Pan Am 103: Unaccompanied bag from Malta: Evidence?

[Caustic Logic]

You can download the Dispatches program from the MEBO website by following this link which makes it easier to view rather than watching it streamed.

Dude! What worked for me was going to the video display page, and right-clicking (ctrl click) to save as quicktime movie. Bam. 38.3 MB. So it's no loss to have it at least.

Also finding other videos. Another Mebo page advertises a 60 miin introductory video, but this time it's that 60 Minutes episode from 99. Works the same, I go it too. http://www.mebocom-defilee.ch/mp4/cbs-lockerbie.html
On first blush, it's like a re-make of the Dispatches episode, right down to flipping through the Fhimah diary and Bollier backed up by ol Maj Owen Lewis. Curious.

 

[Caustic Logic]

I'm not sure who it is who thinks that Lockerbie is near the coast, but it isn't. It's quite a way inland. I think that's important, because it shows how very far off-beam anyone was who was trrying to lose the evidence in Davy Jones's Locker.

I'll address that now. "Around the Scottish coastline" is a phrase I stand by for these reasons:
I'm an American from the West and think of spaces in the large sense, and/or to minimize European spaces. Nothing on Great Britain seems very far from anything else to me. This is turn ties in with relative measurements of a trans-Atlantic flight, on the scale of which the distance from Heathrow to Lockerbie or to the Scottish coast ten minutes away is relatively short. I'm not sure if they would or should know the plane's schedule, but I'd think so. I'm also not sure how on or behind schedule it was, but if it was about ten minutes, they were aiming for about the coast, farther off and their goal was shallow coastal waters near Northern Ireland as well. Only light material (like a shirt collar weighted down with only tiny bits of exploded electrics?) might be retrievable, with searchers in fishing boats instead of galoshes (or in addition to, depending on wind).

As opposed to aiming for a mid-point between the mid-Atlantic ridge and Manhattan, I would not aim for around the Scottish coastline.

 

[Rolfe]

I suppose the thing is,that there are two possible entry points. But how does the security differ? i suspect that malta wasn't that much source of problems,so they might not be under such pressure to guard against entry of explosives in bags and if they were not at that time known for problems,then other airports would skip luggages from it. So far however too much "might",unless somebody from airports,preffererebly of that time does input.

Actually, there are any number of possible entry points. However, there were only three examined at the trial and it seems as if the investigators only looked seriously at three - Luqa, Frankfurt and Heathrow.

The simple fact that has to be got round as far as the Luqa theory is concerned, is that the prosecution absolutely bust a gut trying to find evidence of something untoward at Luqa, and failed utterly.

There were 55 bags on KA180, all matched to passengers who actually flew. They were counted three times, in addition to the sniffer dogs. Nobody from that flight reported a missing bag (which rather rules out that a legit bag was taken off to get something sinister on). All 39 passengers were subjected to in-depth police investigation and they all checked out as legit.

The records from Luqa were all available, and checked out. To the point where Air Malta won damages from a TV company which broadcast a documentary with a "reconstruction" showing an unaccompanied bag going on flight KA180. (The TV company settled out of court when it saw the evidence Air Malta had that demonstrated that didn't happen.)

It's all very well assuming security at Luqa might have been more lax, or reading a post from some guy on the internet who was there once and thought he was waved through a bit quick, but the actual evidence shows Luqa security to have been on the ball, and frankly as tight as a duck's arse. The best that could be managed in court was that a manager, asked whether it was conceivably even remotely possible that something could have been slipped past, said something like, well, anything's possible. If you were asked about something that happened ten years ago, under oath, could you say anything more certain? He was adamant that to the best of his knowledge, nothing had got past and it was extremely unlikely anything could have got past.

Not only that, but it was never really disputed that getting past that security, even if it were possible, would have required Megrahi to have had an accomplice with an air-side pass. That's where Fhimah was supposed to have come in - although he'd changed jobs and no longer worked for Air Malta, he still had his pass. However, the prosecution failed to lead any evidence to show that he was even at the airport that day, and the prosecution against him was dismissed as "no case to answer". Which kind of leaves the question open, if Megrahi did get that case on the plane, who helped him? No other accomplice was suggested.

