|
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. |
25th September 2009, 09:25 AM | #41 |
Adult human female
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 50,594
|
So how do you account for all the other evidence that the explosion occurred inside the luggage container? They reconstructed the plane and the luggage containers from debris found on the ground. I have great difficulty seeing how it would be possible or indeed on anyone's agenda to fabricate blast-damaged luggage containers in the very early weeks of the investigation. How many people are supposed to have been involved in this? Including Scottish police officers and English forensic experts, right from the get-go, as well as US law enforcement.
Also, although we don't have the primary evidence, the Court judgement does refer to tests similar to what you describe having been done in the USA, and said that these confirmed the quantity of explosive and the position. Rolfe. |
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012. |
|
25th September 2009, 09:39 AM | #42 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,528
|
As of this post, I'm still of the opinion the greatest likelihood is that the bomb was in the luggage container and I more of opinion #3- but its a developing hypothesis and not one I'm going to promote or defend at this point ( and may disregard altogether depending on what else I read)
You already know my suspicions regarding the board and states story and some of their testing ( so far) You also cannot ignore the physical evidence either ( assuming its portrayed correctly) There are also other variables which independantly or combined can radically affect the outcome that so far I havent seen addressed and confirmed or discarded. So, when you remove the impossible ( my thoughts on the timer and such) whatever remains must be the truth. I'm leaning toward a much different bomb and probably stronger in the compartment. I think thats whats being steered away from. That would fit both sides of the physical evidence and not be outside legitimate possibility. What really points me there ( so far) is the way they ( the state) has tried to sell rather than establish by process of elimination their theory. ( the tests to do it are simply and pretty cheap and commonly known) I'm starting to think they DID run them and found something else and this isnt a "lie" in the conventional sense but more of a deliberate "steering away" from something else. |
25th September 2009, 11:24 AM | #43 |
Adult human female
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 50,594
|
I'm finding it problematic enough to postulate the fabrication of that one little bit of MST-13 timer, and the concept of fabricating two luggage containers with blast damage on them seems to me a bridge too far.
Also, while it's always a consideration that nothing was fabricated but the evidence was innocently misinterpreted byt the investigators, I also find that quite hard to believe. If it's really so blindingly obvious that the Official Version can't be right, just by looking at pictures and diagrams of the fuselage, how did well-qualified and experienced people make that mistake, and how come nobody else spotted the anomaly for all these years? That leaves deliberate misinterpretation, and again, it's all getting a but twooferish for me. Rolfe. |
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012. |
|
25th September 2009, 11:52 AM | #44 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,528
|
As you said earlier- its not "twooferish" when theres some support for it and governt entities do lie and cover up for a variety of reasons. There is also ignorance, a simple botched investigation and good old human error.
Quote:
Where is the green samsonite make up case ( making that up as an example) sitting right beside it or under it with the EXACT same types of damage? How did they distinguish what cloth was in what case? What about electronics in a bag right beside it? There should have been chunks of all kinds of things- then you need to figure out what was where. I dont think Megrah sent along a packing list of his trunk These are the things that flag me
Quote:
Quote:
The casual observer doesnt have the skills to properly examine the case to begin with The professional isnt going to stick his neck out without physically examining it himself There are anomalies here and all the pieces do not fit together. Then you look at some of the overt suspicious conduct and all these page alterations and different accounts of who found what and when. |
25th September 2009, 04:09 PM | #45 |
Adult human female
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 50,594
|
A summary of that is in the Court judgement.
Quote:
I haven't read the AAIB report in detail, but I believe there is more detailed information available in that. If this is all wrong, you have three possibilities.
