|
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. |
15th October 2009, 07:29 AM | #81 |
NWO Cyborg 5960x (subversion VPUNPCKHQDQ)
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Starship Wanderer - DS9
Posts: 14,283
|
|
__________________
ModBorg Engine: Ibalgin 400 |
|
16th October 2009, 12:28 AM | #82 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 4,494
|
I'm not sure where that question came from. Someone seems to have, quite possibly, concealed all relevant records. Someone with at least a suspicion something went on that plane that regular investigators couldn't see, and the power to keep them from seeing it. It could have been an airport authority decision, but somehow I think otherwise. I'm not sure who was in charge there, in occupied West Germany; I've heard PanAm had their own shady deals at CIA-type levels. We're speculating on a drug-trafficking system that would have to have security people, plumbers who can get around and plug leaks.
Quote:
But what were these deletions to oppose or expose? With the computer backup tapes, we have an allegation of a week-later deletion preceded by no action from either the airport nor German investigators to examine it. If this be a cover story for a quicker deletion before anyone COULD look at it, then we need only one or two well-placed accomplices on board. KM180's unloading papers - I'm not sure about this, if they were usually kept, when they went missing... I would presume they weren't even worth looking at until after the printout emerged pointing to station 206 at 1307. Were they just routinely scrapped sometime in the preceding 7-8 MONTHS? PanAm's papers are indeed absent from the investigation AFAIK as if deleted, and Mr. Jones says they were gone from the airline's files before early 89. Any inside accomplice with access could do this and whatever settlement follows, the papers are gone and that's the main thing. Apparently this one was exposed, unless Jones is hoaxing. Otherwise though it's been kept pretty quiet and papered over by all 'reputable' parties. So for waltzing in and removing what you need, Yes you'd need accomplices with security clearances and access to 103A's loading papers and the central computer. there's a danger they'll talk, but is this is what happened, then the danger was apparently manageable.
Quote:
|
16th October 2009, 03:00 AM | #83 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 4,494
|
I just finally had an important insight I wish one of us all had already thought of. First, a graphic that helps visualize the situation - useful for anyone wanting to get involved but too confused. I hope this doesn't come through tooo huge:
Number of bags can't be seen not because they didn't count it at the plane. They wouldn't. Wagons to coding stations - standard procedured meant a certain time = a certain flight's luggage. So the full computer tape should have so many items coded then = number of bags from flight. If all records available like normal, this could be established - only so many wagons could be needed for 55 or 56 bags from KM180. Just one maybe? So you check how many stations took that luggage and at what times was it coded? Items were coded at station x between, lessee, paper says 1304-1310. The time difference was a real issue it seems, known and app. corrected for. Checking the computer system for S0009, 1303-1309 frame. Ah, 55 items. A seconds counter might really help here, perhaps that was optional data. plus distinct work pauses between coding flight batches. Anyway... But the full data set is needed to pull it up under different headings. According to Bogomira's printout, exactly one item was coded there at that time. And of course that's because this is just a snapshot, only those items destined for PA103A and routed to gate 44, or alleged items. What this does, swapping out the full data tapes for a printout of one heading, is two things: it gives the investigation just what it needs so from their POV, the record is fine and complete, on the important part. On the other hand, it removes all context, depth, and verifiability. |
16th October 2009, 06:50 AM | #84 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 458
|
First, as someone who has been an avid follower of the PanAm 103 tragedy, I would like to thank all the contributors on this and the other threads. Especially Rolfe and Caustic Logic. Posters have been erudite and objective in their examining the many curious and complex circumstances around Lockerbie and Pan Am 103. Reasoned and plausible debate is often a scarcity when involving major disasters and/or terrorist attacks.
In reply to CL and his excellent diagram above (pictures often help the 'layman'), I would contend that 'a bag' seems to have been introduced at 'coding station 206', but from what is evident, it could not be 'a bag' that had travelled on KM180. The triple checking of KM180 bag-passenger reconciliation, before departure, with no passengers joining PA103a, together with the bags uplifted at Frankfurt, by all passengers, surely rules out any possibility of unaccompanied bag? The 'bag' must therefore be inserted between journey of wagon from KM180 to coding station 206 - OR, introduced at station 206 itself? Still, if we believe what sketchy information and records that are available pertaining to wagon/baggage amounts from KM180 and station 206 and the Frankfurt operation. It is 'a bag'. Not neccessarily a 'bomb'.? Frankfurt baggage examiners were aware of 'toshiba bomb' threat and surely would be alerted by a 'bomb bag' passing through their system? My own belief is that a rogue bag did enter the system at Frankfurt and was loaded onto Pan Am 103a. Possibly through a bag switch, which according to official records, was a known technique for drug smugglers using Frankfurt and Heathrow. Whether this was the 'bomb bag' I am doubtful. I think the 'bomb bag' was inserted at Heathrow - anything else is too great a gamble on being discovered, disturbed - the Heathrow break-in, and the time lapse from take off to the explosion on 103 is simply too much a coincidence for it not to have a connection with the barometric timers as used by the PLFP group in Neuss. Surely? I do have other contributions I would like to make to the debate, however, time has been an enemy for me recently due to other commitments. However, I will endeavour to comment further soon on the events leading up to 21 December, the subsequent investigation, the evidence, the witnesses, the documentaries and books. |
16th October 2009, 09:38 AM | #85 |
Adult human female
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 50,594
|
Welcome indeed, Buncrana!
I'm off for an evening out, but I look forward very much to your contributions. My head was beginning to spin with the sheer amount of information available (not all of it accurate of course), and I very much appreciate your summary above. I think you make a most excellent point. My belief (pace Klimax) is that the evidence that the bag was not introduced at Malta is as good as it gets. Accordingly, I'm really not interested in Megrahi, because he was in Malta at the relevant time. Whether he, or any Libyan, knew about what was going on is not really the issue. He can't have put the bag on board, because he actually has an alibi. I realise I have been repeatedly accused of trying to spin the argument this way because I'm Scottish, and a supporter of the SNP - the party of government, which chose to release Megrahi on compassionate grounds. However, I don't think that's relevant at all. I've believed Megrahi to be innocent for years, and Kenny MacAskill's decision isn't important to the discussions except insofar as it raises the profile of the incident and gets people examining it. I have been continually conflicted as to whether Heathrow or Frankfurt is the more likely point of entry of the bomb. Frankfurt is attractive, partly because Jibril's group was there, and partly because that's the modus operandi favoured by some of the best-described conspiracy theories, and by this I mainly mean The Trail of the Octopus and The Maltese Double Cross. Hoever, there are also arguments against it, which are possibly better located in another thread. The Heathrow loading has two great arguments in its favour - the "Bedford suitcase", which is one hell of a coincidence if it wasn't the bomb suitcase (or a fairy story), and the 38-minute detonation, which is almost pathognomonic of a Khreesat device loaded at Heathrow. Which is why I keep coming back to the timer fragment. A simple Khreesat device at Heathrow makes a nonsense of that timer. The internet is crawling with suggestions that it was planted, however I have not yet decided whether or not I think that really flies. Alternatively, if the device really did incorporate an MST-13 timer, what was its role? Could it have been to allow a Khreesat device to be loaded at Frankfurt, preventing the decide from arming on the first leg of the flight, giving the same result as if it had been loaded at Heathrow but allowing it to be loaded remotely? But if we postulate that, what the hell is Bedford's story all about? Meh, I'm off to the cinema. Rolfe. |
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012. |
|
16th October 2009, 01:52 PM | #86 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 4,494
|
What an excelent introduction, Bruncana, and welcome to the forum! A certain restraint on the part of our would-be official story supporters is at fault for the steady forward movement here. Bless their prudence! And County Donegal is in the house! ? !