The faulty reasoning of the judges seems to have been that Megrahi bought the clothes, so he must have been the bomber. Megrahi was at Luqa airport on the morning of 21st December. There is evidence that an item of luggage was routed through Frankfurt to PA103A from KA180 out of Luqa, even though no passenger from LA180 was booked on PA103A. Therefore, Megrahi somehow must have circumvented Luqa security undetected, even if we have literally no clue how.

The difficulty there is that there are also huge problems with the "Megrahi bought the clothes" part, which could be yet another thread (and probably will be, in the fullness of time). He was never identified as the purchaser; the best that could be done was that he resembled the purchaser (except for being several inches too short, at least 10 years too young, and not heavily-enough built). And, as we're investigating, the evidence that an unaccompanied bag from KA180 was routed through Frankfurt on to PA103A is also pretty rocky.

Which is why I've concluded (and like all conclusions, this is subject to revision if more and better evidence emerges) that neither Megrahi nor anybody else put the bag on KA180. KA180 seems to be a complete red herring.

Which just leaves us with every other airport in the world.

I'll quickly return to theory of two groups/two bags. One signed in malta would have electronic timer(and/or any other trigger) and small,low powered radio transmitter. Second bag somehow entering second airport(Frankfurt) has reciever and bomb itself.

If Longtabber is right (his experties is at this time however suspect)then this could explain survival of fragment and possible casing and since reciever would be in direct contact with semtex,it would be destroyed or too small pieces would remain. IIRC it could acount for some more discrepancies.

But what I don't recall and cannot check right now,how strong were transmitters at that time for given power and how well would get signal to reciever.(It must not trigger on false signals and pick up correct signal with unkown strength,unless perp would place bag close enough to transmitter and could guarantee that it is in planned distance)

Longtabber aside, this doesn't fit with the evidence. The MST-13 timer (if we take the Official Version at face value) was very close indeed to the actual bomb, whichever way you slice it. Not only in the same luggage container, but certainly within feet of the bomb, and probably in the actual bomb suitcase. It was found lodged in the collar of a shirt which Tony Gauci was finally persuaded to state he sold to the mystery purchaser. Along with bits of shattered Toshiba radio-cassette player.

Also, could you explain the point of the two-bag trick? Even assuming your timer got through Luqa because it didn't smell of Semtex to your friendly springer spaniel, what good does it do you? You've still got to get "bomb plus electronics" on somewhere, and putting the timer in a different bag doesn't make that any easier. It just adds another big risk that might go wrong. Why would anyone possibly want to put the timer in a completely different bag from the bomb?

Rolfe.

 

[Rolfe]

I don't know about the wrong plane story. It appealed to me for a moment because it was new. Then I realized it had problems and didn't answer any questions or add much to anything. I'd have to go back to it, maybe I didn't grasp it right.

As I said (at some length) in a different thread, what it adds is a reasonable explanation of why the bomb was set to explode at 7.03pm, by a simple timer without a barometric component. If it was actually meant to have gone on a flight that would have been way out over the Atlantic by then, you've at least answered the serious problem of why any terrorist would choose such an early time in the flight to detonate the bomb - risking a possible detonation on the ground at Heathrow if the plane has been only an hour late, risking the plane being able to make a forced landing at Prestwick (or Abbotsinch or Turnhouse) if it didn't actually break up, and risking incriminating evidence being found on the ground.

It still leaves the 38-minute Khreesat-fingerprint detonation as a huge coincidence, but perhaps a coincidence that is easier to swallow like this.

Rolfe.

 

[Rolfe]

All we can really say is the bomb was loaded onto Maid of the Seas at Heathrow (unless it was on there before, who knows). Before that it could have many entry points. AFAIK the only reason to suspect it came in on the feeder from Frankfurt is the paper suggesting a bag from Air Malta KM180, plus the Maltese clothes. So just on the official line, we have Luqa, Frankfurt, AND Heathrow as possible entry points. Aside from Luqa via Frankfurt we have elsewhere via Frankfurt and elsewhere via elsewhere, depending how many other flights fed into PA103.

