ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags Lockerbie bombing , Pan Am 103

Reply
Old 22nd September 2009, 11:13 AM   #121
Toke
Godless Socialist
 
Toke's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Denmark
Posts: 8,170
Interesting, I had no idea there were that much difference in high explosives.
__________________
From each according to his ability, to each according to his need. -K. Marx.

Toke is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd September 2009, 01:11 PM   #122
LONGTABBER PE
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,528
Originally Posted by Toke View Post
Interesting, I had no idea there were that much difference in high explosives.
There really is but useless trivia moment follows:

TNT is the explosive baseline- everything is measured against it

Anything below it is just explosive and anything at it or beyond is referred to as high explosive- then there are the "super" high explosives ( PETN and RDX classes)

Depends on what you need to do as to which is the correct choice.

C's & B's are the preferred explosives because they can be molded, cut into various sizes, rolled into strings and such so they fit unusual shapes, can cut like DET cord and you can do designer things with them like blow out locks or blow holes in walls- even blow names in things ( for the artistic types)

C4 and Semtex are also 100% waterproof too and safer ( burn without exploding and almost impossible to detonate by physical shock)

The real difference is the "blast" ( hard to describe with words and without formulae or good pictures)

If I remember, you are an electrical engineer too so its "kinda/sorta" like the difference in electromotive force between DC and AC current.

You need pure raw horsepower to break something up- (pushing force)- then the lower ones are the choice

You need fast,hard,high impact "shock" and high concentrated force ( high impact) like a capacitor discharging then you need the faster ones.

I guess I needed to say that because its directly relevant ( in terms of believability) to the states version.

If they claimed nitro, dynamite, gel- yeah I could buy their account- they arent near as hot and "blow" things out so I would expect debris from the bomb and a good bit ( thats why those are used in grenades- it defeats the purpose to "vaporize" your schrapnel)

Its the explosive equilavent to telling me an oxy acetylene torch with a cutting flame is the proper tool to solder copper pipe and it wont hurt the pipe rather than a propane torch.

Thats why, based on what Rolfe posted regarding the "physical remains" lead me to believe someone pulled the old "switch-a-roonie" with a suitcase blown up with a lower grade explosive.

I now believe maybe in those "secret documents" that some other explosives expert figured it out too.

The math doesnt add up
LONGTABBER PE is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd September 2009, 01:22 PM   #123
Toke
Godless Socialist
 
Toke's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Denmark
Posts: 8,170
Quote:
There really is but useless trivia moment follows:
Fine with me.
(I guess the driving explosives would be the black powder used for undermining trenches and fortifications, or the modern fuel air stuff.)

This makes the whole case look rather suspect, particularly the lab with no money for samples and your idea of the alternate suitcase blown up with something with less punch to provide evidence for planting.
Those two fit nicely together.
__________________
From each according to his ability, to each according to his need. -K. Marx.

Toke is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd September 2009, 02:08 PM   #124
LONGTABBER PE
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,528
Originally Posted by Toke View Post
Fine with me.
(I guess the driving explosives would be the black powder used for undermining trenches and fortifications, or the modern fuel air stuff.)

This makes the whole case look rather suspect, particularly the lab with no money for samples and your idea of the alternate suitcase blown up with something with less punch to provide evidence for planting.
Those two fit nicely together
.
Its a theory that fits the facts ( if in reality those are indeed "facts") The problem is that they DO "fit" and very well.

Admittedly, This incident has never been anywhere in my thoughts ( except back in the day) and I wouldnt have even thought about it if it hadnt been for another thread by Rolfe.

Honestly, I've learned some things this week reading some of his links.

Like I said earlier, I always start with the physics of the act based on the evidence then gauge the account. ( I do that on everything)

The math doesnt add up here- but as i say that, I'm not going to stake my credentials on "internet information" either.

Like electricity- explosives are pure math and engineering constants- they dont change. Its a case of how much information you have to assign values to the variables. After that, the math speaks for itself.

The states claim of what happened doesnt match the evidence they say remains with what they say it was done with.

Based on what I have seen ( especially that alternate report- assuming its legit)- the whole suitcase theory is a red herring and all its details structured to lead to a conclusion.

That leads me to believe they actually DO know what happened and the trial itself was a red herring also.

This sounds like a PR stunt to throw "the public" off the scent of the real bombers.

Thats where I sit right now.

My personal question now shifts to ( regarding the guy)

1) is he innocent yet framed

2) involved but not direct

3) sacrificial lamb ( guilty of other things known but not this and sacrificed as a political compromise)

Thats another thread tho
LONGTABBER PE is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd September 2009, 02:29 PM   #125
TriskettheKid
Graduate Poster
 
TriskettheKid's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,431
Hang on a sec....

Longtabber, are you saying that high explosives will completely obliterate any device it's attached to, leaving no evidence of the device behind? Regardless if it's enclosed in a suitcase, in the open, in a car, etc?

Is that what you're saying?
TriskettheKid is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd September 2009, 02:55 PM   #126
Guybrush Threepwood
Trainee Pirate
 
Guybrush Threepwood's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: An Uaimh
Posts: 2,537
Originally Posted by LONGTABBER PE View Post
Tell you what I think

Somebody took a suitcase packed with stuff with a stick of TNT and blew it up on a pad- instant evidence with conflicting residues- very sloppy
Now we're cooking! From the vague possibility of one piece of evidence being planted, we're off down the rabbit hole, and being led by a guy who isn't a CTer so it must be true!

I haven't seen this linked in any of the threads, if it has been and I missed it my apologies, but here you go AAIB Report on PanAm 103.

It's an overview, not very mathematical, and doesn't analyse the type of explosive, but it's still a lot of people involved who would have to be "leant on" or "compromised" or "terminated with extreme prejudice" or whatever Longtabber's colleagues did in the early 90's, if this is a fabrication, and not what actually happened.

I'm sure by tomorrow we can advance to the whole thing being an early test of holographic aircraft simulations in case they would ever be needed in future, if we all just work together.

Last edited by Guybrush Threepwood; 22nd September 2009 at 03:01 PM. Reason: clarify what I meant
Guybrush Threepwood is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd September 2009, 03:16 PM   #127
Caustic Logic
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 4,494
Originally Posted by LONGTABBER PE View Post
Then consider the thermal properties of the components themselves relative to their dimensions. ( a match will ignite a toothpick but not enough energy to do a 2X4)

So, they say there was a "brownish" one too? There was a "hole" in the blast?

If part of it was incinerated, charred or whatever- it all should have been.

I find it suspicious all things being equal, "just enough" was found to make some sort of an ID but no more.

Doesnt add up with the overall knowns regarding that type of explosive
Thanks, that sounds reasonable. I agree that just from a logic point of view it seems implausible and too convenient. With all other factors considered it just gets worse.

Quote:
So, they say there was a "brownish" one too?
I'm a little confused on the color issue but brown was I think the original color of the protoype board plastic, while green is what they supplied libya with. I guess the model and fragment we've seen photos of are of the green type tho they look blue-gray to me and that seems a tint issue (it's all a bit blue). Apologies for still being confused on that.
Caustic Logic is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd September 2009, 03:16 PM   #128
LONGTABBER PE
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,528
Originally Posted by TriskettheKid View Post
Hang on a sec....

Longtabber, are you saying that high explosives will completely obliterate any device it's attached to, leaving no evidence of the device behind? Regardless if it's enclosed in a suitcase, in the open, in a car, etc?