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
17th October 2009, 02:38 AM | #87 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 4,494
|
For all my contrarian stances, ultimately I agree there's no sound reason for denying their claims. I'd like to see some summaries of who said what and what evidence they have - the paperwork Phipps said he saw and found way more satisfying than Frankfurt's. All this nitpicking aside, what did or didn't happen at station 206, it really does seem 55 bags were carried, unloaded, and later claimed. This means no bag from Malta was passed onto the Pan Am flight. Therefore...
Quote:
... But I can't really feel that's the end. And then what we have, if we embrace the claim of no bag from Luqa via KM180, and accept the printout as legitimate (or rather accurate) as most of us are, this would clearly prove some definite non-KM180 item coded along with that stuff at that time. And we have some co-incidences to consider (not necc. "coincidences") Unless we call the Maltese clothes at the crash site plants, we have clothes apparently associated with the bomb pointing to Malta. If the item introduced from 206 was not the bomb bag, and not from KM180, then we have a remarkable coincidence that it could <i>appear</i> Maltese with no big stretch. And if this was the bomb bag, we have the question of why it got by security, AND app. had Maltese clothes AND was loaded so as to appear Maltese. And it had the timer set to as to make sure these clues would be found across some lovely countryside. This scenario can't be coincidence, can it? |
18th October 2009, 11:08 PM | #88 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 4,494
|
I must apologize for that nerdy outburst. Combining some early-90s fake street cred lingo along with amateur Google-fu to show "I know where you're coming from, I know about the world, not just some dumb yank." Perhaps the breach of erudition was borne of my penchant for raining on parades, to see how good a parade it really is. If it keeps moving, all right! If not, well I feel kinda bad but figure I just hastened the inevitable.
That must be a pretty long movie there. But no, it's good to take a break when you're thinking so hard the rest of the time. I've kind of paused too, but I'm back with a few things. Denis Phipps is alright, pretty convincing and fairly level. I heard in the Dispatches episode he did his examination of Frankfurt Airport on behalf of Air Malta. Apparently Paul Foot did not mention him (by word search). Another source, a transcript of Frontline Scotland says he "was employed by Air Malta to review security on flight KM180." I was wondering, Rolfe in particular, or anyone, what's up with that? Was this for their lawsuit against Granada? How much weight should we assign to charges of partiality? Some of his phraseology and emphasis makes me wonder if he's slanted, but though he doesn't explain fully that I've seen, there's plenty of reason for a person who's looked close to be slanted to accept Air Malta's claims over Frankfurt's. He's also very convincing IMO to Western minds, very British and proper. He lends serious weight to the tightness of AM's evidence and the flimsiness of FA's records. One may recall that 2008 Conspiracy Files episode that so blandly stated a bag DID travel unaccompanied, and cast absolutely zero doubt over the whole episode there (aside from admitting the *apparent* lack of police inquiry was "surspising"). I felt this section was very calculated, the central thesis and true movie set between some collected (relatively) insubstantial controversies. Please note, this is one of the few videos claiming to explore Lockerbie controversies that DID NOT include even a second of Mr. Phipps. Further evidence. |
19th October 2009, 02:36 AM | #89 |
Adult human female
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 50,594
|
Mmmm, went to see "Up" on Friday. Good film, by the way. Lots to do Saturday. Visitors Sunday. I logged in a couple of times, but (don't take this the wrong way, CL!) I was hoping for another post from Buncrana, maybe with some new insight.
I'm not sure why you're so suspicious of Luqa airport. OK, the clothes were bought in Sliema, we agree on that even if that is one more oddity (why use a small shop where you might be remembered, rather than a charity store or an anonymous branch of a big chain store?). But is that not likely to be an argument against the bomb going on at Luqa? Surely, if you're a terrorist, you don't advertise your plan by buying the clothes only a few miles from the airport you plan on using? Especially if your cunning plan is to obfuscate the issue by feeding the bomb on in a remote location using feeder flights? To me, buying the clothes in Sliema is more suggestive of a plan to put the bag on board at Heathrow - or Frankfurt, or Berlin, or Damascus, or Warsaw.... The investigators knew about the Maltese clothes before they saw the Erac printout. As a result, that anomalous bag coming from station 206 seems to have leapt out at them and taken on more significance than it really warranted.
The thing that weighs most with me on this one is the fact that the prosecution absolutely bust a gut trying to show there was some tiny chink in the Luqa story where the bomb bag might have been introduced, and failed. They didn't even manage to establish that Fhimah was at Luqa airport that day. (And since Fhimah had worked at Luqa airport until not long before that, he was well known there and one would expect someone to have noticed him if he had been there.) And here's another version. Now, how much credence you put on The Trail of the Octopus is quite another story, but as far as the facts of the case are concerned they seem to be reasonably accurate.
Quote:
And again, if you think the bag might have been put on at Luqa, who do you think did that? Megrahi couldn't possibly have done it on his own, this is accepted by all parties. It would have required the assistance of someone with an airside pass. This was where Fhimah was supposed to come in, but it appears Fhimah wasn't even at the airport that day. So, we don't have anyone who could have put the bag on board at Malta, we don't have any evidence there was such a bag, and we don't even have any serious evidence it was possible for such a bag to have been there, even though the prosecution tried extremely hard to find some. So, I don't see much percentage in continuing to probe the possibility, to be honest. Rolfe. |
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012. |
|
19th October 2009, 03:03 AM | #90 |
Adult human female
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 50,594
|
Who is this wingnut?
Looney tunes.
Quote:
Sorry, IED is standard terminology for "home-made bomb". Like the IRA devices, or all these things bringing down military vehicles in Iraq at the moment, and so on.