There is actually better evidence than that, that the bag may have come from Frankfurt. There was a good reason for the investigators to concentrate on Frankfurt from an early stage. The bomb was in baggage container AVE4041 - not on the bottom layer of bags, but probably on the second layer. (I'm sorry, that evidence is far too good, Longtabber is right up there with Bollier in wingnut-land when he suggests otherwise.) Apart from half a dozen interline bags that were put in that container at Heathrow before PA103A landed, all the bags were from PA103A. It was assumed that the half-dozen interline bags would have been on the bottom layer, ergo, the bomb suitcase came off PA103A.

The large screaming hole in this is that the assumption that the non-Frankfurt bags would all have been on the bottom layer is manifestly flawed. Even the judges went on to theorise that these bags might have been rearranged while the PA103A bags were being loaded.

All we can really say about container AVE4041 is that its involvement pretty much rules out the possibility that the bomb was in a suitcase checked in by someone who began their journey at Heathrow. It could have come from Frankfurt, or any of the connecting flights that fed into PA013A, or it could have come from a non-PA flight connecting with PA103 at Heathrow, which landed before PA103A.

Which is basically every airport in the world, as far as I can see. The only one we've really knocked off the list is Luqa!

Exactly. All I can say is all are theoretically impermeable. I've heard of more breaches for Heathrow and Frankfurt than at Luqa, but then I've read more revisionist stuff dedicated to denying the official story. Until we can know more about a chaotic and shifting thing like security in these airports at this time, we can't say for sure.

All we have at Frankfurt is evidence that bags were flying around in all directions, and retrospective tracking of them doesn't seem to be very easy. Also, most of the CTs that suggest the bomb was infiltrated by way of substitution for a suitcase of heroin focus on Frankfurt as the place this was happening - along with tales of a regular drug courier route out of Frankfurt that circumvented normal security.

In contrast, we have the very very peculiar story at Heathrow of the break-in the previous evening involving exactly the right part of the airport, and the mysterious "Bedford suitcase" that was loaded into AVE4041 along with the interline baggage. That lot is far, far more suggestive than anything that was ever alleged about Luqa; the problem was that there was no identified perpetrator attached to that side of the story, which would have been more of a problem for the investigators.

Depends. It's a small airport but one that connects North Africa, especially Libya, with Europe, so it might have extra reason to be vigilant. But then again, that might have seemed more a theoretical problem than a practical one, so again who can say?

Well, Air Malta seem to have been able to say. In that they proved to every normal standard of proof that the luggage system was secure and nothing unaccompanied got through it.

However, I note that The Maltese Double Cross provides some support for your suspicions regarding the Erac printout.

That film is worth watching. It's the only one of the documentaries to have been banned by the US authorities. Even now, it's had very few showings and is only available in that very pixillated online version. (I asked Amazon if there was a DVD, but no. Although there is clear evidence that a lot of other people have asked Amazon exactly the same question.) I suspect there may be some dynamite in there if two and two are added together in the right order. It really needs a transcript, but the bloody thing is 2 hours 35 minutes long.

Rolfe.

 

[Caustic Logic]

I've been looking over the paper documentation from FA. I've re-posted the relevant doc images, Koca's interline worksheet (shed 34 at Mebo's page) and Erac' printout (shed one, reduced size here). The other page, "worksheet" at Mebo's page has less direct value. It covers an early time frame, signed Bach-Wolf, and seems to cover a PA 638/639, very sloppy... okay, I'll have to incllude this too. It's not the number PA103A had before, that's 124).

But the main thing is I was trying to figure out the discrepancy I was on about above. As I see it, none of these gate/station papers don't show the number or type of bags at all, just number of wagons or containers. I've decided the ende time is 1310, since all others are from 3-9 minutes, mostly 5 and 6 per coding.

On where the loading records are for 103A, the Cort's Opinion offers an insight, point [29], re KM180:

Since it was not a PanAm flight it was unloaded by employees of the airport authority.

These are airport authority papers it seems, and 103A WAS a pan Am flight, so Pan Am wold have the paperwork. AFAIK the airline did not provide records to the investigation like the airport did. This is a line of questioning now, as it eliminates verification of Bogomira's printout.

On that, I did notice some good points earlier by Rolfe that have me moderating my suspicions of her apparent story change, etc. But on the other hand, I looked through that roll and found some interesting patterns.