Having said that, have you seen Bollier's diagrams? I think Bollier isn't quite the full shilling I have to say, but he does have these pictures.... The MEBO Inc.-defence team The MEBO Inc.-defence team and Edwin Bollier, VR Crazy or not, Bollier is in the arms industry. Rolfe. |
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012. |
|
25th September 2009, 04:53 PM | #46 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,528
|
Heres where my questions lie- from the quote
Quote:
There is no way to realistically determine whether a case contained the explosion or was sitting right beside the one that did. Burning is burning- the question is how did the state determine the burning was from the explosion, a secondary fire or swallowed by an engine on the way down? All ignitions leave the same physical evidence and it would be almost impossible to distinguish between the detonation versus hull rupture decompression as force. Thats why if they dont have those tests to back their very bold claims up- they wouldnt be considered valid over here. I want to know specifically and exactly how they determined what was what. In a US court, being an extrapolation of expert analysis- each and every bit of this testing would have to be given to the defense for their expert to review. Are you aware of all these tests? I see no evidence of any specific tests or their conclusive results. ( but aint thru reading) I see these articles make all kinds of "claims" but I see no reference to tests backing it up. If they dont have these tests to back up their assertions- their claims would not only be invalid but they would either be incompetent or criminal in their work. Unless theres a lot more than what I'm seeing- I would have literally destroyed their case with reasonable doubt. As to bollier- his claim is both valid and invalid depending on what type of charge he says did it. If he is assuming the same size charge, he is totally wrong because if it had been placed there it would have penetrated the hull during the detonation process and the explosive decompression would have blown most of the force out the hole ( much bigger hole) and there would be almost no damage from the blast in the luggage because it would have equalized toward the lower pressure ( outside the plane- one of those force taking the path of least resistance things) |
25th September 2009, 04:58 PM | #47 |
Adult human female
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 50,594
|
They did test an awful lot for explosives. Just not the MST-13 fragment.
It's in the AAIB report. It'll still be a summary, but there is more of that sort of detail there. Rolfe. |
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012. |
|
25th September 2009, 05:30 PM | #48 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,528
|
I read that ( already) but there are holes in it I could drive a truck thru.
Of course they did- but they didnt show how they determined what was where in relation. That blast vaporized/shredded every case in about a 10 ft radius and mixed it together in a 20,000+ mph hurricane. That tore up everything else. Then theres the turbulence from the ride down and all that. Out of all that and no way to know what was where and what was in what individual piece of luggage- I want to know how they did? I'll go ahead and tell you how they did. I see it clearly now. ( still developing tho) They either are the worst keystone kops in history or they cooked their investigation. Heres why They found 55 odd pieces with residue, charring etc because they were OUTSIDE the "zap zone" ( maybe 5-10ish foot radius for a single stick) of the detonation and all that WAS LEFT as they were ancillary damage. ( in literal terms, that force of detonation is not much less than the temperatures and pressures in an atomic bomb) They were hit by the blast wall and expanding fireball- NOT in the bubble. if the bomb didnt have enough force to obliterate everything as I said- it couldnt have taken out the plane in the first place. ( they cant have it both ways- enough force to punch thru the wall and pepper it with debris and such yet not destroy everything in the path the same way) Now, they want me to believe all this force somehow just "charred" some odd remnant pieces? and left pieces of all surrounding bags? |
25th September 2009, 06:14 PM | #49 |
Adult human female
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 50,594
|
OK, I'm with you. I'd like to see a coherent scenario developed, including motive, means and opportunity, though. Given that all this emerged within about the first 8 to 10 weeks after the crash, including the time for the gathering up and sorting and piecing together.
Rolfe. |
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012. |
|
26th September 2009, 02:13 PM | #50 |
Adult human female
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 50,594
|
|
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012. |
|
29th September 2009, 04:37 AM | #51 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,528
|
Sorry for the delay- it takes days to move around here.
I'll be glad to explain
Quote:
1) nothing is impossible 2) there are too many variables depending on the type and configuration of the charge set up. For example, if I took a stick of C4 and did the textbook set up ( charge in the case unwrapped) and stuck the timer on the END where it normally goes- theres a good chance pieces will survive because of the detonation from the primed end. Thats not what allegedly happened here- this charge was unwrapped and molded inside the case presumably in 100% contact and even overlapping ( encasing) it as the charged was packed all around. So the question you have to ask ( to be relevant to this SPECIFIC application) is how many detonators survive that are encased by the explosive which is a military grade white explosive ( at least 75% since they obviously didnt pack the front side) Your answer will be zero.