Quote:
The English usage referred to is entirely correct, unexceptional, and standard terminology for the type of report. This is nearly as bad as Bollier! I know you only linked to it for the Frontline transcript, and it's useful for that, but I just thought I'd comment on the main thesis on the page. Rolfe. |
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012. |
|
19th October 2009, 03:12 AM | #91 |
Adult human female
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 50,594
|
Oh. My. Giddy. Aunt. (From that transcript.)
Originally Posted by Vincent Cannistraro
They had none of that! Unfortunately, this is what we were all being fed for ten years before the actual trial. The US has the evidence, it has a witness, the evidence is incontrovertible, the Libyans are guilty. I think the sheer embarrassment of throwing the case out after all that was more than the Noble Lords could take, quite frankly. Rolfe. |
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012. |
|
19th October 2009, 06:42 AM | #92 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 458
|
Reading through this and the other threads, it appears many, if not all, the uncertainties and inconsistencies have been touched upon. Many of the points I would've raised have already been addressed and illustrated to be upheld or dismissed..
However, given that Air Malta's records, with the exception of the unloading of the Air Malta KM180 at Frankfurt, their records of baggage loaded, inspected and reconciled with passengers at departure from Luqa and uplifted at Frankfurt, appear impeccable, where does this leave us with the 'unaccompanied bag'? Even if we are to accept that an unaccompanied bag arrived at Station 206, from Malta or elsewhere, through Mrs Erac's production, (which alone is ambiguous at best), I still find it difficult to accept this was the 'bomb suitcase'. How would it be possible for it to circumvent the further security checks it would still have to go through while passing along the Frankfurt system on it way to the Pan Am feeder flight? In addition, also pass security systems and screenings with operators already vigilant to, not only a bomb threat, but a bomb contained within a Toshiba radio player? Precisely the kind that we're told did indeed pass through? Now, I also find that the lack of records from Frankfurt extremely disconcerting. Given the intelligence, warnings received and the rumbled PLFP cell just outside Frankfurt in October, am I unreasonable to suggest that investigative minds, and those aware of the BKA raid in Neuss and the warnings, would/should have immediately focussed on whether 103 had any connection with flights from Frankfurt as a matter of urgency? And yet there are no records? Even allowing for records only being kept for a week, that is surely ample time to realise the passenger list included about 47 people who had travelled from the connecting PanAm flight originating at Frankfurt? I have read that within days, and certainly within a week, it was determined that 'an explosion' had occurred with container AVE 4041 - which apparently contained luggage from the Frankfurt feeder flight. Everything is screaming Frankfurt! Yet we have no records of luggage loaded onto 103 except the printout kept by Mrs Erac? Why was obtaining records from Frankfurt not a priority within days, if not hours? In any case, aside from all this, would it not, if someone wanted to introduce a unaccompanied item aimed at PA103a, at Frankfurt, be easier and less of a gamble to do so at Gate 44?.... Then why did it appear at station 206? Was this after the suitcase had been found to contain clothes from Malta? 206 links this suitcase with the Air Malta flight, assuming that the clothes, the bomb and the suitcase were all introduced at Malta. |
19th October 2009, 08:42 AM | #93 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 458
|
So, not only do we appear to have wholly imcompetent investigation while allowing all/any evidence from Frankfurt to be destroyed, bar the for fortuitous printout found months later, we also have the systematic disregard, or deliberate omission, of all details and information of the security breach at Heathrow.
Quote:
Why the deliberate disregard of the Heathrow? Why the complete disregard of the lack of reliable evidence from Frankfurt? There appears to be a concerted effort to deflect any and all attention away from the two most obvious points of entry for a rogue suitcase. Frankfurt and Heathrow. Although from what is eventually revealed, an unaccompanied suitcase introduced at Frakfurt would still have to negotiate a number of security hurdles including examiners given advance warnings about a bomb being disguised as Toshiba Radio's. Instead we have maltese clothes and ergo an Air Malta flight which appears to, at a much later point, have evidence supporting an unaccompanied bag inserted at the Air Malta arrival at Frankfurt and it's luggage arriving at Station 206. |
19th October 2009, 09:59 AM | #94 |
Adult human female
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 50,594
|
I don't really think that's the case. Well, maybe touched on, but there are so many different facets to this and we've really only been looking at the MST-13 timer fragment and the Frankfurt baggage records in any detail. What about the warnings? The re-routed South Africans? The numerous strange events recorded on the ground during the search? Jafaar and the drug smuggling? The CIA agents and what might they have been carrying? The Bedford suitcase and the Heathrow breakin? Khreesat's release in October, and his connection to the CIA? And there are more. We could have a productive thread on any of them, except there's only so much a small number of people can concentrate on at one time. This is something that seems to be soft-pedalled by most commentators, but as you say, it's extremely peculiar. Why no explanation of how this happened? I'm having great difficulty trying to figure out who might have decided to do that, and why, and on what authority he did it, and why he hasn't been pilloried as an incompetent. Was no evidence led during the trial to explain these missing records? I'm back to, if the bomb was introduced at Frankfurt, what was Bedford's story all about? Did he make it up? Was it an enormous coincidence that a stray interline bag appered under mysterious circumstances right where the bomb suitcase would have been, and mathcing its description, only to be moved far away from the locus during the later lart of the loading? Rolfe. |
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012. |
|
19th October 2009, 02:11 PM | #95 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 458
|
Sorry, yes you're absolutely correct Rolfe. There are indeed many other aspects which deserve closer scrutiny. I was however, trying (at the moment) to stay primarily within the parameters of this specific thread. As you rightly say, the thread could quite easily digress to any number of curious, unexplained, possibly innocent or troubling aspects.
As far as I remember, and can locate while browsing the court judgement, there was no expression of inquiry or disbelief at the lack of documentation from the Frankfurt operations. It seems a complex, and at times haphazard, system that was being operated at Frankfurt thereby to me inferring the possiblilty of an unaccompanied suitcase being injested into the system. However, one which contained a bomb?? I still, simply cannot envisage that. One which has innocent components like any normal suitcase? Possibly yes. From the statements made by those working at Heathrow, an unaccompanied suitcase could most certainly be introduced. With an estimated 50,000 passes comfirmed as being issued for 'airside' at Heathrow during 21 dec, many unaccounted for, it would also appear that not only is Heathrow more susceptible for injestion of unaccompanied bag, but at least two witnesses gave statements that two unknown bags appeared in the luggage build-up area for PanAm 103. All of these appear far more likely and plausible. Certainly more likely, and with more evidence, than from what is known of the procedures at Luqa. Without a shadow of a doubt. |
19th October 2009, 02:19 PM | #96 |
Adult human female
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 50,594
|
So, do we think the disappearing baggage records were just incompetence, or deliberate?