The items listed numerically by container no., which I gather is a one-item tray, and guess the numbers are assignments for the luggage within the container(s) they’ve been loaded into. Either way, a no. refers to a single item, and this one is 8849. I haven't counted the lines myself, At the bottom of the list are “TEILSUMME: and “GES. SUMME” both at 111. So that's where Mebo's chart got the number of bags. Note below the condensed header and relevant line.

As it happens, this included an oddity I found right after making the graphic, so it's cooler than I thought. Look at the lines immediately above and below the one in question, at the right side, under "time at gate." From this it might seem bags were loaded alternately at gates B044 and B041. However the full list shows all loadings but these two are at gate 44, running as late as 1616. These other two were loaded later at 41, at1631. For whatever reason, these last-minute additions are items 8831 and 8992, flanking the suspicious Maltese item in container no. assignment, but apparently loaded together over an hour later than it, and coded over three hours later than it. I’m not sure what this indicates but it’s interesting. It makes the Maltese bag look inserted., at least to my suspicious eyes.

To get an answer I'd need to know how they assign container no.s here. It's apparently not chronological by time of coding, or of loading.

 

[Rolfe]

I need to go back and transcribe the bit of The Maltese Double Cross that deals with the Erac printout. As the film tells it, it's not quite as transparently innocent as I originally thought. There is an account of the investigators trying to get the data and being told it was gone.

Rolfe.

 

[Rolfe]

To get an answer I'd need to know how they assign container no.s here. It's apparently not chronological by time of coding, or of loading.

Well, we who are only speculating, can suggest things an official investigator or a lawyer couldn't, if they had no proof.

But as to the assignment of containers, off the top of my head, would the containers not have bar codes on them, and the clerk doing the coding just grab the next one on the stack? They'd circulate more or less at random if that was the system.

Rolfe.

 

[Caustic Logic]

Well, we who are only speculating, can suggest things an official investigator or a lawyer couldn't, if they had no proof.

But as to the assignment of containers, off the top of my head, would the containers not have bar codes on them, and the clerk doing the coding just grab the next one on the stack? They'd circulate more or less at random if that was the system.

Rolfe.

That sounds reasonable, and it should just be random, or semi-random based on partial recollection and occasional re-ordering. I haven't looked for all patterns, but loading time anyway seems pretty random running down the list. All that poops out is these two, which are given (by coincidence?) very close numbers. Only one is between them. And they were coded one minute apart at station SO541 very late, after the plane was loaded, and loaded right away put on at second gate 41 before final taxi and takeoff. Pilot carry-on or special intra-airline delivery? These would have a nice pattern of sequential trays, perhaps from a station using a narrower near-sequential set, if not for the Maltese bag slipped into the intervening container. By coindicence? Or because the third bag of this set had its coding station, leave store, and to gate times altered?

In short I only see one pattern here regarding container no. and it's interrupted by the suspect item 8849. That's another oddity that might not mean anything, but worth noting.

However, I note that The Maltese Double Cross provides some support for your suspicions regarding the Erac printout.

That film is worth watching. It's the only one of the documentaries to have been banned by the US authorities. Even now, it's had very few showings and is only available in that very pixillated online version. (I asked Amazon if there was a DVD, but no. Although there is clear evidence that a lot of other people have asked Amazon exactly the same question.) I suspect there may be some dynamite in there if two and two are added together in the right order. It really needs a transcript, but the bloody thing is 2 hours 35 minutes long.

I downloaded the cruddy WMV version last night. It was the video, 1/3 readable subtitlles, bad piture and sound, that turned me off from videos on this at first. I'll check it out tonight: have a timestamp handy? Someone should find who holds the copyright, or original copies. Hilited is disturbing. It's an epic film for sure, and odd how Frankovich died. It's definitely a different year now.

 

[Rolfe]

It was broadcast here, once, but unfortunately I didn't have my trusty Super-Betamax running that night. That would have given a great picture reproduction! The subtitles are legible though. If in doubt, pause the video.

I honestly think the film is saying more than is obvious. For example, now I'm looking at it, I think he's saying Cannestraro planted the timer fragment. He's also hinting that there's something going on as regards the Erac printout.

That doesn't mean he's right, but it's worth a look. It's a lot more complex and nuanced than the later documentaries, especially the BBC effort.