Quote:
The number of "bombs" ( defined as anything other than civilian or military applications) detonated are NOT with military grade high explosives. ( expensive and VERY hard to get) so you are dealing with commercial grade dynamite, TNT and Black Powder and most of those explosives are stacked or made in pipes. TNT being the standard is a red explosive and that family burns from around .6 to TNT MOST CERTAINLY will leave remnants. So, if 90+% of "bombs" are made from those materials- 90+% of bombs will leave parts. A no brainer. Also, in most cases the "detonator" isnt there ( usually wire fire) except for remote and times detonations. Also, depending on what it is you are blowing- you will have multiple charges hooked to a central detonator which can be several feet from the charge. Also, you need to define "detonator" because in textbook lingo- the detonator is the power source that ignites the cap,squib, primer or whatever- the timer would be the "trigger". Thats important because in jargon, a "detonator" is also the "detonator charge" ( cap,fuze, primer charge) These are almost always ( except for the special ones) made out of hermetically sealed stainless ( for chemical and magnetic inertness) that is scored ( blows from all sides for immediate detonation) or end capped ( blows out of the end like a rifle so the charge "ramps" from one end to the other making like a tidal wave) depending on how you want the charge to fire. ( like which way you want the debris to blow) These often blow OUT of the charge before they are fully detonated ( especially the end capped ones)- Thats why I said upthread we look for UXO ( unexploded ordinance) after a fire because they will often be half blown ( put out by the main charge) and still explosive and VERY dangerous. So, when laypeople read things like that without the background- they need to understand all the scenarios and are talking apples to apples. Like I said earlier, I can take 4 identical scenarios and place the charge several ways and get several results depending on what I want it to do. Its very simple to test what I'm saying- Get Mythbusters ( mentioned from the other thread) to take a generic board from Radio Shack and pack a pound of C4 on it and around it ( say put it on a saucer)- see what you get then. |
29th September 2009, 05:38 AM | #52 |
Trainee Pirate
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: An Uaimh
Posts: 3,664
|
Originally Posted by LONGTABBER PE
Then the rest of your post seems to be trying to do exactly that. Given that all the data you have access to is public domain, why are you the only 'explosives expert' who has claimed that it is not possible for the timer fragment to survive?
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
29th September 2009, 05:51 AM | #53 |
Adult human female
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 50,594
|
I read somewhere that the MST-13 couldn't have been put inside the Toshiba while still inside its case - the case would have had to be discarded to get it to fit. Presumably that strengthens your case there? I agree, the geometry of the Toshiba case suggests very close contact between Semtex and timer.
However, even given that observation, how confident would you be that such a fragment wouldn't have survived? 90%? 95% 99%? 99.9%? Also, does this theory apply equally to the fragments of the Toshiba itself? These have a much more robust provenance within the evidence train than the timer fragment.
Quote:
I find it a lot more difficult to postulate fabrication or error concerning all this evidence than I do concerning the single piece of MST-13 circuit board. Rolfe. |
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012. |
|
29th September 2009, 08:04 AM | #54 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,528
|
Quote:
Quote:
none of them give a damn being the first who would they "claim" it to? No expert is going to publically claim anything without examining the actual reports and tests ( thats not the summary)- the only reason I am is because this is a discussion forum) none were contracted to relook at it ( I wouldnt be commenting if I hadnt looked at all the inforemation out there myself) And no its not "impossible" but I wouldnt bet on 100,000,000 to 1 as my only chance
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
29th September 2009, 08:19 AM | #55 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,528
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Sorry, i forgot- this is a "miracle" bomb that disintegrates 8 oz solid iron magnets 5" away from it and all metal from carriages leaving no trace but allows plastics and fiberboard in direct contact with it to survive. It also puts trace on components inside the case but on nothing else touching it. It leaves shirts but vaporizes metal. Amazing damn device.
Quote:
Why? we can debate and all theories are on the table- there just aint no way for it to have gone down the way the state claims leaving what they said they found. |
29th September 2009, 08:42 AM | #56 |
Trainee Pirate
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: An Uaimh
Posts: 3,664
|
Well council for the defence for starters, it wouldn't be unheard of for an expert to contact them and make an offer to examine the evidence as he finds it implausible at first glance.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I'm pretty sure it's been done many times, if anyone has access to the results I'd be very interested in seeing them. |
29th September 2009, 08:58 AM | #57 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,528
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
29th September 2009, 09:50 AM | #58 |
Adult human female
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 50,594
|
Mmm, it's not quite that simple. Have you seen the area the debris covered? It's high heather moor and forest, and there's a helluva lot of it. It was searched by hand as carefully as possible, but there's only so much you can do. All the big stuff was picked up, and a lot of bits of clothing. It's notable though that all the (alleged) parts of the Toshiba, and the timer fragment, were discovered lodged in fragments of clothing. Small, heavier stuff that didn't lodge in clothing but perhaps fell to earth independently would have a much smaller chance of being picked up by the searchers, especially as it would tend to fall through the heather rather than lie on top of it. Speaker coil is however mentioned as being found, again caught in fabric. There was some evidence led about stuffing the Toshiba, though I can't remember where I read it. I saw something about how much Semtex you could get into something like that before it would be visible to someone inspecting the radio from outside. It was Bollier who said that the timer casing would have had to be removed, but I don't think anyone has disagreed with him about that. However, a fragment of the Toshiba circuit board was found among the debris. The story of the Golfer might be relevant here, although we should remember that the SCCRC rejected his evidence as confused and contradictory.