Is that what you're saying?
Not at all.

In anything- there are a million variables that can a million different outcomes.

The problem is ( regarding those who dont do this) that people who are armchair commentators love to plan for or on some kind of "perfect world" scenario then pick it apart.

Certainly its POSSIBLE and I dont dispute that. Never have or will.

Is it PROBABLE- HIGHLY unlikely

There is no "exact" answer so you have to base the DEDUCTION on the whole

Thats how it works- it doesnt add up
LONGTABBER PE is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd September 2009, 03:27 PM   #129
LONGTABBER PE
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,528
Originally Posted by Guybrush Threepwood View Post
Now we're cooking! From the vague possibility of one piece of evidence being planted, we're off down the rabbit hole, and being led by a guy who isn't a CTer so it must be true!

I haven't seen this linked in any of the threads, if it has been and I missed it my apologies, but here you go AAIB Report on PanAm 103.

It's an overview, not very mathematical, and doesn't analyse the type of explosive, but it's still a lot of people involved who would have to be "leant on" or "compromised" or "terminated with extreme prejudice" or whatever Longtabber's colleagues did in the early 90's, if this is a fabrication, and not what actually happened.

I'm sure by tomorrow we can advance to the whole thing being an early test of holographic aircraft simulations in case they would ever be needed in future, if we all just work together.

Here is a textbook example why I deliberately avoid CT type threads and armchair commentaries and people who throw google as their fact source as a whole.

They have something to say but no knowledge from which to say it- thats not a discussion, thats an argument. I dont do those.

I'm a SME who knows what I'm talking about with the 214 and the professional credentials to back up the mouth ( big difference)

I made it CLEAR that I'm NOT going to accept "internet evidence" as a reliable source ( what part of that didnt you understand?) and WITHOUT directly examining the evidence and testimony, this is a THEORY.

What part of THAT didnt you understand?

Quote:
Now we're cooking! From the vague possibility of one piece of evidence being planted, we're off down the rabbit hole, and being led by a guy who isn't a CTer so it must be true!
This is where you look foolish because its obvious and documented in the thread. ( and why I dont post in CT threads because there are too many morons in it and sorry Rolfe, I'm about to leave this one) I'm not "leading" anyone,anywhere- I stated my observations and the reasons for them. ( are YOU an engineer or do demolitions?- if not- how do you know they are wrong?) I didnt think so.

Quote:
It's an overview, not very mathematical, and doesn't analyse the type of explosive, but it's still a lot of people involved who would have to be "leant on" or "compromised" or "terminated with extreme prejudice" or whatever Longtabber's colleagues did in the early 90's, if this is a fabrication, and not what actually happened.
emphasis on the bolded
LONGTABBER PE is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd September 2009, 03:28 PM   #130
Caustic Logic
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 4,494
Originally Posted by TriskettheKid View Post
Hang on a sec....

Longtabber, are you saying that high explosives will completely obliterate any device it's attached to, leaving no evidence of the device behind? Regardless if it's enclosed in a suitcase, in the open, in a car, etc?

Is that what you're saying?
If so it don't sound right, but I think he meant only for sure in this case, depending exactly how close the semtex was to the timer within a radio. He did say that would be most likely vaporized. Would you disagree with that? In the space of a radio within a suitcase in a cargo hold? Minus a sheet of lead between them?
Caustic Logic is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd September 2009, 03:34 PM   #131
LONGTABBER PE
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,528
Originally Posted by Caustic Logic View Post

I'm a little confused on the color issue but brown was I think the original color of the protoype board plastic, while green is what they supplied libya with. I guess the model and fragment we've seen photos of are of the green type tho they look blue-gray to me and that seems a tint issue (it's all a bit blue). Apologies for still being confused on that.
Both exist and are common stock- what I dont know is what that company's "standard" id and if it was a "handmade" it could have come from anywhere.

Thats why I asked earlier about the disposition of the "other" boards and will add the manufacturing specs as RAW materials are always purchased in BULK.

These can be traced too- the question is how deeply was this looked into
LONGTABBER PE is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd September 2009, 03:36 PM   #132
Caustic Logic
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 4,494
Originally Posted by LONGTABBER PE View Post
Here is a textbook example why I deliberately avoid CT type threads and armchair commentaries and people who throw google as their fact source as a whole.

They have something to say but no knowledge from which to say it- thats not a discussion, thats an argument. I dont do those.

I'm a SME who knows what I'm talking about with the 214 and the professional credentials to back up the mouth ( big difference)

I made it CLEAR that I'm NOT going to accept "internet evidence" as a reliable source ( what part of that didnt you understand?) and WITHOUT directly examining the evidence and testimony, this is a THEOR
Sorry dude but you're internet evidence too. We're all ON the internet. This is our medium of communicating evidence. Should we be printing and mailing? Or ignoring it? I think he meant 'to show the results of on-the-scene investigators, for comparison. Does it fit your theories? If so why not and why do you have more basis than them to disagree? And what will be thread title for that discussion?

Thanks for the link Guybrush as I hadn't hunted that stuff down yet. It's linked now for future ref.
Caustic Logic is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd September 2009, 03:42 PM   #133
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 42,698
Originally Posted by Guybrush Threepwood View Post
Now we're cooking! From the vague possibility of one piece of evidence being planted, we're off down the rabbit hole, and being led by a guy who isn't a CTer so it must be true!

I haven't seen this linked in any of the threads, if it has been and I missed it my apologies, but here you go AAIB Report on PanAm 103.

It's an overview, not very mathematical, and doesn't analyse the type of explosive, but it's still a lot of people involved who would have to be "leant on" or "compromised" or "terminated with extreme prejudice" or whatever Longtabber's colleagues did in the early 90's, if this is a fabrication, and not what actually happened.

I'm sure by tomorrow we can advance to the whole thing being an early test of holographic aircraft simulations in case they would ever be needed in future, if we all just work together.

Mmmmmm, kay....

Can we back off a bit here?

We ought to appreciate that Longtabber has actually repeated an existing CT regarding PA103. de Braekeleer thinks the explosion happened outside the luggage container (something to do with the "Mach Stem Effect"). He also thinks Giaka (the CIA mole) bought the clothes from Gauci, which is certainly related. There is a fair bit of tittle-tattle surrounding other bits of evidence that were identified with the bomb suitcase, such as the babygro, the slalom shirt and the Toshiba manual. So the suspicions aren't necessarily confined to the timer fragment alone. So I don't think we should reject the thesis entirely - this whole thing is too damn strange to reject anything out of hand.

Nevertheless, the implications of this particular theory are pretty heavy. The evidence of the brown Samsonite hardshell and the fragments of radio-cassette player were found very early in the proceedings as far as I know. You could point to the very rapid progress made in the early weeks of the investigation to suggest that evidence was actually being fed to the investigators, I suppose, but that just gets you right back in the same place. Who had the means and the motive to plant fabricated, misdirecting evidence within the investigation, right there in Scotland, within the first few weeks?

There's only one answer. It's well known that the CIA showed up at Lockerbie before it even got light, having flown personnel up from London almost immediately the news broke. There are many reports of US officials "shadowing" the police and the other searchers, and interfering with evidence. There's no other possible candidate for the role.