Rolfe.

ETA: Jings, I just got to an interview of Lester Coleman. Now that is something you won't see in later documentaries. As I'm also struggling through The Trail of the Octopus, that is downright surreal.

 

[Dan O.]

To get an answer I'd need to know how they assign container no.s here. It's apparently not chronological by time of coding, or of loading.

http://h71000.www7.hp.com/openvms/brochures/fraport/fraport.html

The baggage handling system contains all the necessary data for each flight. In addition to the departure time and ramp position, it also contains the extraction point to ensure the shortest route to the plane. By entering the flight number, each item of luggage is issued with a set destination address that is activated in combination with the container number. Automatic elevator installations feed the baggage into thesystem. During the entire underground transport, computer-controlled reading systems check the containers by means of a bar code on the outside. In this way, each container is automatically transported to its destination.

Each container would have a permanent barcode that can be easily scanned when the cart pass any reading station. The containers are independent traveling on a switched conveyor system that continuously shuffles them so the containers would be randomly assigned to any given bag. The database report that was printed was in container number order so essentially random.

 

[Caustic Logic]

Each container would have a permanent barcode that can be easily scanned when the cart pass any reading station. The containers are independent traveling on a switched conveyor system that continuously shuffles them so the containers would be randomly assigned to any given bag. The database report that was printed was in container number order so essentially random.

Says copyright 2003 article. That may well describe the system in use in 1988 as well, and at least it's a reference point for what it might have been at the time.

Now I'm struggling to put this together here, but "switched conveyor system," perhaps like the kind at the opening of the Maltese Doublecross, "that continuously shuffles" the containers, between stations and such. then they "would be randomly assigned to any given bag" - I'm not sure what the bag is here. Would the container number be re-assigned each time a container is emptied and filled with a new item then? And if so, these would be generated by, what, a central computer just ticking them off airport-wide and rolling over like an odometer every so often? Two containers coded at the same station one minute apart get no.s 161 apart? 161 new assignments in a minute? Seems reasonable. But that wouldn't explain the Maltese bag coded hours earlier... was it numbered from a previous cycle?

Or is all of that nothing but confused gibberish not even worth sorting out? I plan to look at the printout some more, but for now at least I'm unsure what' supposed to be going on there.

 

[Rolfe]

I think the trays would each have their own permanent bar code, and circulate randomly in the system. A free container would have a bag put in it, and its number would then be coded with the destination aircraft for that item of luggage. It would enter the system, which would periodically read the bar code and know where the contents currently in that tray were supposed to go. Once the luggage was removed from the tray to go on the plane, the tray would be reassigned as "free" and circulate back to the coding stations that needed more free trays.

I'm quite certain this was all possible in 1988 - it's not that dissimilar to the way big laboratories handle blood samples requiring different tests and so on. I've seen it in operation there for decades.

I suspect it might be possible to fabricate such a printout, if you're very very determined and have an intimate knowledge of the system. It's the who, when and why that I'm stuck on. I need to recheck what The Maltese Double Cross has to say about it and see if it might be airworthy.

BTW, it's also worth reading the Wiki article on the documentary.

The televising by Channel 4 of The Maltese Double Cross on May 11, 1995 provoked an even stronger reaction from official US and British agencies. The Guardian reported, for example, that the American Embassy and the Scottish Crown Office had apparently attempted to discredit the film prior to its broadcast. The embassy had sent a letter to The Guardian — and, the newspaper assumed, to other news organizations as well — which attacked the credibility of three of the film's witnesses and argued that The Maltese Double Cross was "Libyan-financed." The film's production company, Hemar Enterprises, was part-owned by the Lonrho affiliate Metropole Hotels which, in turn, was one third-owned by a state-run Libyan investment company. The Guardian noted that the Crown Office had made similar points in an official statement and argued that they had done so “in apparent co-ordination” with the U.S. embassy. The Crown Office refused to comment on the specific allegations in the film because of the pending trial of two Libyan men, but noted “that the criminal charges in this case were brought on the basis of corroborated evidence supporting these charges and therefore inevitably conflicting with much of what is in the film." The Crown Office did publicly accuse one key witness in the film, Oswald LeWinter, of being a “notorious hoaxer” and another, Juval Aviv, of being a mere El Al airline security guard – not a member of the intelligence community as he claimed. Additionally, the FBI investigated the film at the request of the Scottish police and argued that LeWinter was “a major fabricator” and that overall the film was a sham.