Quote:
He is definitely alleging that more was planted than just the MST-13 board, and that the Scottish police were a party to it. However, this would have had to be done at such an early stage that I have a great deal of difficulty in seeing how its supposed to have worked. Rolfe. |
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012. |
|
29th September 2009, 11:40 AM | #59 |
Trainee Pirate
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: An Uaimh
Posts: 3,664
|
I'm not sure there was one, for some odd reason the defence did not dispute the prosecution's assertion that a 747 blew up and fell out of the sky over Scotland. They only disputed that the two accused were involved.
Quote:
Quote:
|
29th September 2009, 12:12 PM | #60 |
Adult human female
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 50,594
|
I'm a bit startled Jim Swire didn't notice, if it's so obvious. He certainly paid attention to the trial and cared. What tells me the defence weren't trying is the report of the official UN observer to the trial. (This from his report on the appeal proceedings.)
Quote:
Nevertheless, the only people I see declaring that no fragment of a timer could possibly have survived that explosion are Bollier and de Braeckeleer, and there seems to be a distinct lack of a stampede of other explosives experts to agree with them. Rolfe. |
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012. |
|
29th September 2009, 07:22 PM | #61 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,528
|
Quote:
Its hard to find that level of parts in a desert thats 100% open with metal detectors. Even when you KNOW its suposed to be there and deliberately searching for it.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I dont see why not with some selective packing but it would be tight. If it were me, I would have removed the board just to make it easy. The only reason I would see to leave it would be if your objective was to give it to someone and let them actually play it before detonation. |
29th September 2009, 07:46 PM | #62 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,528
|
Quote:
Quote:
Granted, I have zero knowledge of the UK legal system but I do a good bit of it here. Lawyers know law- they dont know all the technical nuances of all kinds of evidence, thats why they hire people like me. Its very possible they didnt grasp or realize the importance of it. ( seen it happen) Also, I can partially buy sub theory #6214.3 that I have read in your links where many people believed it may not make it to trial and even then almost certainly not a conviction. I'm not finished reading yet but if this case had been tried in a US Federal court ( under Federal rules of evidence) theres a very strong possibility it never would have made it to trial because there would be a hearing for cause and I'm not convinced the state could fully point the finger at the accused. Even if they did- an average defense lawyer ( not even a good one) should have been able to shoot the bomb theory of the state out of the sky. Granted this is at best a weak circumstantial case ( but winnable) but the evidence is tainted. I'm doubtful there would have been a conviction here.