How soon would the investigators have gone after these records? Pan Am's own investigator was there in about four weeks. But surely law enforcement would have been there a lot sooner? I also believe they discovered about container AVE4041 very early on. I think the skeleton of the container was found on Christmas Eve, and surely it didn't take much longer for them to realise the explosion had probably been in there and it had mostly been filled with Frankfurt bags? But not only that, OK it wasn't the same actual aeroplane, but the Frankfurt flight was called PA103A, it was the official feeder flight. Surely the minute they realised it was a bomb, they would have been trying to secure those records? Even before then - hell, you didn't have to be clairvoyant to realise a bomb was a possibility - Christmas or not, I'd have expected law enforcement to be looking for these records within days. This has always been downplayed, and I haven't heard anyone trying to make a big deal about it, but what does it imply for a conspiracy theory? Who destroyed the records? Why? Where did the authority come from? And how come they weren't hung out to dry? Rolfe. |
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012. |
|
19th October 2009, 02:31 PM | #97 |
Adult human female
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 50,594
|
Oops, simultaneous posting.
I was thinking of starting new threads when we'd come to some reasonable consensus (I won't say conclusions!) about the existing ones, but I'm struggling on the timer fragment. My heart says it was a plant but my head isn't sure it can see how that was done. I was also hoping that others might be interested enough to start specific threads, though so far we've just got Caustic Logic and this topic going. There's a huge scope though. That could mean there was a perfectly innocent explanation, or it could be another aspect of the cover-up which I think is pretty inescapable here. I'm wondering. Coleman (and others) suggest that Frankfurt airport was riddled with drug smuggling. He declares that the bomb was got on board by taking advantage of this crack in the security. But of course if there wads simultaneous heroin smuggling going on, one of these illicit bags could easily be showing up as an anomaly on the records without necessarily having anything to do with a bomb. In fact, could covering up of a regular drug smuggling operation explain the disappearance of the baggage records? I wonder how carefully Kamboj's background was investigated? Nah, that's so obvious he must have been looked at and discounted. We need a thread on the Heathrow events also. Rolfe. |
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012. |
|
19th October 2009, 03:09 PM | #98 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 4,494
|
Not suspicious, just being a contrarian evidence purist.
Quote:
Now after realizing how weird and partly obliterated the records showing that are, and after checking Air Malta's records, and/or after seeing Gauci's shifting testimony on who bought which of those clothes, or heard about Giaka's fanciful account filling in the middle spaces, I like to think I'd be looking down a different route for the explanation to that coincidence. But then, I'm not the guys put in charge, and they think differently.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
24th October 2009, 02:45 PM | #99 |
Adult human female
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 50,594
|
So OK, I didn't mean to kill the thread with that.
Even if the bomb bag didn't come off KM180, it could still have been introduced at Frankfurt. That's what Coleman alleges, and Frankovich suggests. Where did these baggage records disappear to, and why? Buncrana, if you're still reading, do you have any thoughts? Rolfe. |
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012. |
|
25th October 2009, 01:27 AM | #100 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 4,494
|
You didn't kill nothing. Injured, maybe... And then failed to feed it. And me too. I was going to come back to that coincidence in consecutive tray no.s putting the two later bags bracketing our no. 8849. I had this neat theory that reduced the odds to 1 in 110, where someone had re-ordered the trays at station "S0541" sequentially, maybe to kill some downtime earlier in the day. But then I checked for any corroboration, and otherwise it's pretty random for coding time-container no. relation at that station. So that's apparently just a coincidence.
Then I had another thought for this, but got sidetracked and forgot it now. The bomb could very well have originated at Frankfurt, and if the records really were wiped out almost immediately, at the very least someone was apparently worried that something shady had gone on there. |
25th October 2009, 11:39 AM | #101 |
Adult human female
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 50,594
|
This is very much related to the question of the authenticity of the timer fragment, of course. Coleman describes the bomb going on at Frankfurt, by way of a Turkish baggage handler who switched an innocent case for it after security checks, as was his routine for smuggling on bags full of herion. Whether or not he knew the bag he put into the system wasn't heroin on this occasion was uncertain. (A lot of this relies on polygraph evidence though, so shouldn't be taken too seriously.)
Of course this is Coleman, and we're not sure whether he's the real deal or a fantasist. Frankovich puts forward a similar story - or rather, part of it, apparently having got it from Coleman. But a Frankfurt introduction is quite a popular theory. However, it's entirely at odds with a simple "Jibril did it" theory. Jibril's standard devices would have exploded somewhere around Paris, if loaded at Frankfurt. Any theory apart from the Heathrow one actually demands a different, more sophisticated timing device - possibly an MST-13. It's just that the question then arises, once you've got the MST-13, why set it for 7pm instead of midnight? I've sort of got a vague idea.... Rolfe. |
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012. |
|
26th October 2009, 10:29 AM | #102 |
Adult human female
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 50,594
|
Well, vague idea coming up (I've mentioned it before actually).
If you're simply relying on a timer alone to detonate a bomb on PA103, you set it for about midnight. However, there's still the possibility the device might not be airborne at that time - particularly, if it isn't loaded on the plane for some reason (hey, it happens!). It's winter in northern Europe, planes get delayed, connections get missed, anything can happen. Jibril's group always favoured including an altimeter in their devices for exactly that reason. Whatever happened, the thing would be airborne when it exploded. However, as it would be triggered by any ascent to altitude, these devices had to be loaded on to the final leg where the explosion was desired. Now, suppose he decided to circumvent security and detection by placing the device on a feeder flight rather than directly on the final leg, he might still have been keen to include a barometric sensor to make sure that whatever happened as regards delays, the device wouldn't trigger until after take-off. We discussed in another thread the concept of a barometric sensor which could count, and would delay the triggering of the device until the second or the third ascent. Suppose that's what the MST-13 was being used for? I don't know enough electronics to know if this is plausible, but the thing was versatile. Suppose the components the timer was populated with in some way ensured that the device would remain inert during the earlier leg(s) of the flight, only allowing the main mechanism, which was still the barometer/ice-cube arrangement, to kick in on the Heathrow/JFK leg? I'm not sure exactly how this would work, I don't have the expertise, but it could certainly work for a Frankfurt loading. If you're 99.9% sure you'll get it on at Frankfurt and the Frankfurt flight isn't gonig to be delayed by more than a couple of hours, then you just set it (using the MST-13) to lie dormant until 6pm when the Heathrow take-off is scheduled. If that plane is delayed, or if the bag misses the connection, then the objective is still achieved. My main question with this is, given that train of thought, why not set the time for 11pm GMT rather than 6pm? That way, if the plane is airborne at that time, the final 30-minute countdown will start immediately and you'll probably get a detonation over the ocean. But if there's a big delay, then so long as the bag has reached Heathrow by 11pm, it'll sit quiet until it eventually takes off. I suppose, though, that this latter scenario would be a bad one anyway, with such a delayed bag being liable to be x-rayed and/or hand-searched. As I said, I'm a bit hazy about this, and I also wonder if it's possible the MST-13 might have been rigged to count take-offs rather than to delay the triggering until a certain time. But I think there's the germ of a possibility here. Rolfe. |
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012. |
|
28th October 2009, 04:49 AM | #103 |
Adult human female
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 50,594
|
I think I've found the source for Bollier's claim that the orphan bag at Frankfurt belonged to an airline pilot. It's in The Trail of the Octopus where it describes Pan Am's grounds for appeal against the negligence conviction. (The appeal hasn't happened by the time the book ends, but so far as I know it was unsuccessful and Pan Am was bankrupted as a result.)