It's impossible to tell if these are legitimate criticisms, or a co-ordinated attempt to discredit the film. Clearly, once the thing has gone too far to put it back in the bottle, discrediting it is the way to go for the security services.

The difficulty is that the criticisms largely depend on the assertion that there is indeed "overwhelming evidence" against Megrahi and Fhimah. In the film itself, Cannistraro leans very heavily indeed on Giaka's evidence, saying that he will be produced in court and then you'll see how we're right all along.

Well, that didn't work out too well for them.

Looking back at the film with the knowledge of what could and couldn't be proved in court leaves it looking stronger than these criticisms might suggest. And of course anyone can declare le Winter to be a hoaxer and fabricator, but no supporting evidence is given for that.

Rolfe.

 

[Klimax]

...
There were 55 bags on KA180, all matched to passengers who actually flew. They were counted three times, in addition to the sniffer dogs. Nobody from that flight reported a missing bag (which rather rules out that a legit bag was taken off to get something sinister on). All 39 passengers were subjected to in-depth police investigation and they all checked out as legit.

"Were checked legit."
Group had three members allegedly,so the third unkown terrorist could make the bag legit by accompaning it to airport making sure it reached and then disappear. Didn't report,it would be easy - have same bag to show it didn't went missing. As for check,it might not be good enough.(It would be however ironical if it would be lebanese man)

However they didn't notice that bag went to wrong container.(Remember there was reported breakin,so two bag theory could be explanation to it)

...
The difficulty there is that there are also huge problems with the "Megrahi bought the clothes" part, which could be yet another thread (and probably will be, in the fullness of time). He was never identified as the purchaser; the best that could be done was that he resembled the purchaser (except for being several inches too short, at least 10 years too young, and not heavily-enough built). And, as we're investigating, the evidence that an unaccompanied bag from KA180 was routed through Frankfurt on to PA103A is also pretty rocky.

Short,that can be impression and to miss age is too easy for arabs at least.(My experience,can be anomalous however - treat it as a anecdote)

But what could more better to attack this line is to show whether those clothes culd be traced back to Malta or if they were avalable in other shops,notably near Frankfurt.

...

I'll quickly return to theory of two groups/two bags. One signed in malta would have electronic timer(and/or any other trigger) and small,low powered radio transmitter. Second bag somehow entering second airport(Frankfurt) has reciever and bomb itself.

If Longtabber is right (his experties is at this time however suspect)then this could explain survival of fragment and possible casing and since reciever would be in direct contact with semtex,it would be destroyed or too small pieces would remain. IIRC it could acount for some more discrepancies.

But what I don't recall and cannot check right now,how strong were transmitters at that time for given power and how well would get signal to reciever.(It must not trigger on false signals and pick up correct signal with unkown strength,unless perp would place bag close enough to transmitter and could guarantee that it is in planned distance)

Longtabber aside, this doesn't fit with the evidence. The MST-13 timer (if we take the Official Version at face value) was very close indeed to the actual bomb, whichever way you slice it. Not only in the same luggage container, but certainly within feet of the bomb, and probably in the actual bomb suitcase. It was found lodged in the collar of a shirt which Tony Gauci was finally persuaded to state he sold to the mystery purchaser. Along with bits of shattered Toshiba radio-cassette player.

Transmitters small enough would have short distance,so the timer itself would have to be close to explosive bag => potential to damage we saw.

And one thing would be the shape. Hm. What is the model of player holding semtex? I don't know how it looked.(model is enough presuming there is an image of it online)

Also, could you explain the point of the two-bag trick? Even assuming your timer got through Luqa because it didn't smell of Semtex to your friendly springer spaniel, what good does it do you? You've still got to get "bomb plus electronics" on somewhere, and putting the timer in a different bag doesn't make that any easier. It just adds another big risk that might go wrong. Why would anyone possibly want to put the timer in a completely different bag from the bomb?