My assumption has always been that the reason for that was the presence in the wreckage of sensitive information or material they didn't want to come to light. Something being carried by one or more of the CIA operatives who died on the plane. It may have had nothing at all to do with the explosion. It may or may not have had anything to do with the persistent allegations of drugs found in the wreckage and whatever the hell was going on with Jaffaar.

However, if Longtabber's (and de Braekeleer's) thesis is correct, they were in fact busy planting fabricated evidence to mislead the investigators into believing that the plane had been blown up by a bomb in a suitcase, when in reality the aircraft was sabotaged on the ground.

This, ladies and gentlemen, is a full-blown, no-holds-barred MIHOP.

I for one am going to take an awful lot of persuading that a US government agency deliberately blew up a plane carrying nearly 200 Americans.

Rolfe.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.

Last edited by Rolfe; 22nd September 2009 at 03:46 PM.
Rolfe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd September 2009, 03:54 PM   #134
LONGTABBER PE
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,528
Originally Posted by Caustic Logic View Post
Sorry dude but you're internet evidence too. We're all ON the internet. This is our medium of communicating evidence. Should we be printing and mailing? Or ignoring it? I think he meant 'to show the results of on-the-scene investigators, for comparison. Does it fit your theories? If so why not and why do you have more basis than them to disagree? And what will be thread title for that discussion?

Thanks for the link Guybrush as I hadn't hunted that stuff down yet. It's linked now for future ref.
I realize that

Quote:
I think he meant 'to show the results of on-the-scene investigators, for comparison.
I didnt get that same tone

Quote:
Does it fit your theories? If so why not and why do you have more basis than them to disagree? And what will be thread title for that discussion?
I dont have a "theory" because if you read what i wrote- I havent given this situation a conscious thought since it happened except in another thread this last week. Dont know and didnt care ( still dont) I was offering information- nothing more.

Believe what you will- I'm not trying to sell or convince
LONGTABBER PE is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd September 2009, 03:57 PM   #135
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 42,698
Nevertheless, your assessment of the evidence leads somewhere, even if you haven't followed it through yet.

Rolfe.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.
Rolfe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd September 2009, 04:03 PM   #136
LONGTABBER PE
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,528
Originally Posted by Rolfe View Post
We ought to appreciate that Longtabber has actually repeated an existing CT regarding PA103. de Braekeleer thinks the explosion happened outside the luggage container (something to do with the "Mach Stem Effect"). He also thinks Giaka (the CIA mole) bought the clothes from Gauci, which is certainly related. There is a fair bit of tittle-tattle surrounding other bits of evidence that were identified with the bomb suitcase, such as the babygro, the slalom shirt and the Toshiba manual. So the suspicions aren't necessarily confined to the timer fragment alone. So I don't think we should reject the thesis entirely - this whole thing is too damn strange to reject anything out of hand.

Nevertheless, the implications of this particular theory are pretty heavy. The evidence of the brown Samsonite hardshell and the fragments of radio-cassette player were found very early in the proceedings as far as I know. You could point to the very rapid progress made in the early weeks of the investigation to suggest that evidence was actually being fed to the investigators, I suppose, but that just gets you right back in the same place. Who had the means and the motive to plant fabricated, misdirecting evidence within the investigation, right there in Scotland, within the first few weeks?


However, if Longtabber's (and de Braekeleer's) thesis is correct, they were in fact busy planting fabricated evidence to mislead the investigators into believing that the plane had been blown up by a bomb in a suitcase, when in reality the aircraft was sabotaged on the ground.


Rolfe.
I didnt know about anyone elses theory ( still dont know or care)

I simply looked at the explosive claimed and the knowns about it and my experience.

I'm not about to get into the game of "who did what,when and where". I really dont know and certainly dont care.

From what I have seen- the states case doesnt match the math and the evidence- thats a fact

There are a million variables that can change that- thats a fact


Examining the factuals could change everything I have said- thats a fact

I havent personally examined any of it and doubt I ever will- thats a fact also

I do know how these operations work- thats a fact also

What else do you want? I looked at whats out there and it doesnt add up
LONGTABBER PE is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd September 2009, 04:07 PM   #137
LONGTABBER PE
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,528
Originally Posted by Rolfe View Post
Nevertheless, your assessment of the evidence leads somewhere, even if you haven't followed it through yet.

Rolfe.
The problem is- I have little faith in "the evidence" and I made it clear it DEPENDS on its accuracy.

IF its accurate- theres a serious flaw. I just believe it is accurate and there is in fact a serious flaw.

Thats pretty much it unless the evidence,testimony and tests are available to review. I doubt they are and I see why.

They know its a scam and they arent going to put it in public- if it were bullet proof, put it out there, case closed
LONGTABBER PE is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd September 2009, 04:10 PM   #138
Ambrosia
Good of the Fods
 
Ambrosia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 2,483
Originally Posted by Rolfe View Post
The evidence of the brown Samsonite hardshell and the fragments of radio-cassette player were found very early in the proceedings as far as I know. ... Who had the means and the motive to plant fabricated, misdirecting evidence within the investigation?

There's only one answer. It's well known that the CIA showed up at Lockerbie before it even got light, having flown personnel up from London almost immediately the news broke. There are many reports of US officials "shadowing" the police and the other searchers, and interfering with evidence. There's no other possible candidate for the role.


However, if Longtabber's (and de Braekeleer's) thesis is correct, they were in fact busy planting fabricated evidence to mislead the investigators into believing that the plane had been blown up by a bomb in a suitcase, when in reality the aircraft was sabotaged on the ground.
There are sooooo mnay problems with this theory we can pretty much discard it right away.

While I can believe that the timer and the device itself were likely vapourised by the mechanics of the explosion, I don't buy for a moment the idea that the whole of the radio it was encased in and the suitcase and the contents of the suitcase were also vapourised.

Even if we accept that there were American intelligence operatives on the ground from very early on, which there very very probably were. The idea they were planting evidence is ridiculous. The recovery operation was spread over a huuuuge area and it was a joint operation between Scottish and American police. A couple of volunteer searchers or what have you could have easily come across conflicting evidence and exposed the whole thing.

There is actual evidence to base the idea on that MST-13 was planted, there's nothing but speculation to base the idea on that charred clothing which was tested, or that suitcase fragments which were also tested for explosives were fabricated.

While one of the AAIB people that wrote that report has since revised some of his opinions about the exact placement of the explosion from 25cm inside the cargo hold wall, to more like 12cm inside the cargo hold wall, it doesn't follow that the bomb was built into the aircraft somehow, there is a pile of credible scientific evidence that the explosion originated from within the cargo container.
Ambrosia is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd September 2009, 04:11 PM   #139
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 42,698
Originally Posted by LONGTABBER PE View Post
I didnt know about anyone elses theory ( still dont know or care)

I simply looked at the explosive claimed and the knowns about it and my experience.

I'm not about to get into the game of "who did what,when and where". I really dont know and certainly dont care.

From what I have seen- the states case doesnt match the math and the evidence- thats a fact

There are a million variables that can change that- thats a fact

Examining the factuals could change everything I have said- thats a fact

I havent personally examined any of it and doubt I ever will- thats a fact also

I do know how these operations work- thats a fact also

What else do you want? I looked at whats out there and it doesnt add up

What do I want?

Well, simply throwing my hands in the air and saying "this doesn't add up" isn't enough. I've known that at some level for over 15 years. I'd like to have some idea which parts of the evidence are credible and which suspect. I'd like to make some assessment of which theories are credible and which wild conspiracy theorising. I don't know how far it's possible to get, but I'd like to try.