Originally Posted by Lester Coleman
A "rush-tag" seems to be what happens to lost or delayed baggage when it is being sent to catch up with its owner. It seems that airline staff are allowed to "rush-tag" luggage they need to travel on a plane they are not themselves travelling on. Bollier has more detail, including the name of the pilot. I imagine he's taking this directly from the court papers. It looks as if this court action has had more detail about what did or didn't happen at Frankfurt than was heard at Camp Zeist. This account is in line with my own take on the Maier story, also. Maier's training was specifically derided in the Camp Zeist verdict, and it was implied that he had no idea how to spot a bomb. However, that wasn't actually the point. He'd been told to pull out anything that had a radio in it, never mind whether it looked suspicious otherwise. No specialist training is needed to see a radio-cassette player on an airport x-ray machine. He was looking for something like that, and he didn't see anything. Reading The Trail of the Octopus, the treatment of Pan Am by the US government seems extraordinary. If even a fraction of that book is true (and since the allegations should all be verifiable I can't see any reason for serious doubt), the government went hell-for-leather to load all the blame on Pan Am's security procedures, as if a bomb in a suitcase was some sort of natural disaster caused by nobody else. Of course, by the time Camp Zeist happened, Pan Am was long ago bankrupt and forgotten. It almost looks to me as if the pillorying of Pan Am had a two-fold purpose - turn the blame on Pan Am rather than whoever planted the bomb, and bankrupt Pan Am (which I gather was already a bit shaky) so that it vanishes as a corporate entity. Thus, later proceedings don't have to worry about representations from Pan Am trying to put their side of the story and defend their version of the baggage trail. Here's another section - this is actually taken from Paul Foot's review of the book, as the book's text is difficult to search.
Originally Posted by Paul Foot, writing about Lester Coleman
Am I the only one who thinks Tom Thurman in 2008 looks rather like Lester Coleman in 1994? It's probably just the beard.... Sorry, that was an aside. I really don't know if the bomb went on at Heathrow (timer fragment was fabricated, and the "Bedfod suitcase" was the bomb bag) or at Frankfurt (MST-13 probably real, and being used to prevent a Khreesat-type device from detonating on the first leg). However, even if the former is the actual bomb introduction method, there certainly seems to have been something helluva fishy going on at Frankfurt. Just covering up for a drug smuggling operation the authorities knew about and were turning a blind eye to? Rolfe. |
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012. |
|
28th October 2009, 05:22 PM | #104 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 4,494
|
That's really a fascinating find, Rolfe. I'll look it over later on, but off the bat my mind goes back to those two near-consecutive number late arrival (rush?) bags at gate 41. (44?) But then it would, huh?
Speaking of consecutive numbers, I was watching the Air Crash Investigation video (part 4) and saw a Frankfurt Airport authority document I hadn't seen before. Took a few screen caps and reassembled it. It's some re-created made up gibberish. Not as goofy as their PT/35(b) re-enactment, but due to that potentially confusing. So FWIW, here that is: The top portion is re-created from the Bach-Wolf worksheet I found on Bollier's sites, some contemopraneous sample he was re-working, with no connection to the case I've noticed. The middle, data, just is a way to show what the Erac printout showed for 8849, while looking more like a worksheet. It might be fun to analyze it and imagine what station this would be and who the heck would be running it. So in case that confuses anyone into thinking there WAS a signed hand-filled form for all this data, it's not so. We have a printout by chance saved in a personal locker for weeks, plus the official files deleted before someone looked at them (someone too fast or too slow?), plus a 7 month wait by German police before alerting the investigation (ah, that does make them seem the slow ones). Thanks. |
29th October 2009, 01:04 AM | #105 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 4,494
|
Not to make things more confusing, but something I didn't know before, from Coleman's same chapter:
Quote:
ETA: Support for the Hubbard bag story, non-Mebo source, listed as "Lockerbie" by William Paul, from Scotland on Sunday, Aug 30 1998:
Quote:
|
29th October 2009, 04:47 PM | #106 |
Adult human female
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 50,594
|
There were quite a few unaccompanied bags on PA103 - Coleman mentions 12 or 13 Interline bags for a start. I think I saw the number 35 mentioned somewhere. I've never seen anything reliable about all the bags being matched to passengers, in fact it all seems quite confused. Pan Am's Frankfurt baggage system didn't really seem to know what was on the plane and what wasn't. That's funny, that was my regular Sunday paper at the time, and I don't remember seeing that. It was published at the end of August and it's likely I was on holiday in Switzerland at the time. It's an interesting view, of course dating back to before Giaka was discredited but clearly foreshadowing that. And he's clear about why Tom Thurman didn't give evidence - he'd already been given the elbow for being involved in dodgy sexing-up of evidence. I wonder why the Hubbard bag wasn't mentioned at the trial? Was the theory disproved for some reason, that the defence didn't raise it? I note that Coleman merely suggested that the orphan bag from station 206 was Hubbard's, but he seemed to be suggesting it was perfectly innocent. He of course has a different theory about the insertion of the bomb bag, involving these Turkish baggage handlers. However, Paul's hypothesis is different. He points out that Hubbard had two bags, but one went astray and surfaced later having gone the scenic route, while the other was picked up at Lockerbie (full of Christmas presents). The suggestion is that the first bag was deliberately diverted so that the bomb bag could be put in its place. I would have thought the answer to that might have been whether the original tags were still on the delayed case when it showed up - surely if it had been substituted in this way, the tags would have been taken off to use on the bomb bag? This, however, is not recorded. Also, if two "Hubbard" bags went through to PA103A (one real one and one substituted one), surely there would have been two orphan bags on the Erac printout? Not sure about this, but isn't Coleman's suggestion more probable? That Hubbard's second bag just went AWOL as bags do, and the second one, quite legitimately being rush-tagged through to the USA, was introduced at station 206 while the KM180 bags were being coded? There are several possibilities to explain the orphan bag, possibly a legitimate interline bag from a flight other than KM180, or a misrouted bag from just about anywhere, and the Hubbard bag theory - whether that's thought to be the bomb or a simple innnocent bag of Christmas presents. Why did they convict Megrahi, again? Rolfe. |
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012. |
|
30th October 2009, 01:52 AM | #107 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 4,494
|
Well apparently the police made a rigorous study, probably more for the press than anything, that there was one unaccompanied bag only, and its origin was of great importance, and then Frankfurt and yadda yadda...