Quote:
How many were asked? How many people were contracted to independantly review the evidence? Thats the opposite of the bigfooters claiming "all these sightings must mean something- they cant all be false". Just because everyone working in demolitions didnt take up arms and rail against the verdict ( assuming they even followed the case) doesnt mean a thing. |
30th September 2009, 12:45 PM | #63 |
Adult human female
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 50,594
|
Are you saying that the amount of evidence recovered was improbable per se, irrespective of whether certain items should have been vaporised? I'm anticipating this theory with bated breath, but take your time.... I gathered he was talking about a security inspection spotting that there was more in the case than there ought to be, but not sure if he meant on a x-ray or by direct inspection. I know British airports have been in the habit of asking passengers with electronic items in their baggage to switch them on and demonstrate that they work. I've been asked to do that myself. It seemed to be a standard assumption that a radio rigged up as a bomb wouldn't work. It's not impossible the bomb maker might have tried to construct the device so that it would pass that test. Rolfe. |
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012. |
|
30th September 2009, 01:15 PM | #64 |
Adult human female
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 50,594
|
Well, I'm not personally acquainted with him, but I would have expected him to have caught on to that one considering he's convinced the MST-13 fragment is a plant and sat through the entire trial. Having said that, he currently has a book about the case which nobody wants to risk publishing because it's too hot to handle. Given that we have titles like The Trail of the Octopus in the public domain, and there are serious allegations of just about everything up to and including a MIHOP scenario readily accessible, I have a bit of a boggle about what he can possibly have to say that he can't publish. (And why he doesn't just self-publish the thing and be done with it.) First, there's no such thing as UK law. This trial was under the law of Scotland. Second, it was highly unusual. There was an agreement to waive trial by jury. The defendant was not allowed to choose his own defence team, or instruct them freely. Both prosecution and defence teams had representatives of foreign governments breathing down their necks and instructing them how to conduct their case. And that's before you even notice that the judges appeared to be bending over backwards to convict. I think few people believed it would come to trial. However, over the ten years, with sanctions being applied to Libya, political pressure mounted to extradite the accused. Once the trial was on, though, it seems that a conviction was a foregone conclusion - until we actually got to see the nature of the "irrefutable evidence" the Crown said it had. I'd have said the same as regards Scots law, but this was no normal trial. Hans Kochler's reports are worth reading in detail. Well, I'd expect the police and army explosives experts who have a lot of experience with the IRA's little games to notice that something's not right, in such a high profile and widely reported case. I'd have imagined that even if Jim Swire didn't spot it, some of his army explosives expert mates might have mentioned it to him. Of course it's not inevitable, but it's something I take note of. I hesitate to pull the "you're just some guy on the internet" line, because I'm always reluctant to do that when a poster is self-evidently talking the talk. However, I don't have any way to tell exactly how expert you really are, obviously. So I don't have any easy way to decide whether to trust what you're saying and open a can of CT worms that makes the individual timer fragment issue look like an open-and-shut case, or to stick with current received wisdom that the fragments are not intrinsically impossible. So I continue to keep an open mind. And argue Devil's Advocate when I see a relevant point. Rolfe. |
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012. |
|
30th September 2009, 01:44 PM | #65 |
Adult human female
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 50,594
|
Additionally, I've come across another commentary by Hans Kochler.
Quote:
This might accord with your own thinking. I also note that in his references to advance warnings, Kochler may be closer to alleging a LIHOP than I realised. Rolfe. |
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012. |
|
30th September 2009, 04:15 PM | #66 |
Adult human female
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 50,594
|
OK, I concede. Swire has noticed, I just didn't pick it up. This is him commenting on the Dutch film Lockerbie Revisited, where he apparently did voice this opinion. First he pointed out the mistake with regard to the picture of the circuit board fragment shown on a fingertip, then he continued....
Originally Posted by Jim Swire
You definitely win on that one. I still don't hear him suggesting that the fragments of Toshiba were all planted too, though, unless I missed a lot more. Rolfe. |
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012. |
|
30th September 2009, 08:51 PM | #67 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,528
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
30th September 2009, 09:39 PM | #68 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,528
|
Quote:
Quote:
Speakers are normally subbed out to speaker manufacturers and have their codes stamped in them. I'm of the opinion those codes and housing survived the "dummy explosion" that created these debris but could be traced thru those codes that would point to another model radio or maybe even manufactured after the incident. Kinda difficult to sell the idea that a speaker made in 90 was in a crash in the 80's. Otherwise, why not say "lookey here" at all the radio fragments we found.
