Merged al Megrahi and the Lockerbie bombing

[Caustic Logic]

Incidentally, Ambrosia, you've cited as evidence for Libyan involvement that they hosted the PFLP-GC at the relevant time. I haven't come across anything supporting that, not that I really looked. Can you explain how you found that out?

I just don't see a reason to suspect a Libyan role (aside maybe providing the Semtex or something way down the line) aside from:
1) The timer fragment and radio, with their insane connveninece-to-plausibility ratios
2) The "case" against Libyan agents Megrahi and Fhimah
3) A lot of people that presume any official story no matter how crooked must be somehow "based on a true story," or at least "inspired by true events." I don't see why.

 

[Rolfe]

Probably a similar number of people that were involved with the Iran Contra debacle.

The handwaving away stuff because it's a CT and therefore must have involved some impossible number of conspirators is about as useful as believing someone is guilty just because they were convicted. Usually it's correct but not always.

Exactly. I prefer a reasoned debunking to "argument from incredulity". Unfortunately, most of the attempted debunking of the doubts about the Lockerbie Official have been nothing more than argument from incredulity.

There are two main schools of thought as to who was responsible for Lockerbie.

i) Iran did it via the PFLP-GC as revenge for the Vincennes shootdown of an Iranian passenger plane.

ii) Libya did it as revenge for the 1986 air raid, or to strike at the West for sanctions dating back to 1982.

It's entirely possible that both of the above are true. There is evidence to support both i) and ii)

That's why I concentrate on the evidence for Megrahi having carried out the bombing, because that's the seriously weak point. It's not that Libya couldn't have been involved, or that we know who actually did it. My problems are mainly with the tale that the bomb travelled on KM180 (for which there is no evidence at all) and that Megrahi bought these clothes (which the evidence shows he did not).

Although having said that, since I don't believe either the timer chip or the radio manual are genuine evidence, that does cut into the evidence pointing to Libya in general.

Whoever is ultimately responsible for the actual bombing, it's plausible that there was similar to IranContra "arms/drugs for hostages" shenanigans going on that US/UK politicians have been furiously covering up ever since.

My strong suspicions, but that's a very difficult aspect to investigate.

Rolfe.

 

[Ambrosia]

Incidentally, Ambrosia, you've cited as evidence for Libyan involvement that they hosted the PFLP-GC at the relevant time. I haven't come across anything supporting that, not that I really looked. Can you explain how you found that out?

linky to a post from the MST-13 thread that explains it.

source is:

"Profiles in terror:the guide to Middle East terrorist organizations" Aaron Mannes (2004) pp 324 [ linky ]

I just don't see a reason to suspect a Libyan role

- Libya are under sanctions and the 1986 bombing would be a reasonable motive for wanting to down a US plane.
- Libya are a known "sponsor of terrorists" state

Thats plenty good enough to "suspect a Libyan role" afaik though there isn't any specific evidence anywhere that stands up to link specific Libyans to much.

In more recent times there are rumblings about Megrahi blackmailing Ghadaffi from jail, and that Megrahi was going to "reveal all" inferring that he was involved in some small part and that it was Ghadaffi that ordered the bombing. I certainly wouldn't be shocked if it emerged that Megrahi was involved and that it was Ghadaffis say so, I'm pretty convinced that Lockerbie was actually a PFLP-GC plot and that Jibril is responsible atm though.

 

[Rolfe]

linky to a post from the MST-13 thread that explains it.

source is:

"Profiles in terror:the guide to Middle East terrorist organizations" Aaron Mannes (2004) pp 324 [ linky ]

- Libya are under sanctions and the 1986 bombing would be a reasonable motive for wanting to down a US plane.
- Libya are a known "sponsor of terrorists" state

Thats plenty good enough to "suspect a Libyan role" afaik though there isn't any specific evidence anywhere that stands up to link specific Libyans to much.

Indeed, it's good reason not to dismiss any concrete suspicions of Libya as unfounded, but I'm vanishingly short on actual evidence of involvement. Again, it seems that all we have is that this atrocity was carried out by some seriously bad guys, and these are some seriously bad guys.