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by da Judges
Quote:
Quote:
However I still say that one stupid printout chose just that time for that item to enter right there does still imply KM180 a little better than I'm comfortable with. Airport people swore that normally time + station = flight no, as if they worked on that principle. And whatever to make of it, doesn't the system being erased and the onlt record kept in one person's custody before enttering the investigation constitute one of those chain of evidence breakage incidents? Isn't this way more substantial than the fragment going to Virginia? Why aren't people demanding an explanation for this gaping hole on which the case really does depend? What I'd like to find out if I had the hours to do so is figure out what would normally be expected of federal police in some cases similar to this - when do they normally go after records to help with the investigation? How distant does the connection have to before it's fir to just not even think about it? Etc... Cause this one doesn't smell right and I'd like if anyone could show me how that's just my feet. |
30th October 2009, 02:30 AM | #108 |
Trainee Pirate
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: An Uaimh
Posts: 3,664
|
|
30th October 2009, 03:52 AM | #109 |
Loggerheaded, earth-vexing fustilarian
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Wales
Posts: 31,398
|
"Just consider the course of events if their [the Six's] action were to proceed to trial ... If the six men failed it would mean that much time and money and worry would have been expended by many people to no good purpose. If they won, it would mean that the police were guilty of perjury; that they were guilty of violence and threats; that the confessions were involuntary and improperly admitted in evidence; and that the convictions were erroneous. That would mean that the Home Secretary would have either to recommend that they be pardoned or to remit the case to the Court of Appeal. That was such an appalling vista that every sensible person would say, 'It cannot be right that these actions should go any further.' They should be struck out either on the ground that the men are estopped from challenging the decision of Mr. Justice Bridge, or alternatively that it is an abuse of the process of the court. Whichever it is, the actions should be stopped"
How's that for logic (or ... what Guybrush said, pretty much). "We're in this too deep. It's all too difficult. Let's put an end to it". |
30th October 2009, 04:03 AM | #110 |
Adult human female
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 50,594
|
+1 The judges have recently sworn they were put under no political pressure to convict. But of course that's not how it works. They would have been as embarrassed as anyone if the whole three-ring circus had been for nothing, if all these reports of "incontrovertible evidence" had been so much smoke and mirrors, if Libya had suffered 10 years of sanctions for nothing. Good grief, imagine if Gadaffi tried to sue or something, for the economic losses of these 10 years! I think there was just enough circumstantial evidence to allow them to fool themselves into thinking it was a sound conviction. It was cognitive dissonance, I think, but they had as much at stake as anyone in the indictments being upheld. Rolfe. |
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012. |
|
30th October 2009, 09:08 AM | #111 |
Adult human female
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 50,594
|
I'd like to see a bit more detail about this. Do you have any references? They call him "Majid" as well, in a variety of spellings, as if it's a surname. Arabic doesn't transliterate well into the Roman alphabet, and most of these names are guesswork, especially at the start. Later, one spelling tends to become dominant and accepted. (Look at how many spellings of "Gadaffi" are littering the place!) Uh, no, I can't see it. These judges were bending over backwards to give maximum credibility to the prosecution evidence. I imagine he'd have got that story straight if he'd had to give evidence. Megrahi was the only one slated in court for lies he told to a journalist, as if lying to someone making a documentary proves you're a mass murderer. No, I don't think so. I think the Maier evidence is a bit of a killer to any theory that the orphan Erac bag was the bomb bag, wherever it came from. Remember, all luggage going on PA103A was x-rayed by Maier, and nobody slid anything round the side just because it was supposed to belong to a PA employee. The Erac bag would have been x-rayed. Maier was conscientious, and had been explicitly told to call a supervisor if he saw anything even remotely resembling a radio or radio-cassette recorder. No, the suggestion was that one of Hubbard's bags, rush-tagged for PA103, was snagged from the system. The tags were removed and put on the bomb bag, thus ensuring its passage through the system to PA103A. The snagged bag was just shunted off somewhere, say to store. How it would have got to its owner in Seattle without its tags, is one question. Possibly his normal luggage label, name and address, perhaps even an official PA employee permanent label, was used to send it home. Tags do simply come off sometimes. That's why we also label our luggage. The problem here is that in this scenario Hubbard's two bags should both have shown up on the Erac printout - or maybe not I suppose, if the untampered one went a different way earlier, and it was only the tampered one that was slipped in at station 206 at the crucial time. The other problem is that the bloody bag would have been x-rayed. Maier's evidence suggests that the bomb bag was inserted after the point when he x-rayed the luggage. He would have x-rayed the orphan Erac bag. Also, the rush bags that didn't go through the normal conveyor system would have been x-rayed too - this seems to have been SOP. I think the theory that the orphan Erac bag was simply something taking the scenic route through the system makes the best sense. Otherwise you have to contend with these facts.