Quote:
Even then, now theres the space issue- unless they were very creative- a good X Ray operator SHOULD have noticed this great big glob. Why didnt they? Option 1 is the bomb was physically installed on the plane Option 2 is there never was a radio bomb ( in something else) |
1st October 2009, 02:33 AM | #69 |
Adult human female
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 50,594
|
Er, hasn't the entire thrust of what I've been saying been that the trial was rigged, a set-up, a kangaroo court, a show trial, all the rest of it? (You were the one who joined the discussion saying you were familiar with the evidence and believed Megrahi to be guilty, not me!) The behaviour of the defence has always been a bit of a mystery to me, because they did a great job of demolishing Giaka as a credible witness and I wonder in retrospect why they pushed so hard on that one. However, there was a big falling-out in the defence team early on, with the original Scottish advocate leaving the team because of interference from the Libyan lawyers he was forced to work with. After that, substantial chunks of the defence were dropped, including the "special defence of incrimination" against Abu Talb and the PFLP-GC. It appears that it was in Libya's interests also that at least one of the defendants should be convicted. The trial was a central plank of the negotiations to get the sanctions lifted. It was all arranged that Libya was going to accept responsibility, pay the relatives of the victims eye-watering sums of money, and everybody would move on. (Including the law enforcement authorities, who would stop investigating who did it, or who else might have been involved in what was undoubtedly a large conspiracy with high-up government backing whoever did it.) I think it was becoming so obvious that Giaka wasn't credible, that it was decided to sacrifice him and his evidence (and so inevitably acquit Fhimah) on the altar of defence credibility, while retaining Gauci's testimony and a lot of the tittle-tattle coming from Bollier and his mates, so as to convict Megrahi. So the defence had Libyan lawyers breathing down their necks manipulating the case, with their national interest vested in getting Megrahi convicted as a scapegoat. The prosecution had the CIA breathing down their necks telling them what they could and couldn't bring forward in evidence, and feeding them fairly-tales invented by Giaka. Received wisdom says the judges were swayed by indirect political pressure to convict someone after all these years of international hard-ball, Nelson Mandela's intervention, the wildly expensive three-ring circus at Camp Zeist, and all the media attention. Whether there was any more to it and they had been directly leaned on with instructions to bring in a guilty verdict I couldn't say. Scrutiny of the evidence presented, and their stated reasons for their decision, does however bear that interpretation. Well, Jim Swire doesn't seem scared. However, as I said in a later post, I note now that he has indeed stated that the survival of that fragment would have been close to impossible. Rolfe. |
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012. |
|
1st October 2009, 02:56 AM | #70 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,528
|
Come on now, thats not exactly correct.
I said I did ( and still do) believe he is guilty ( at some level but probably not directly) based on other things i had heard. I have never examined the evidence or trial. Funny thing- now that I am looking at it, I'm almost open to the idea that he might have been legitimately framed. |
1st October 2009, 04:36 AM | #71 |
Adult human female
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 50,594
|
I don't believe he put the suitcase on the plane, which is what he was convicted of. The evidence is laughable. First, the securiity evidence at Luqa was as tight as a duck's arse; it's the only one of the three airports with no apparent opportunity for an unaccompanied suitcase to be introduced. (And yet the judges decided it must have gone on there, capitalising on a tiny shred of "well you can never be 100% sure" in the general manager's evidence. An amazing contrast to the way they hand-waved away Bedford's highly suggestive evidence with, "well, the case could have been moved within the container before it was put on the plane.") Second, the original indictment had Fhimah, who had changed jobs but stll had an air-side pass for Luqa, as the essential accomplice to get this done. It was always understood that Megrahi could not possibly have done what was alleged without an accomplice. But Fhimah was acquitted (there was no evidence he was even there on that day), and no other evidence was presented that there might have been another accomplice present. So, if the bomb was not introduced at Luqa, and Megrahi was definitely at Luqa that day, looks like an alibi to me. There was also no evidence led whatsoever to show that he had even been involved with explosives or bomb-making, nobody was able to say where this bomb had been made or who made it, and basically there was little in his record to support the suggestion that he was involved in terrorism - depending on how you view the JSO, I suppose, but certainly not linking him with hands-on terrorism. Yes, I think he was in the JSO, certainly while he worked for Libyan Arab Airlines. He denies any JSO connection after he left that job and went to work in the Centre for Strategic Studies, however I take that with a pinch of salt. He was involved in military procurement almost certainly - otherwise, why the connection with MEBO. I think that, together with the fact he happened to be in Malta on the right day (and the investigators were obsessed with the idea the suitcase went on at Malta because the clothes had been bought there) made him eminently frameable. But it's so thin, when you really get down to it, that I can't make any deduction that he was actually involved in the bombing. So, he was involved in the Libyan security services and military procurement. He wasn't a Sunday School teacher, and it's perfectly possible he was involved in "stuff". However, I don't think it's anywhere near proved he even knew about the plot to bomb PA103, and then again, I don't necessarily think awareness of such a plot is the same thing as actually carrying it out of being involved in carrying it out. If you really think he was materially involved in the operation, I'd be interested to know why. Also "stuff I heard" doesn't really cut it with this one. The rumour mill has been so active you could have heard apparently reliable information to pin it on anyone from Abu Talb to the CIA. Wrong thread probably, but [/end derail]. Rolfe. |
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012. |
|
1st October 2009, 04:46 AM | #72 |
Adult human female
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 50,594
|
Of course, remember that you're not just saying it could all have been vaporised, but that it's 99.9% certain it would all have been vaporised. If there's even a 10% chance these fragments could have survived as described, that's the interpretation I'd go for. I thought they did say "lookie here at all the radio fragments we found."
