you can no longer, even with binoculars, see e.g. mountains in the horizon, to use for navigation.
At the end of astronomical twilight it is so 'completely' dark that you can direct recording telescopes towards any part of the sky.
The altitude will not make a difference with more than a few minutes.
It think it is safe to conclude that PANAM103 was in total darkness(*), with the horizon not even visible.
Naturally, such a level of darkness is not suitable for a depiction.
(*)Of course the moon may have been on the sky.
I thought the altitude makes a much bigger difference than you allow for. It's well-known that people taking off in the early evening get to see two sunsets.
ReplyDeleteHowever, if you're right I still admire the artistic licence. The departure from Heathrow (with the 31,000 feet sunset happening in the background) is massively speeded up, and then the actual break-up of the plane slowed down so you can see it. But he's taken the sequence of the break-up pretty much as is from the AAIB report. It's an impressive piece of art.
"I thought the altitude makes a much bigger difference than you allow for. It's well-known that people taking off in the early evening get to see two sunsets.
ReplyDeleteRight. I found this:
http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=388
where it says
"a typical commercial airplane altitude of 12000 metres, you can see an extra 2 degrees "around" the Earth. Since the Earth moves around the Sun at a rate of a quarter of a degree a minute, it means that at this altitude, sunset occurs 8 minutes later than it would from the ground."
It is clearly not correct though, latitude also matters. On the poles the sun takes days to settle and nautical twilight is for 5 weeks. Being in 10 km's height would give you days more.
But all in all, we are talking about a some of handfuls of minutes only on 'reasonable' latitudes.
I fell over this curiosity also, we don't even need to fly:
http://gizmodo.com/5917230/did-you-know-that-the-burj-khalifa-is-so-tall-that-you-can-watch-two-sunsets-on-the-same-day
"It's an impressive piece of art."
Impressive indeed, terribly saddening.
The light is so symbolic, these people flying towards a new dawn, new life and hopes.
So many died, but Flora, with her young life and love, and her tireless dad, for me became a personification of the tragedy.
I didn't realise it was such a short time difference. I don't really care that much though. The animation is beautifully done. (Though if you say that to Till Nowak, he'll thank you for the compliment then go on to point out much more cheerful works of his that he much prefers looking at.)
ReplyDelete