I think if it was loaded at Frankfurt, this happened after Maier x-rayed the stuff. Or of course it happened at Heathrow. However, you have to acknowledge all the evidence that these worksheets were approximate at best. That the operators were paying attention to where the bags were going to, not where they had come from. That the Luqa luggage had been in transit for some time before it even got to station 206. That the time period in question could have encompassed a container from a Damascus flight as well as KM180. That baggage handling staff could and did just walk up to a coding station with a stray bag, code it, and walk off again. The suggestion that the orphan bag really did come from Luqa (as opposed to having been inserted after the KM180 luggage was unloaded, or having come from another flight, or having been encoded singly at that station on a rush tag or something like that) is tenuous in the extreme. I'm not really sure why you're quite so wedded to it. Compared to Bedford's evidence of an actual brown Samsonite sitting mysteriously in AVE4041 in almost exactly the place the bomb bag ended up, and not being x-rayed after that, it's thistledown. Well, Coleman's book suggested someone was fired for asking exactly that question.... I think it's fishy. I'm not necessarily convinced it's Semtex fishy though. Remember, all the stuff about Frankfurt airport being the hub of a drug-smuggling route has never been refuted. All the refuting going on has been of the suggestion that the route was exploited to get the bomb bag on board. It has been suggested that the Frankfurt (and maybe Heathrow) authorities knew it was going on, and knew it was part of a US operation (remember, the hostages and Oliver North), and were turning a blind eye. It's possible, if this is the case, that somebody's immediate reaction was a backside-covering one, to avoid preserving records if possible, for fear of what they might show. Either just the drug smuggling, or even that this might have been the way the bomb got on board. It doesn't need the latter actually to have happened to potentially get someone's knickers in a twist. I agree, I'd still like to know a lot more about what was going on at Frankfurt. Conceivably, the backside-covering exercise actually led to the airport being implicated, when a fuller disclosure of the records might have shown nothing untoward. Rolfe. |
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012. |
|
30th October 2009, 02:01 PM | #112 |
Adult human female
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 50,594
|
I don't think that's about "rush tags". Rush tags are for unaccompanied bags, usually bags that have been accidentally left behind from a flight and are being "rushed" to reunite them with their owners. That quote is just about carrying bags round the electronic system and directly to a gate if there was a short turnaround between planes. I'm pretty sure both "rush tag" bags, and luggage being hurried to a gate so that it stays with its owner and doesn't get left behind, would have been x-rayed. The one place x-raying doesn't seem to have happened is between PA103A and PA103. There was only a 20-minute turnround, and bags were unloaded on a "rocket" to be packed into AVE4041. I haven't seen any reference to an x-ray machine at that point - but I'm not certain about that. Can anybody say for sure? The interline bags already in AVE4041 were x-rayed (most of them belonged to the CIA operatives who'd flown in earlier from Nicosia or somewhere). Bedford says Kamboj told him that he x-rayed the two mysterious suitcases. Kamboj later denied all memory of the conversation. Given that Maier seems reliable, it really has to be an introduction after the Frankfurt x-ray screen, or the Bedford suitcase. Rolfe. |
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012. |
|
30th October 2009, 10:09 PM | #113 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 4,494
|
All in all I'm apparently arguing just beyond my depths and need to get more acquainted with these finer points. On my adherence to 8849 being more than likely from KM180, I'd like to respond fully before the point slides into oblivion, but I'll have to put a little time into it, so perhaps not tonight. Again, I don't believe a bag DID come from that flight, but the points are both philosophical and technically relevant and worth explaining once in full. So, later...
|
2nd November 2009, 10:48 AM | #114 |
Adult human female
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 50,594
|
I think there's stuff going into that other thread that's more appropriate here.
Lost CCTV tape "reveals true Lockerbie bomber"
Quote:
This is right back to Coleman and the octopus. Coleman's thesis, as I understand it, is that Jafaar was a drugs courier. Given his background, that seems highly probable. Next, though, Coleman asserts that he (and his entire poppy-growing family in the Bekaar valley) were CIA "assets". This was related to a DEA-approved drugs sting, whereby they sanctioned consignments of heroin coming into the USA through Frankfurt airport to New York and Detroit, so that they could track the shipments and pounce on the drug dealers at the other end. This is not wholly implausible. Coleman then goes on to link all this to the Beirut hostages and North's "arms for hostages" deal, which also involved drugs for hostages. I have no idea how plausible this is, but given that "arms for hostages" is known to have happened, I suppose it can't be discounted. The point is that these suitcases with drugs in them were being wafted past the Frankfurt x-ray machine somehow, so that Maier wouldn't have seen them. Coleman's contention is that this channel of insecurity was exploited by the bombers to get the bomb suitcase past the Frankfurt security system. He further seems to be alleging that the CIA knew about this, and didn't stop it. I'm not quite sure why, but it might have been about not wanting to blow certain agents' cover. Coleman seems to build an awful lot of bricks with very little straw. Some of his strongest evidence (he thinks) comes from polygraph examinations of the Frankfurt baggage handlers. And we all know how reliable polygraph testing is! Nevertheless, the existence of such a drugs route through Frankfurt and its possible security (and public relations) implications might be enough to explain the disappearing baggage records, even if the bomb actually went on at Heathrow. Rolfe. |
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012. |
|
2nd November 2009, 05:03 PM | #115 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 4,494
|
You're right, it does fit here. An excerpt:
Quote:
First it's highly dubious a bomb bag would weigh more than a heroin-filled one, probably less. Perhaps he's implying it was actually a different, heavier bomb than is officially promulgated. Whatever the case, it's presented next to the image him actually sitting in some room watching this hidden video, with the secret wiretap audio, and these two guys having just this revealing conversation. And he's the "take it to the media just don't bring proof" guy anyway, so hidden this crap would not be. My opinion of Mr. Aviv just went up. He's being quite helpful with this new phase, being very up front and clear about his intentions so we can all just happily ignore and keep moving. However, since a guy was specifically named - unusual specificity - don't be surprised if he surfaces and 'verifies' that's just what happened. Also maybe that won't happen, I dunno. |
2nd November 2009, 05:35 PM | #116 |
Adult human female
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 50,594
|
I'm not discounting a loading in Frankfurt. It's just that Bedford's evidence is so difficult to ignore and that really places it at Heathrow.
However, if we try to set Bedford aside for a minute, then actually, the only sense I can make of the MST-13 timer (assuming it's genuine) involves a Frankfurt loading, one way or another. Rolfe. |
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012. |
|
4th November 2009, 03:26 PM | #117 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 4,494
|
So we all agree there's plenty reason to believe Air Malta's findings that they had no spare bags on KM180 to give to PA103, terribly sorry. But i'm playing devil's advocate here and making sure the other side is covered. There is some kind of evidence for and possibility there WAS another bag, and it was transferred. As evidence this is A possibility, the investigation, prosecution, and conviction all took it as THE ONLY possibility.
It's a weak counter-point, I acknowledge. To explain it I'll give the floor to our good friend Vince C, speaking in 1997 to Frontline Scotland.