Originally Posted by Court judgement
Of course it's always theoretically possible that all this could have been fabricated. However, I question the practicality of being able to do that without this being discovered, and in particular the suggestion that it was done after 1990, when to my recollection the basic stuff about fragments of a cassette player and a suitcase was made public early in the investigation. If you want to make the case that this was all planted evidence, I could even see where they might have got it from.
Originally Posted by Court judgement
However, the probability that this could or would have been done (especially without any sign of falsification of documents except in the case of the timer fragment) in the time scales apparently involved seems to me to be remote. I'm currently reading The Trail of the Octopus, and the suggestion there seems to be that the suitcase was put on the luggage conveyor at Frankfurt after the security checks. I'm not sure how well that fits with the rest of the evidence, but it's something to consider. Also, there have been questions raised as to the sensitivity of the x-ray checks at Frankfurt and Heathrow. Frankfurt airport had had the security warning about bombs in Toshiba radio-casette players, and the x-ray technician was confident he would have pulled out anything that looked like such a radio for hand-searching, but the Court managed to dismiss his evidence anyway.
Quote:
It's possible the Court's view on this is correct, or that the bag was introduced at Frankfurt after the security checks. Of course that still leaves the x-ray checks at Heathrow, however the Toshiba bomb warning hadn't been circulated there (it was still lying on someone's desk), so it's more likely that it could have got past there. Then we have the possibility of the bag being introduced at Heathrow, the "Bedford suitcase". No matter what The Trail of the Octopus alleges, or how persuasive the theory may be that the MST-13 timer fragment is genuine thus pointing to introduction elsewhere than at Heathrow, this still seems the likeliest point of introduction.
Quote:
Bedford also said Kamboj had told him he had x-rayed the suitcases before putting them in the container. I would assume somebody did searching background checks on Mr. Kamboj after this lot emerged, but the circumstances seem to me quite suspicious. Anyway, there are ways to have got this suitcase on while circumventing the x-ray procedure, and also no certainty that a bomb suitcase would definitely have been picked up even if it had been x-rayed. I'd certainly like to hear how you think this "complete fabrication" of great swathes of evidence could possibly have been accomplished, in a way that is consistent with the rest of the information we have available. Rolfe. |
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012. |
|
1st October 2009, 05:12 AM | #73 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,528
|
|
1st October 2009, 05:35 AM | #74 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,528
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
1st October 2009, 06:22 AM | #75 |
Good of the Fods
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 2,675
|
They did, but the only fragments positively IDed as being from that particular make of Toshiba were the manual and some of the circuit board fragments, and IIRC the circuit board bits weren't exclusive to an RT-SF 16, there are a handful of models that carry that board. Also if the plastic fragments are black I am pretty sure that rules out an RT-SF 16, it was a model shipped to Libya with a white not black case. I'll go and find where I read that, I might be misremembering.