To workaround security,if you can get in other ways.(Frankfurt)
Once you know what container it got in (Is there a way to get that info?) you can place it.(AFAIK neither of two workers knew about those extra bags)

One thing I still have on mind (so far) is,that it could become passanger-less bag when workers put it to wrong flight.(again how common it is,in 911CT it has been argued that this happend and happenes quite a lot)

Anyway is there on interent raw data,image of evidence and such? (No commentary or such) In fact from where you get info yourself people? And is that verified? (Remember there are often by CTs attempts at forgery and deception)

So far I am limitied to speculation,offering alternative anti-ct explanations naratives...

 

[Rolfe]

"Were checked legit."
Group had three members allegedly,so the third unkown terrorist could make the bag legit by accompaning it to airport making sure it reached and then disappear. Didn't report,it would be easy - have same bag to show it didn't went missing. As for check,it might not be good enough.(It would be however ironical if it would be lebanese man)

However they didn't notice that bag went to wrong container.(Remember there was reported breakin,so two bag theory could be explanation to it)

All I know is that the prosecution absolutely bust a gut trying to find a way in which they could even show it was possible for the Luqa system to be circumvented, and failed. I find it very hard indeed to imagine that your scenario might have happened, and yet the prosecution didn't even spot it as a possibility. As I understand it, the passengers on KA180 were all checked out thoroughly to see if any of them might have been a conspirator, and nothing suspicious was found.

I may not be understanding you properly, but note that the possibility of an unaccompanied bag on KA180 was essentially ruled out. All 55 bags were positively identified as belonging to someone who actually travelled on the flight. Suppose a passenger did go on with the bomb bag (knowing it wouldn't explode on that leg). What was Megrahi's role? A bit silly of him to be in the airport at all then, since he was entirely unnecessary. He didn't get on that plane, or go airside.

Then, somehow, the tag on the bomb bag which showed its original destination would have had to be switched for one routing it to PA103A and then PA103. The passenger couldn't do that, as he wouldn't have any further contact with his luggage - it would require an accomplice airside. That wasn't Fhimah, he wasn't even at the airport.

So, you're postulating a two-person conspiracy, with two completely different people who weren't Megrahi or Fhimah. One of these with a clean enough background to come through all the subsequent checks on the passengers undetected. So not a Libyan national, then, in fact presumably no visible connection to Libya or we might have heard about this person. The other a gang member with an airside pass.

This is a lot more complicated than simply accepting that the bag didn't go on at Malta!

Short,that can be impression and to miss age is too easy for arabs at least.(My experience,can be anomalous however - treat it as a anecdote)

I think we should keep discussion about Gauci's identification for a separate thread. I would point out however that his job was selling clothes, which usually requires one to be a good judge of height and build. Also, this was in Malta, where Arabs are commonplace. Maltese people would not be expected to have the same difficulty with identification that most westerners would experience, being faced with a less familiar ethnic group.

But what could more better to attack this line is to show whether those clothes culd be traced back to Malta or if they were avalable in other shops,notably near Frankfurt.

I have no doubt that the clothes in the bomb bag originated in Sliema. The evidence on that seems quite strong enough.

Transmitters small enough would have short distance,so the timer itself would have to be close to explosive bag => potential to damage we saw.

And one thing would be the shape. Hm. What is the model of player holding semtex? I don't know how it looked.(model is enough presuming there is an image of it online)

To workaround security,if you can get in other ways.(Frankfurt)
Once you know what container it got in (Is there a way to get that info?) you can place it.(AFAIK neither of two workers knew about those extra bags)

One thing I still have on mind (so far) is,that it could become passanger-less bag when workers put it to wrong flight.(again how common it is,in 911CT it has been argued that this happend and happenes quite a lot)

Anyway is there on interent raw data,image of evidence and such? (No commentary or such) In fact from where you get info yourself people? And is that verified? (Remember there are often by CTs attempts at forgery and deception)

So far I am limitied to speculation,offering alternative anti-ct explanations naratives...

The problem is, narratives have to be consistent with the known evidence, and to be plausible. I can see no reason for putting the timer in a different bag. That doesn't improve the chance of the bomb bag getting through security, it's just one more thing to go wrong. Also, postulating that the timer alone somehow got on the plane at Luqa leaves you exactly where you started as regards the route of the bomb bag itself.