Your own assessment of the evidence leads, to my mind, to the conclusion that the CIA actually sabotaged the aircraft, then moved in at a very early stage to plant evidence suggestive of a terrorist "suitcase bomb". Either that or some other party did the sabotage, but the CIA jumped in almost from day one with the cover-up.

I have to say I find that one of the least probable explanations for the events, and I'd have more faith in what you were proposing if you'd looked at a lot more of the evidence before jumping to these conclusions, and also considered where your theorising actually leads you.

Rolfe.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.

Last edited by Rolfe; 22nd September 2009 at 04:12 PM.
Rolfe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd September 2009, 04:18 PM   #140
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 42,698
Originally Posted by Guybrush Threepwood View Post
I haven't seen this linked in any of the threads, if it has been and I missed it my apologies, but here you go AAIB Report on PanAm 103.

I wasn't aware that was online, and thank you very much for finding it. There's so much out there, all in different places. I think Longtabber ought to look at it before coming to any more theories about what was fabricated and what wasn't.

Rolfe.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.
Rolfe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd September 2009, 04:25 PM   #141
Ambrosia
Good of the Fods
 
Ambrosia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 2,483
There's another theory that the loss of 103 was an accident and not caused by an terrorist bomb at all.

PA103 was, according to this theory, blown apart by detonation of military ordnance, carried illicitly on the plane and detonated accidentally by radio signals from the normal ATC system.

This theory hangs on the testimony of a volunteer searcher who at trial descrbes "sewing needles" hampering the search effort, which according to John Parkes were actually fletchettes from inside some kind of anti-personnel weapon that exploded.

Parkes on face value appears to be qualified nough to know what he's talking about, and examined 3 bodies first hand at the time, as well as assissting in the Lockerbie cleanup operation.
Ambrosia is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd September 2009, 04:36 PM   #142
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 42,698
Ow! I knew about the needles, but I hadn't come across that explanation. So, would the cover-up in that case be aimed at concealing the presence of illegal weapons on the plane, by planting evidence to suggest instead a terrorist bomb?

And the recent discovery of the PFLP-GC devices provided a convenient template for the supposed methodology? Helluva coincidence the explosion happened at the very time the PFLP devices would have gone off though. And it still doesn't really explain the timer fragment.

My head hurts.

Rolfe.

ETA: In a way, that link is quite entertaining. It provides a non-MIHOP scenario that is consistent with Lontabber's theorising, as I understand it. But at the same time if true, it completely exonerates Megrahi. He was framed, set up, railroaded and generally had for a sucker in every possible way, by the very people who are now screaming the most furious outrage over his release.

And Longtabber came into this because he believes that Megrahi is guilty, because they wouldn't have chosen someone completely innocent as the fall guy/sacrificial lamb.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.

Last edited by Rolfe; 22nd September 2009 at 05:16 PM.
Rolfe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd September 2009, 05:08 PM   #143
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 42,698
Originally Posted by LONGTABBER PE View Post
( and why I dont post in CT threads because there are too many morons in it and sorry Rolfe, I'm about to leave this one)

Well, leave if you like. The only morons I've seen in this thread are those who have declared that all the doubts about the Official Version are only a ruse to excuse Megrahi's recent release from prison, perpetrated by people whose sole aim is to annoy Americans. Because of course the captain of a US naval vessel couldn't possibly have been unjustified when he shot down a civil airliner in 1988.

I think this forum has the resources to do a good job of investigating the Lockerbie affair, and I think it would be a better use of posters' time than debunking rubbish about nano-thermite and holographic planes. The sheer amount of resources that have been turned up by just a few posters in three threads is quite impressive.

I wish we could interest some more of the regular 9/11 debunking crew, and where's Gravy when you need him?

If you're interested, then look at the totality of the information available concerning the aspect you're theorising about. If you're not, then fine, just go away.

Rolfe.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.
Rolfe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd September 2009, 06:08 PM   #144
Ambrosia
Good of the Fods
 
Ambrosia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 2,483
Originally Posted by Rolfe View Post
Ow! I knew about the needles, but I hadn't come across that explanation. So, would the cover-up in that case be aimed at concealing the presence of illegal weapons on the plane, by planting evidence to suggest instead a terrorist bomb?

And the recent discovery of the PFLP-GC devices provided a convenient template for the supposed methodology? Helluva coincidence the explosion happened at the very time the PFLP devices would have gone off though. And it still doesn't really explain the timer fragment.
Well I can't for the life of me work out why anyone would want to be transporting military weapons on a civilian plane going TO America, that aside.

the only evidence planted would be the timer fragment, everything else would fit, say for example the suitcase had innocuous clothes and a normal radio in it and was sitting on top of whatever exploded in the cargo hold. The reported traces of the type of explosive found would match (?) what was attributed to Semtex.

The pathology reports are an issue here, Parkes is saying what he saw indicates explosive shrapnel wounds, the pathologist says those were caused on impact with the ground. Also the Air Accident report is an issue. Wouldn't they have noticed shrapnel damage to the aircraft and been able to identify it as that?

It also puts place of ingestion as Heathrow, I could see a bomb in a radio maybe slipping past inline baggage, x-ray checks, but not some kind of warhead.

If the government leaned on the accident investigators and the pathologist maybe.

It's not the most likely theory by any means, thats for sure.

The co-incidence between the ice cube timers and the time of explosion, well where does the 30-40 minutes timeframe come from in the first place? If that is accurate it could just be a coincidence.

A better collection of letters from Parkes is found here.

Parkes currently runs a company called "Dell Explosives" based in Edinburgh.
Ambrosia is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd September 2009, 09:40 PM   #145
Caustic Logic
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 4,494
Originally Posted by LONGTABBER PE View Post
I didnt get that same tone
It looked to me like that PLUS a snarky tone.

Originally Posted by LONGTABBER PE View Post
I didnt know about anyone elses theory ( still dont know or care)

I simply looked at the explosive claimed and the knowns about it and my experience.

I'm not about to get into the game of "who did what,when and where". I really dont know and certainly dont care.

From what I have seen- the states case doesnt match the math and the evidence- thats a fact

There are a million variables that can change that- thats a fact


Examining the factuals could change everything I have said- thats a fact

I havent personally examined any of it and doubt I ever will- thats a fact also

I do know how these operations work- thats a fact also

What else do you want? I looked at whats out there and it doesnt add up
Sounds good. I for one have no more questions for you.

Originally Posted by Ambrosia
Well I can't for the life of me work out why anyone would want to be transporting military weapons on a civilian plane going TO America, that aside.
Central/South America? Gladio-types were in frequent contact down there ... I just have no stomach for more theories for what exactly DID happen. I even tried.

Originally Posted by Rolfe
would the cover-up in that case be aimed at concealing the presence of illegal weapons on the plane, by planting evidence to suggest instead a terrorist bomb? <snip>And it still doesn't really explain the timer fragment.


Originally Posted by Rolfe View Post
I wish we could interest some more of the regular 9/11 debunking crew, and where's Gravy when you need him?
I don't think I've ever seen Gravy stray much from 9/11 nuttery and perhaps never will. If his knowledge and reasoning on the subject were sound and valuable (if not already then with some work), it might run counter to his usual M.O. on CT examination - that is, taking the normal side. Maybe I'm wrong, I dunno.