The thing that bugs me about the Toshiba radio ID is the manual. In the grey shirt PI995 they dug out fragemnts of black plastic, the MST-13 fragment and pieces of Toshiba manual. Does anyone know how they reconcile those fragments of Toshiba manual with the "intact" page(s) of manual that Decky Horton found, is that one and the same manual, two seperate manuals? It was nearly Christmas, presumably many of the passengers are taking Christmas presents home. Toshiba Radios are not exactly rare items. |
1st October 2009, 09:55 AM | #76 |
Adult human female
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 50,594
|
Well, you'll find support on that one. There are a number of assertions of tampering with items alleged to have been in the suitcase. Gauci at first seems to have had an unexpectedly accurate recollection of what the mystery shopper bought from him. Some people (even those otherwise "an apple short of a picnic"!) can do this, and he seems to have remembered the sale because of the peculiar mix of items bought. Among other things, the purchaser bought a tweed jacket he's been trying to get rid of for months. I imagine most of his sales involve fewer items, and not such an eclectic mix of stuff. He also said the purchaser didn't seem to care much what he was buying, unlike most customers who would go through a process of choosing. According to de Braeckeleer, Gauci originally ran off a list of stuff that was bought, and also said how much the purchaser paid for the purchase. The list didn't include a slalom shirt and a number of other things he was apparently "persuaded" to remember later that he sold. Nevertheless (again according to de Braeckeleer), if you add up the prices of the items on his original list, the total comes to exactly what he said the purchaser's bill had been. The suggestion is that his original list was correct, and the items he "remembered" later were not among them. I don't know what you think of the whole Gauci story, but I very much doubt that he's clever enough to have made that lot up to order, or be acting. I think his original memories are probably right (6-foot, 50-ish customer who bought the items he originally listed), because that's the way his mind works, and the rest is confusion due to police pressing him, and offering him money/inducements. This is a helluva funny story to attach to an innocent suitcase that just happened to be right next to the bomb. It does sound consistent with someone purchasing stuff to be used for just that purpose. And then it looks as if the police wanted him to add extra items to his list, in order to provide them with the provenance they wanted in the enquiry. Of course these were the items with significant stuff caught in them, and include the items people are reporting discrepancies with. But on the other hand, I always thought it was slightly odd for the bomber to go and buy stuff at random like that, in a small shop where he might well be remembered. What was wrong with a nice anonymous checkout at a big chain store somewhere? Or a charity shop with second-hand items? Sigh. Off the top of my head, tampering accusations include the blue babygro (said to have been found intact, but later presented shredded and charred), the Toshiba manual (or at least a substantial part of it), and the slalom shirt itself, about which there are allegations that it is the wrong size, as well as that it has been tampered with. Rolfe. |
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012. |
|
1st October 2009, 05:02 PM | #77 |
Good of the Fods
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 2,675
|
page 26 of this pdf of declassified intelligence documents from the DIA pertaining to Lockerbie says:
Quote:
PETN is one of the noted substances found in forensic tests at Lockerbie used to ID the explosive used as SEMTEX-H. What are the odds that the Lockerbie bomb might have been of similar manufacture and had a coating of PETN on the inside wall of a suitcase? Perhaps with just a timer/detonator circuit held within the radio? Would such a setup mean it was more or less likely that fragments of radio/clothing etc were found in the wreckage in the way that they were? Libya were blamed for the UTA bomb there's controversy there as well. The 1985 Paris bomb was attributed to Hezbollah, responsibility was claimed by Abu Nidal, and the PFLP(not the PFLP-GC, who are a different group) Online archives of "le express" only go back to 2003 and I can't find the article it refers to. |
1st October 2009, 06:59 PM | #78 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,528
|
Possible but HIGHLY unlikely- heres why
Plastics ( like every other kind but because of their nature are more prone to it because they are often used "unwrapped" rather in the case like say dynamite) desorb both vapors ( slight but there) and residue from the media they are mixed in. Imagine playing with play doh or silly putty and you get that slight residue and odor on your hands. To get it there ( touching the suitcase or anything else) would mean the explosive was in physical contact with it for a pretty good while. If we accept the bomb in the boom box theory- it couldnt have happened. USUALLY- these signatures are left by the handler ( gloves or not but gloves transfer more since they are impermeable) and are trace except in cases where the explosive literally sat there for days or weeks. |
1st October 2009, 07:09 PM | #79 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,528
|
Quote:
Quote:
To me that would qualify for a Darwin- maybe he did but I just cant accept it. |
1st October 2009, 07:54 PM | #80 |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 13,594
|
It's conceivable that a booster charge could be concealed as a thin layer on the outer case. But the destructive force of high explosives comes from producing a uniform shock wave that concentrates the energy in a short time period. By the time the shock wave travels from the initiator charge to the outer case it will have been significantly distorted rendering the boost less effective because of incomplete detonation and a much wider time dispersion of the resulting shock wave.
Unless there is a better description of what was found, I am inclined to think they are only referring to trace deposits that were transfered by the blast. This is something that is looked for and is a primary means of establishing what explosive was used. [*]I know that the technical jargon user the term booster as an intermediary between the primer and the main charge but this isn't exactly a technical forum |
Thread Tools | |
|
|