There are good photographs of a mock-up of an identical Toshiba containing the Semtex as it is believed it was constructed. Here you go.

http://cache3.asset-cache.net/xc/51...7EC77F5F8D1CE052F2A02EF72904139F71A9C9BC19C35

You really need to look at the actual evidence so you can figure out what's possible and what's not. The hypothesis that an unaccompanied bag travelled from Luqa to Frankfurt on KA180, and thence to PA103A is probably the weakest part of the prosecution case. If that's wiped out, then everything becomes potentially a CT, because if the bag wasn't loaded at Malta, then Megrahi didn't do it. It's that simple.

Rolfe.

 

[Caustic Logic]

1:23 in the video, Michael Jones, Pan Am security, went to Frankfurt Airport Jan 23 1989 and found loading files for 103A missing from the daily file. That does seem like a promising lead.

FWIW, the film is to long by about 150%, too full of slow-talking people of varying credibility. DeWinter and Aviv at least I don't put much stock in. The Cannistrano angle is definitely interesting. Did a quick search and found no clues on when he started that but I'll take a wild guess at a three-month range of Mar-Jun 89. I'd bet $5, which is like what, £20?

That's as far as I got this time and now I have to sleep.

 

[Rolfe]

1:23 in the video, Michael Jones, Pan Am security, went to Frankfurt Airport Jan 23 1989 and found loading files for 103A missing from the daily file. That does seem like a promising lead.

I'll try to transcribe that bit this evening.

FWIW, the film is to long by about 150%, too full of slow-talking people of varying credibility. DeWinter and Aviv at least I don't put much stock in. The Cannistrano angle is definitely interesting. Did a quick search and found no clues on when he started that but I'll take a wild guess at a three-month range of Mar-Jun 89. I'd bet $5, which is like what, £20?

I don't know why it got that prize, but it seems longwinded to me. On the other hand, it was the first, and maybe it grips the viewer better in a darkened cinema when the brain is fully engaged.

I don't know anything about le Winter. Aviv was employed by Pan Am to investigate the incident when it was trying to defend itself against legal action for negligence by the relatives of the victims. I have no idea why they would give that task to someone who was "a mere El Al airline security guard". There's a fair bit more about Aviv in The Trail of the Octopus, which is not obvious rubbish. Also, he (unlike le Winter) features in other documentaries also.

I'd put Cannistraro's involvement later than that, personally. However I note he left the CIA completely in 1991. There should be some way to find out when he took over the Lockerbie investigation.

Rolfe.

 

[Guybrush Threepwood]

To get an answer I'd need to know how they assign container no.s here. It's apparently not chronological by time of coding, or of loading.

I'm really not very good at this, but isn't that list just sorted by container number? Containers picked at random, data entered, then computer sorts the printout how you want, in this case by container number.

I know I'm doing it again, but the NWO shill pay scale is pretty good in these difficult times. Trying to base a CT on what appears next to an item of interest in a sorted list seems to be a stretch to me.

 

[Rolfe]

I very much doubt that the "mystery tray" could have been an addition to the genuine printout. It's very difficult to construct a narrative to make that one work.

My general opinion with this one is that it happened too early to be likely to be part of a conspiracy/coverup. I agree, there do seem to be two parts to this proposed conspiracy, and part 1 might have involved something like this. I mean, part 1 being the misdirection to try not to lay the blame on Jibril's group and part 2 being the positive incrimination of Libya.

I just have trouble with the idea of two quite separate fabrications and plants in this story (one pre Cannistrato and one post?), and also with the idea that the printout is planted but the timer fragment isn't!

However, I'm open to persuasion.

I think the two lines to consider with the printout are either the suggestion that it's a complete fabrication (as opposed to a line being inserted), or that it's perfectly genuine, but the "mystery tray" has nothing to do with KA180.

I wonder where Bollier got all that "John Hubbard" stuff.

Rolfe.

 

[Rolfe]

I see the link to the Toshiba picture didn't work. I'll try again.

http://cache3.asset-cache.net/xc/51...7EC77F5F8D1CE052F2A02EF72904139F71A9C9BC19C35

Rolfe.

ETA: Maybe it did, and my browser just hiccuped. Oh well there it is again.