Others I think think kinda the same. They don't really like to argue against really strong theories. Therm*te really is more their speed. (That's a challenge, folks).
Caustic Logic is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd September 2009, 02:35 AM   #146
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 42,698
Originally Posted by Ambrosia View Post
the only evidence planted would be the timer fragment, everything else would fit, say for example the suitcase had innocuous clothes and a normal radio in it and was sitting on top of whatever exploded in the cargo hold. The reported traces of the type of explosive found would match (?) what was attributed to Semtex.

I don't know about that. While that theory explains some stuff that was unclear before, it leaves an awful lot more hanging in the air.

I was thinking of starting another thread on whether it was possible the entire "suitcase bomb" hypothesis was either fabricated or a complete mistake, because it's getting this thread quite a long way off-topic. I think it's unlikely, myself, but it's worth examining.

I'm just concerned that there isn't sufficient interest in the forum in looking into this.

Originally Posted by Caustic Logic
I don't think I've ever seen Gravy stray much from 9/11 nuttery and perhaps never will. If his knowledge and reasoning on the subject were sound and valuable (if not already then with some work), it might run counter to his usual M.O. on CT examination - that is, taking the normal side. Maybe I'm wrong, I dunno.

Others I think think kinda the same. They don't really like to argue against really strong theories. Therm*te really is more their speed. (That's a challenge, folks).

Not getting at Gravy in particular here, because he doesn't even post in the CT forum any more, but if your point about "taking sides" is true, I think that's a pity, and a real indictment for a sceptics' forum.

For me, this isn't about "taking sides". It's about huge curiosity about what actually happened, and if indeed it's impossible to find out what did happen (as is probably the case), to get some sort of a handle on the possibilities/probabilities as opposed to the wilder flights of fancy. It's about looking at the evidence and seeing where it leads.

Just because 9/11 was a LIHBA, and the Official Version is very robust with no real evidence of cover-up, doesn't mean that's true for every incident. In particular, it's obvious that there's a cover-up surrounding Lockerbie. The question is really, what's being covered up?

It could be as simple as Megrahi did it but they couldn't bring their real evidence to court so they resorted to fabrications (though I don't think so), right through to deliberate, state-sanctioned murder of either Charles McKee or Bernt Carlsson (I don't think that either).

Of course we have to try out possible explanations to see how well they stand up, and we also have to argue against them, but that's not the same as taking sides. Are you saying that most posters here only want to debunk obvious nonsense, and aren't interested in actual investigation?

Rolfe.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.
Rolfe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd September 2009, 03:25 AM   #147
Caustic Logic
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 4,494
Cool, you caught me still awake.

Originally Posted by Rolfe View Post
Not getting at Gravy in particular here, because he doesn't even post in the CT forum any more, but if your point about "taking sides" is true, I think that's a pity, and a real indictment for a sceptics' forum.

Just because 9/11 was a LIHBA, and the Official Version is very robust with no real evidence of cover-up, doesn't mean that's true for every incident. In particular, it's obvious that there's a cover-up surrounding Lockerbie. The question is really, what's being covered up?

<snip>
Of course we have to try out possible explanations to see how well they stand up, and we also have to argue against them, but that's not the same as taking sides. Are you saying that most posters here only want to debunk obvious nonsense, and aren't interested in actual investigation?
Yeah, more or less. And I don't blame them. It's a discussion forum, a place for diversion, maybe when you're tired of video games but it's too early for porn. It can be more of course, and for some people, the right mystery at the right time ...

Quote:
It could be as simple as Megrahi did it but they couldn't bring their real evidence to court so they resorted to fabrications (though I don't think so), right through to deliberate, state-sanctioned murder of either Charles McKee or Bernt Carlsson (I don't think that either).
I think we're about on the same page. The maybes are there. I am becoming aware again how little I know and how much room there is for it being waaay different than I suspect, but hey, as far as grasping in the dark goes I think we're doing pretty well here.

I see you did link to the BBC Conspiracy Files show which I just finally watched. I found it more comprehensive than I expected, and a good intro to the facts that can seem so arcane in txt. Ultimately tho it seemed carefully sculpted to narrow end. Full review later and elsewhere...

The link again:

I detect manipulation in their coverage of the timer fragment, Mebo/Bollier/Lumpert, and some other finer points that give a different flavor than what we have here. I need to sleep now but I'll have some thoughts on it tomorrow. Rolfe, what did they get right and wrong here, IYO? People can ten just watch along and see the fault lines in action.

ETA: example, I didn't notice any mention of Lumpert's story about the fragment. Was that public at the time?

Last edited by Caustic Logic; 23rd September 2009 at 03:45 AM.
Caustic Logic is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd September 2009, 04:07 AM   #148
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 42,698
[Edited - moved discussion of The Conspiracy Files to the other thread.]

I have a feeling Lumpert hadn't made his "confession" at the time that programme was made.

Rolfe.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.

Last edited by Rolfe; 23rd September 2009 at 04:19 AM.
Rolfe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd September 2009, 04:43 AM   #149
Ambrosia
Good of the Fods
 
Ambrosia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 2,483
Originally Posted by Rolfe View Post

I have a feeling Lumpert hadn't made his "confession" at the time that programme was made.
You might want to get your feelings checked out

Lumpert makes his affidavit in July 2007.

The Conspiracy Files "Lockerbie" film was first broadcast 31st August 2008.

You can either get this from the official BBC page, or from Wikipedia.

I do not know how much lead time there is inbetween making finishing such a documentary and it being broadcast, I'd guess way less than a year though.
Ambrosia is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd September 2009, 04:53 AM   #150
Caustic Logic
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 4,494
Originally Posted by Ambrosia View Post
You might want to get your feelings checked out

Lumpert makes his affidavit in July 2007.

The Conspiracy Files "Lockerbie" film was first broadcast 31st August 2008.

You can either get this from the official BBC page, or from Wikipedia.

I do not know how much lead time there is inbetween making finishing such a documentary and it being broadcast, I'd guess way less than a year though.
Yes, but De Brackeleer's article, AFAIK the first media report on it that got picked up, was published September 6. So that shortens it some. I think they downplayed the Mebo angle, letting Bollier speak, but especially about the money he was hoping to get from Libya for getting Megrahi released. I presume that deal is modified by now. Other questions about the timer were downplayed, presented pretty much as Bollier's questionable assertions and nothing else.
Caustic Logic is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd September 2009, 05:15 AM   #151
LONGTABBER PE
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,528
Originally Posted by Ambrosia View Post
There are sooooo mnay problems with this theory we can pretty much discard it right away.

While I can believe that the timer and the device itself were likely vapourised by the mechanics of the explosion, I don't buy for a moment the idea that the whole of the radio it was encased in and the suitcase and the contents of the suitcase were also vapourised.

Even if we accept that there were American intelligence operatives on the ground from very early on, which there very very probably were. The idea they were planting evidence is ridiculous. The recovery operation was spread over a huuuuge area and it was a joint operation between Scottish and American police. A couple of volunteer searchers or what have you could have easily come across conflicting evidence and exposed the whole thing.

There is actual evidence to base the idea on that MST-13 was planted, there's nothing but speculation to base the idea on that charred clothing which was tested, or that suitcase fragments which were also tested for explosives were fabricated.