Originally Posted by Vincent Cannistraro
Now, the reason they're so sure is that printout that clearly shows such a transfer of some extra bag from KM180 right through the system... There are certainly problems with reading this just like this that have been pointed out. Most vividly that 1989 FBI telex where they SAW someone put another bag from another source in at statioon 206 without making any note, so it would appear connected to another flight's codng, or to no flight at all (depending). we start out accepting Air Malta and Luqa Airport's word - at Frankfurt obviously things are different, but their overseer of baggage arrival at V3, Andreas Schreinrer, told the court, as they put it, coding “would generally begin three to five minutes after the arrival of the baggage at V3,” which lines up with the records - one wagon from 180 arrived at 1301 and started coding at 1304. He also told the judges that “luggage was always delivered from one flight only” at any given time. Now we know this can't always be literally true, as the same station was witnessed no living up to the MO (FBI telex October 89) But according to this guy, it was their imperfect, partly reliable, standard MO and so the court felt comfortable accepting that station 206 at 1307 more than likely meant KM180 baggage, given other clues. I'd really like to see the daily transcripts where they asked any questions about the broken chain of evidence around the printout on which this is all based. They felt it was acceptable and its clue was too much to be coincidence. I agree with the latter but not the former. |
4th November 2009, 03:32 PM | #118 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 4,494
|
I'm leaning towards Heathrow, with or without Bedford's story, OR the break-in, both of which are just stories to me so far. It's either a Khreesat bomb loaded there, or some fakery achieved from anywhere with a timer to fake that, or an unacceptable coincidence.
ETA: I know it's not really that simple, but I've been letting it all get too complicated for my limited human mind. Pulling back a little. On timers and altimeters. it's probably an irrelevant confusion of rporting, but an old NYT article says
Quote:
Also a bit I just noticed there:
Quote:
|
4th November 2009, 05:35 PM | #119 |
Adult human female
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 50,594
|
Well, I think Bedford and the break-in go together. The break-in would be how the case got airside to be seen by Bedford. Both matters have been tested in court, so they're more than stories.
There's stuff somewhere about Hayes having said that he thought there was an altimeter as well as a timer on the Lockerbie bomb, but they just didn't find any surviving bits of altimeter. I can see why he thought that, the 7pm explosion is just insane without an altimeter in the system. I wonder where that pervasive meme came from that the plane was late, and the explosion "should" have happened over the Atlantic? It wasn't late. PA103A was late, and only got to Heathrow at 5.40pm. PA103 was supposed to leave at 6pm. This only allowed 20 minutes for turnround. The Frankfurt bags (which had been loose-loaded) were unloaded on a "rocket" to get them into AVE4041 ASAP and on to the Jumbo. I wonder if they would have been x-rayed as routine if the turnround hadn't been so fast? As it was, they just trusted to the Frankfurt security, and that nobody would be able to tamper with any of the luggage in that rushed 20-minute changeover. In spite of all this, PA103 pushed off from the gate at a minute or so past six. That's on time, people! It was delayed for a little while on the tarmac, but it usually takes a little while from leaving the gate to getting airborne anyway. That plane was as near on time as makes no real difference - ten minutes behind, maybe. So I suppose it was possible for a timer-only device to be set to mimic a Khreesat device, in the hope that the plane wasn't late. But first, what a ridiculous chance to take, that a plane wouldn't be later leaving Heathrow! And second, who knew about Khreesat's devices at that point? Hardly anyone, that's who. Other "conicidence" theories seem far-fetched. The radio frequency from Air Traffic Control set something off - at exactly 38 minutes. The real target of the bomb was another plane that was way out over the Atlantic at 7pm - and it's pure coincidence that the bomb was mis-loaded onto a plane that just happened to take off 38 minutes before that time. The only sense I can make of the MST-13 is that Jibril's group used it to prevent detonation on the PA103A leg, and for some reason they weren't interested in further refining the modus operandi to try for a mid-Atlantic explosion, preferring simply to let the original ice-cube device take over at Heathrow. Even there, though, the short fuse seems to be problematic. If PA103A had been half an hour later than it was, again a ground-level explosion might have been the result. And if that's how it was done, how do you explain Bedford's story? Rolfe. |
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012. |
|
5th November 2009, 05:39 PM | #120 |
Adult human female
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 50,594
|
I'm moving some of this post by Buncrana, because I think it fits better here.
Thank you for this post, Buncrana. I'm tending very much to the same way of thinking. The evidence is as conclusive as it can reasonably be that no rogue bag arrived on KM180. If the Erac printout really does show a rogue bag going through station 206, it would appear to have been introduced there. And even if that was the case, we have no certainty that it was the bomb bag. In fact, we have an indication that it wasn't, if I'm right in believing that Maier x-rayed that bag and saw no radio-cassette player. Alternatively, the orphan bag on the printout could have been something quite innocuous that was mis-routed within the system. The clerk who coded the bags at station 206 was not called to give evidence, even to interpret his own handwriting, so could not be asked about the possibility of a bag or bags coming though from other flights while he was coding KM180. I don't know why the question of Hubbard's unaccompanied bag wasn't brought up in the trial - as far as I can see, that was found at Lockerbie and its route on to PA103 never established. Why wasn't that the orphan 206 bag? The suspicions about the sanctioned drugs route through Frankfurt provide probably the most reasonable explanation for the vanishing Frankfurt luggage records that we're likely to get. This being true would also explain the attempts to suppress The Maltese Double Cross. Francovich doesn't have to be right about the route being hijacked to get the bomb on board for this to work. And indeed, smuggling a bomb on to a plane being used in this way by another route would be a very good way of confounding an official investigation. Anybody think Jibril didn't know about such drug smuggling if it was going on? And given that Khreesat was a CIA asset and working for Jordanian intelligence, if the drug route was officially sanctioned, he'd know that too, in all probability. And finally, I'm coming round a little more to Caustic Logic's suspicion of Mrs. Erac and her printout. I have to confess I'm slightly influenced by Coleman here. Yes, it's possible she's genuine and it's pure coincidence that when she came forward, there happened to be a bag indicated that seemed to point to Malta. However, Coleman's take is interesting. He is suspicious of the printout, and also of Gauci's highly convenient memory of this extremely weird clothes purchase. He sees these two developments as being the inception of the switch to Libya as culprit. His suspicions may be unfounded of course, but the way he described it got me thinking. If he's right, all that was given to the investigators by the Frankfurt police was the printout, and two worksheets.
Quote:
If that's all that has to fit together, surely it's not at all impossible to have fabricated the lot? Or to have secured the worksheets at the time, and fabricated the printout later? This account strongly implicates the Frankfurt police in this, which would be consistent with official sanction of a cover-up of a known illegal smuggling operation. Originally, Mrs. Erac was anonymous, identity protected. Her story is odd, and it does seem to change from one telling to another. Who is she? How to the cops organise this sort of operation anyway? And this was an extraordinary time in Germany anyway. Surely everyone remembers what was going on there in the summer of 1989, culminating in the fall of the Wall at the end of the year. We're never going to find this one out for sure, but yes, it's possible. I just wish I knew what to make of the timer fragment, if we're heading for a Heathrow introduction. Rolfe. |
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012. |
|
Thread Tools | |
|
|