While one of the AAIB people that wrote that report has since revised some of his opinions about the exact placement of the explosion from 25cm inside the cargo hold wall, to more like 12cm inside the cargo hold wall, it doesn't follow that the bomb was built into the aircraft somehow, there is a pile of credible scientific evidence that the explosion originated from within the cargo container.
This is why its often difficult to get the "whole" point across in a blog just because of the amount of words and other possibilities

Quote:
While I can believe that the timer and the device itself were likely vapourised by the mechanics of the explosion, I don't buy for a moment the idea that the whole of the radio it was encased in and the suitcase and the contents of the suitcase were also vapourised.
This is what I was alluding to earlier but I guess it got overlooked.

There are no absolutes in anything. Only best guesses ranked in probability based on the total body of evidence.

Its no different when I do an RCFA for a client when all I have to work with is a box of metal that at one point in its life used to be a bearing or a wreck recreation based on skid marks or scene analysis.

Also from doing similar work myself. ( referring to one I was involved in with a very similar weapon in Iraq involving an IED in a backpack that destroyed a DFAC at Anaconda)

There are many considerations- each one depending on what it was or combinations will alter the result. Here are a few just for illustration purposes.

The radio/fragment- these were thin plastics in direct contact with the explosive. The body was secured (screwed together)- that gave it time to develop internal heat and pressure. Given the type explosive- the greatest probability is that it SHOULD have been vaporized.

The suitcase- this is a hard shell secured by latches with "stuff" in it. Also, it has a larger overall area.

Each "everything" in contact with the device can best be explained similar to dielectric layers in a capacitor- the energy must ( not might) overcome each one before it breaches.

That does 2 things

1) increases the soak time for anything behind the expanding bubble

2) builds backpressure until it breaches

The 2 most affective variables are where the physical suitcase was and what was packed/stacked on it and then where was the proximity of the blast to the actual rupture that caused decompression.

Those are the things that really determine what happens and nobody has those answers.

I can take the same exact charges ( I mean exact in every way) and stack them on a bridge in the open or bag them ( tamp) or leave a channel open ( shaped) and 3 distinctly different outcomes.

You simply dont know

Quote:
Even if we accept that there were American intelligence operatives on the ground from very early on, which there very very probably were. The idea they were planting evidence is ridiculous. The recovery operation was spread over a huuuuge area and it was a joint operation between Scottish and American police. A couple of volunteer searchers or what have you could have easily come across conflicting evidence and exposed the whole thing.
Hell no- nobody in their right mind is going to do it in the open and in broad daylight ( altho theres no way to know what was in anyones pocket)- they will do it at the evidence collection or analysis locations where there are tens of thousands of pieces and lots of activity.
LONGTABBER PE is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd September 2009, 06:30 AM   #152
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 42,698
Can I drag this back on to the topic of the timer fragment, and request that if we have further to say about the possibility that the entire suitcase bomb was a fabrication/error we take it to a new thread?

The basis of my thinking in this area is that the combination of a Toshiba bom-beat radio-cassette bomb and the 38-minute explosion is very important. That is, in the context that we know that in October the PFLP-GC in Frankfurt were making very very similar devices using Toshiba radio-cassette players, with barometric timers that would explode 35 to 45 minutes after takeoff.

Occam's razor seems to dictate that either a PFLP-GC device was actually used for this attack, or whoever actually did it deliberately rigged it up to look as if such a device had been used. This is before we go anywhere near the MST-13.

One thing Longtabber said here seems significant to me. He expected that any timer/detonator right next to the Semtex would be vaporised. So indeed, even if one were used, it's not surprising that no pieces of an ice-cube timer were recovered, and their absence doesn't prove in any way that there wasn't such a timer in the device.

I think it's true that if an ice-cube timer were used, it would have had to have been introduced into the system at Heathrow. Everybody but de Braekeleer says so, and I think de Braekeleer is wrong. (He says first that a flight from Frankfurt to Heathrow wouldn't go high enough to trigger the timer, which I think is incorrect, then he says that the pressure in the baggage hold is the same as in the passenger compartment, therefore an ice-cube timer in the baggage hold would never detonate. I'm 99% sure this is wrong in two separate respects.)

So if it was indeed an ice-cube timer, then we're looking at the stray suitcases loaded on to the baggage container at Heathrow, and the break-in airside the previous evening, and so on. There is an assertion in one link that a PFLP-GC member travelled to London by air with the disassembled bomb in his luggage. Luqa and Frankfurt don't really come into it. And the MST-13 must have been planted.

However, if it was a deception intended to look like a PFLP-GC job, the options open right up. It's possible that the device could have been loaded somewhere else, possibly using the MST-13. This, though, implies a much more complex trigger mechanism. First, a barometric component is almost inevitable, in addition to the timer. In fact PA103 wasn't really late - it left the stand on time, it just hung around on the tarmac for a bit longer than usual before it got to the runway, taking off 25 minutes after leaving the stand. But how well could its take-off time actually be predicted?

One piece of information I'd like to have which we're not going to get, is what time PA103 left the ground on average in the days and weeks prior to the attack. If in fact it was very regular, to within ten minutes every time, then it might have been possible to take a chance on a simple timer set to 7pm on the 21st coming into the window, or near enough to be credible on that front. On the other hand, given the time of year and the holiday traffic, it seems a bit of a stretch to me. If I'd wanted to pin it on the PFLP by way of the timing, I'd have used a barometric trigger.

However, if I'm not restricted to an ice-cube timer, maybe I'm being real cute and I want to load the device somewhere other than Heathrow, in the hope that the authorities will concentrate on Heathrow and not notice the airport I in fact infiltrated. This would seem to imply not just a barometric component, but some way to ensure it wasn't triggered by the preliminary leg (or legs) of the journey.

How much am I going to cram into that Toshiba, I wonder? An aneroid barometer, some sort of electronics to count how many times the device has taken off, and the MST-13, as well as the Semtex. Maybe it's perfectly practical.

But then I ask, who am I, that I want to blow up this airliner, and make it look as if the PFLP-GC did it? Libya, and it was Megrahi all along? Somebody intent on murdering McKee or Carlsson?

The PFLP-GC hypothesis is the simple one. But that leads inexorably to the inference that the MST-13 was planted, which starts us on who, when and why.

The second hypothesis does not imply any fabrication of evidence at all. But it's hellish complicated.

Am I making any sense here?

Rolfe.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.
Rolfe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd September 2009, 06:36 AM   #153
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 42,698
Originally Posted by Ambrosia View Post
You might want to get your feelings checked out

Lumpert makes his affidavit in July 2007.

The Conspiracy Files "Lockerbie" film was first broadcast 31st August 2008.

You can either get this from the official BBC page, or from Wikipedia.

I do not know how much lead time there is inbetween making finishing such a documentary and it being broadcast, I'd guess way less than a year though.

Sorry, I thought the Conspiracy Files episode was 2007. I didn't realise it was as recent as last year.

I don't know if Lumpert is being ignored because he's a lunatic probably in it for the money, or because nobody in any official position wants to go there on a bet.

Rolfe.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.
Rolfe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd September 2009, 06:48 AM   #154
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 42,698
Originally Posted by LONGTABBER PE View Post
The radio/fragment- these were thin plastics in direct contact with the explosive. The body was secured (screwed together)- that gave it time to develop internal heat and pressure. Given the type explosive- the greatest probability is that it SHOULD have been vaporized.

The suitcase- this is a hard shell secured by latches with "stuff" in it. Also, it has a larger overall area.

[snip more technicalities]

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but would it be fair to say that you would have expected the actual triggering mechanism (including timer) to be vaporised, but that the same might not necessarily be true for the radio-cassette player itself?

It's always the timer that's seemed to me to be incongruous, especially in the context of the radio-cassette player. Are you perhaps less surprised about the bits of the Toshiba being identified than about the MST-13 fragment?

What about the manual for the Toshiba? (Though when we consider that was allegedly found intact and later exhibited damaged, I'm not sure where it goes - just damaged by the forensic testing?)

What about the fact that bits of the radio-cassette player were also allegedly found in the shirt collar along with the MST-13 fragment?

Originally Posted by LONGTABBER PE View Post
Hell no- nobody in their right mind is going to do it in the open and in broad daylight ( altho theres no way to know what was in anyones pocket)- they will do it at the evidence collection or analysis locations where there are tens of thousands of pieces and lots of activity.

Yes, exactly. Though remember there wasn't a lot of broad daylight around - the crash happened on the winter solstice, in Scotland. We're at the same latitude as the Hudson Bay, here.

If the timer fragment was planted, it was introduced into the chain of evidence quite a bit later, with some doctoring of the paperwork to make it look as if it had been retrieved and logged earlier. However, I think the bits of Toshiba were identified very early indeed, certainly before March 1989, so if that was fabricated, the fabrication must have begun practically from the get-go.

Rolfe.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.

Last edited by Rolfe; 23rd September 2009 at 06:50 AM.
Rolfe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd September 2009, 07:18 AM   #155
Guybrush Threepwood
Trainee Pirate
 
Guybrush Threepwood's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: An Uaimh
Posts: 2,537
Originally Posted by LONGTABBER PE View Post
Tell you what I think

Somebody took a suitcase packed with stuff with a stick of TNT and blew it up on a pad- instant evidence with conflicting residues- very sloppy
Originally Posted by LONGTABBER PE View Post
I dont have a "theory" because if you read what i wrote- I havent given this situation a conscious thought since it happened except in another thread this last week. Dont know and didnt care ( still dont) I was offering information- nothing more.
Believe what you will- I'm not trying to sell or convince
Those two statements are directly contradictory.


Originally Posted by LONGTABBER PE View Post
Here is a textbook example why I deliberately avoid CT type threads and armchair commentaries and people who throw google as their fact source as a whole.

They have something to say but no knowledge from which to say it- thats not a discussion, thats an argument. I dont do those.

I'm a SME who knows what I'm talking about with the 214 and the professional credentials to back up the mouth ( big difference)

I made it CLEAR that I'm NOT going to accept "internet evidence" as a reliable source ( what part of that didnt you understand?) and WITHOUT directly examining the evidence and testimony, this is a THEORY.

What part of THAT didnt you understand?
What part of the link confused you? It is the official report by the British Government body which investigates every aircraft crash in the UK, and which reconstructed the whole of PanAm103 after the accident to determine the cause. It was published on paper in 1990. It is as close as we are going to get to primary evidence 20 years after the fact.


Quote:
This is where you look foolish because its obvious and documented in the thread. ( and why I dont post in CT threads because there are too many morons in it and sorry Rolfe, I'm about to leave this one) I'm not "leading" anyone,anywhere- I stated my observations and the reasons for them. ( are YOU an engineer or do demolitions?- if not- how do you know they are wrong?) I didnt think so.
I don't know you are wrong, but have no reason to think you are right.



Originally Posted by Rolfe View Post
Mmmmmm, kay....

Can we back off a bit here?
Yes, I'm sorry, my post sounded better in my head than it looks on the screen, I was just amused that the thread had so quickly got onto fairly advanced CTs without even looking at the primary evidence.

Quote:
We ought to appreciate that Longtabber has actually repeated an existing CT regarding PA103. de Braekeleer thinks the explosion happened outside the luggage container (something to do with the "Mach Stem Effect").
Rolfe.
Actually Longtabber appears to be claiming almost the opposite of de Braekeleer. De Braekeleer's claim is that 1lb of Semtex could not puncture an aircraft hull from a distance of 25", Longtabber's is that it would vapourise everything in the immediate vicinity, so I don't think they reinforce one another.
The AAIB report I linked to is long and detailed, and carefully explains why they think the bomb was in the cargo container. It was prepared based on the investigations of a large number of people, if it is fraudulent they were all lying, if it is inaccurate it has been in the public domain for 18 years and no-one has identified or publicised the errors.


The evidence for the bomb location seems strong. That for the timer being found exactly as described less so, however what confuses me is exactly what would have been achieved by planting the timer.

Yes it points to Libyan involvement, but unless whoever planted it was very familiar with the history of these timers, and the limited numbers made, how could they know it would point only to Libya? Equally why could Libya not have passed the timers on to a terrorist organisation. They would have some culpability but wouldn't be directly responsible.
Guybrush Threepwood is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd September 2009, 07:37 AM   #156
Ambrosia
Good of the Fods
 
Ambrosia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 2,483
Originally Posted by Rolfe View Post
... says that the pressure in the baggage hold is the same as in the passenger compartment, therefore an ice-cube timer in the baggage hold would never detonate. I'm 99% sure this is wrong in two separate respects.)
The baggage hold is pressurised to the same pressure as the passenger cabin. It's not the same as air pressure at ground level though.

They must be pressurised such that air pressure never falls below what you might find at 8000ft.

Some experiments re: cabin pressure in 747s were done in 2005 to determine how useful the tests used to test aircraft were, they note that.

Quote:
Cabin pressure and indicated cabin altitude are directly related to aircraft altitude. At the average aircraft cruise altitude of 34,000 ft, cabin altitude is 5,000 ft and increases or decreases 257ft for each 1,000 ft change in aircraft altitude
It takes about 200km for a commercial aircraft to hit cruising altitude of 34000ft, and about the same to descend, It's a little over 600km distance from Frankfurt to london.

Quote:
So if it was indeed an ice-cube timer... snip
So use 2 timers connected to the charge in series. A is the clock timer it's set for published take off time, B is the barometric timer, it blows when it hits the preset altitude pressure in the cabin/hold. Both A and B must be closed else the bomb doesn't go off.

Why does the shirt and the fragment need to have been part of the bomb? A n other bag containing shirt and an entirely seperate MST type timer not connected to anything are right near the source of the explosion perhaps?

Gaucis revised testimony was that he sold the buyer of the clothes a beige shirt. The shirt the fragment is found in is grey....

I still don't see any evidence linking the timer fragment to the bomb, much less proving the fragment was part of the bomb.

Yes it's a type of timer used for bombs but it does not follow that it *must* have been used for *this* bomb.

Last edited by Ambrosia; 23rd September 2009 at 07:47 AM.
Ambrosia is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd September 2009, 08:13 AM   #157
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 42,698
Originally Posted by Guybrush Threepwood View Post
What part of the link confused you? It is the official report by the British Government body which investigates every aircraft crash in the UK, and which reconstructed the whole of PanAm103 after the accident to determine the cause. It was published on paper in 1990. It is as close as we are going to get to primary evidence 20 years after the fact.

I read a good part of it last night. It's very clear and very comprehensive. I appreciate what Longtabber said, that if you're going to fabricate stuff you introduce it somewhere down the line rather than strewing it about the countryside for people to find (or not), but I think it's a huge stretch to imagine that bits of an expoded Toshiba were all carefully seeded into just the right places without anyone noticing. Also, remember, the manual was genuinely found on the ground, by a farmer's wife in Northumberland.

Sneaking in a fragment of a timer, months later, I can cope with. Planting all the evidence of the bits of the Toshiba, the burned clothes (bought at Gauci's shop about a month earlier, or is that bit fabricated too?) and the suitcase, all neatly planted within a handful of weeks of the actual crash? No, I'm struggling.

Originally Posted by Guybrush Threepwood View Post
Yes, I'm sorry, my post sounded better in my head than it looks on the screen, I was just amused that the thread had so quickly got onto fairly advanced CTs without even looking at the primary evidence.

The rolleyes was directed at Longtabber more than you! What you said was reasonable. I just wish he'd either go away as he said he would, or buckle down and look at the evidence before firing off theories that are pretty implausible on the face of it.

Originally Posted by Guybrush Threepwood View Post
Actually Longtabber appears to be claiming almost the opposite of de Braekeleer. De Braekeleer's claim is that 1lb of Semtex could not puncture an aircraft hull from a distance of 25", Longtabber's is that it would vapourise everything in the immediate vicinity, so I don't think they reinforce one another.

I don't think they're inconsistent. They're both in effect saying that the explosion didn't go off in a suitcase in the baggage container. I sort of know why de Braekeleer thinks that (Mach Stem Effect, see the Air Accident report), and as far as I was following him, I thought Longtabber had done the same calculations.

De Braekeleer thinks the explosion would have had to be a lot closer to the skin of the aircraft than 2 feet to punch a hole in it. Longtabber thinks that everything within about three inches (guessing here, obviously depends on the exact geometry of what's there) would have been vaporised. These two things aren't contradictory.

Originally Posted by Guybrush Threepwood View Post
The AAIB report I linked to is long and detailed, and carefully explains why they think the bomb was in the cargo container. It was prepared based on the investigations of a large number of people, if it is fraudulent they were all lying, if it is inaccurate it has been in the public domain for 18 years and no-one has identified or publicised the errors.

I agree to a certain extent. De Braekeleer is shouting "Mach Stem Effect!!! OMG!!!", and the proposers of the accident hypothesis also question what they see as lack of clarity in some aspects of the report that might allow their "flechettes" theory to slide into consideration. Nevertheless, it looks strong to me, and I'd need a lot more explanation before I was prepared to consider seriously that the Toshiba and the clothes and the suitcase fragments were fabricated.

Originally Posted by Guybrush Threepwood View Post
The evidence for the bomb location seems strong. That for the timer being found exactly as described less so, however what confuses me is exactly what would have been achieved by planting the timer.

Yes it points to Libyan involvement, but unless whoever planted it was very familiar with the history of these timers, and the limited numbers made, how could they know it would point only to Libya? Equally why could Libya not have passed the timers on to a terrorist organisation. They would have some culpability but wouldn't be directly responsible.

If it was planted, I don't think the intention was to link it to Libya at the time. The timing is wrong.

There's no real imperative to switch culpability from Iran/Syria to Libya until at least the early months of 1990 as far as I can see. And yet we have clear evidence that a high-level decision was made to cool it on the pursuit of Iran/Syria as early as mid-March 1989, and the timer fragment appears to have been in the system at least by September 1989.

I've got more thoughts about this, but my main impression is that the objective wasn't necessarily to implicate Libya, but to muddy the waters and let Iran/Syria off the hook. And not because of the imminence of Desert Storm either, because it wasn't imminent at that stage.

Rolfe.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.
Rolfe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd September 2009, 08:17 AM   #158
Ambrosia
Good of the Fods
 
Ambrosia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 2,483
Originally Posted by Guybrush Threepwood View Post
The AAIB report I linked to is long and detailed, and carefully explains why they think the bomb was in the cargo container. It was prepared based on the investigations of a large number of people, if it is fraudulent they were all lying, if it is inaccurate it has been in the public domain for 18 years and no-one has identified or publicised the errors.
Well apart from Chris Protheroe giving evidence at the actual trial that is.

Quote:
An air accident investigator has told the Lockerbie trial there was a significant mathematical error in the official report on the disaster.
[ linky ]

I don't recall anyone in the thread claiming that the bomb was anywhere BUT in the cargo container. The conclusion of the AAIB report was that a bomb caused the destruction of the plane, and that it was located in that cargo container.

Quote:
what confuses me is exactly what would have been achieved by planting the timer.

Yes it points to Libyan involvement, but unless whoever planted it was very familiar with the history of these timers, and the limited numbers made, how could they know it would point only to Libya? Equally why could Libya not have passed the timers on to a terrorist organisation. They would have some culpability but wouldn't be directly responsible.
Good point. Though there remains no evidence linking the timer fragment with the bomb itself, and the fragment is the *only* evidence that points to Libya. The other evidence from Giaka that linked Megrahi and Fhima to bombs and tied it all in nicely with the Libya hypothesis was thrown out of court on the basis that Giaka was a lying toad.
Ambrosia is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd September 2009, 08:29 AM   #159
Guybrush Threepwood
Trainee Pirate
 
Guybrush Threepwood's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: An Uaimh
Posts: 2,537
Originally Posted by Rolfe View Post
I agree to a certain extent. De Braekeleer is shouting "Mach Stem Effect!!! OMG!!!", and the proposers of the accident hypothesis also question what they see as lack of clarity in some aspects of the report that might allow their "flechettes" theory to slide into consideration. Nevertheless, it looks strong to me, and I'd need a lot more explanation before I was prepared to consider seriously that the Toshiba and the clothes and the suitcase fragments were fabricated.
Rolfe.
I take it you haven't read the appendices to the AAIB report? They cover the Mach stem effect in some detail, and why it is relevant. If you compare it to de Brakeleers work, you will also note that the error he claims to have found (20 degree rather than 40 degree angle where Mach Stem doesn't occur) is not there.
The flechettes stuff sounds like nonsense to me, the fuselage fragments would be riddled with small holes that couldn't be hidden so I think it's a non starter.

ETA: Hadn't seen Ambrosia's post when I posted that, nor was I aware of Chris Protheroe. That is interesting.

Last edited by Guybrush Threepwood; 23rd September 2009 at 08:33 AM.
Guybrush Threepwood is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd September 2009, 08:42 AM   #160
Guybrush Threepwood
Trainee Pirate
 
Guybrush Threepwood's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: An Uaimh
Posts: 2,537
Originally Posted by Ambrosia View Post
I don't recall anyone in the thread claiming that the bomb was anywhere BUT in the cargo container. The conclusion of the AAIB report was that a bomb caused the destruction of the plane, and that it was located in that cargo container.
Longtabber did.
Originally Posted by LongtabberPE
So, if you believe the fragments and clothing /whatever ARE physically in the plane and were "discovered" then the only answer I can accept to allow it possible is that they were at the front of the wave and NOT in a container with it ( progressive damage) That would support the bomb being somewhere else.
Originally Posted by Ambrosia
Good point. Though there remains no evidence linking the timer fragment with the bomb itself, and the fragment is the *only* evidence that points to Libya. The other evidence from Giaka that linked Megrahi and Fhima to bombs and tied it all in nicely with the Libya hypothesis was thrown out of court on the basis that Giaka was a lying toad.
Surely Tony Gauci's identification of Megrahi as the man who bought the clothes is the key evidence connecting Libya? I know it's unbelivably weak, but I thought that was the basis for the conviction?
Guybrush Threepwood is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:53 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.