In more recent times there are rumblings about Megrahi blackmailing Ghadaffi from jail, and that Megrahi was going to "reveal all" inferring that he was involved in some small part and that it was Ghadaffi that ordered the bombing. I certainly wouldn't be shocked if it emerged that Megrahi was involved and that it was Ghadaffis say so,

My own take on that is that it's a bunch of stuff invented by Libyan officials anxious to ingratiate themselves with the West by coming up with stories that provide welcome support for what the West wants to believe. Which is currently that Gadaffi ordered the Lockerbie bombing. It's on a par with some of the stuff that was being said in the 1990s when the US was trawling for evidence against Megrahi and Fhimah - sounded incriminating but didn't stand up to five minutes scrutiny. This sounds like stuff made up by people who know that a narrative that Megrahi was ordered to carry out the bombing by Gadaffi is likely to be well received. (As if it was ever likely that Megrahi would have carried out the bombing without Gadaffi having ordered it, if he had actually done it!)

This is the same. All that dreck about Megrahi blackmailing Gadaffi doesn't fit the observed facts of the case at all. Not least that fact that Megrahi has been in Libya for nearly 19 months and is still alive.

We have no evidence at all that Megrahi was involved in that bombing. He was fitted up because he happened to be catching LN147 that morning, with its unfortunate temporal connection to KM180. We have no evidence that he was involved in any other terrorist activity, and in particular he was never implicated in the bombing of UTA772. If there had been even the slightest shred of evidence for his involvement apart from the Gauci "identification" and his presence in the airport, you can bet your bottom dollar we'd know about it.

So while anything's possible, I suppose, what's the chances of the investigation just coincidentally happening to frame someone for the crime who was actually involved in a completely different role that was never discovered despite all the investigating that went on? Not high, in my opinion.

I'm pretty convinced that Lockerbie was actually a PFLP-GC plot and that Jibril is responsible atm though.

Well, yes. It has the fingerprints of Jibril, Khreesat, Dalkamoni and Elias all over it. However, they didn't do it for jollies. Someone was behind them, and at the moment Ayatollah Khomeini is the top suspect. Unless it is ever discovered who put that brown Samsonite suitcase in the baggage container at Heathrow while Bedford was on his tea break, I don't think we'll ever be able to tease out the deper ramifications and exactly who did what. Was Libya in there too? I don't think we can go beyond, who knows? In principle, it could well have been. Evidence for that is a lot harder to come by.

Rolfe.

 

[Buncrana]

Of what is known as a result of the investigation and court case, there are limited, but more compelling elements of evidence, which certainly indicate the contract to bring down an American flagcarrier was carried out by the PFLP. I've always been of the view that Libya's involvement was, if at all, at worst as some form of third-hand support to the PFLP. Had there been more credible and reliable evidence than what was presented at Zeist (MST, the manual and of course Megrahi! ) of direct Libyan involvement, then I'm sure we'd all be only too aware of it.

As it is, there were numerous intelligence reports stating some possible reference to tenuous Libyan involvement, but again, aside from the usual portrayal of the pantomime-like "goodies & baddies" world by the US and UK investigators and government officials, plausible evidence is thin on the ground.

I've been meaning to set aside some time to get a proper post with regards to the possible, indeed probable, Palestinian involvement in the bombing - with financial support from Iran and some support from Syria. Whether you could also include Jordan, or it's agents, in this trio is a reasonable claim.

I'll need to have a look back over the Zeist transcripts, but I'm sure I read somewhere just recently about how Abu Talb had during the early 1980's relied on Libya as a place which had welcomed him and provided shelter and support in his activities with one, perhaps two, different Palestinian groups. However, this apparently abruptly changed in 1987/88, and Talb was no longer welcome in Libya.

This had presented a personal problem during 1988 for Talb, as his sister was in prison (or operating with another Palestinian group) in Egypt who were a country were Talb was not welcome. He was anxious to travel to Egypt so as to visit his sister and had planned to meet associates in Libya, or on the Libya Egypt border, who would aid him crossing over into Egypt. However, when Talb was in Rome looking to get the flight to Tripoli, the Libyans told him he wouldn't be allowed entry into Libya, and instead a furious Talb flew to Malta to meet other 'friends'.

All this is revealed in the cross examining of Talb at Zeist. I really need to have another read through his testimony to clarify a few details, but I don't for one second rule out my suspicion that Talb may well have had some reason to try to implicate Libya if he were planning, or was involved in providing some components for, the proposed bombing of 103.

 

[Rolfe]

It's interesting to compare Reagan's reaction to the bombing of La Belle Disco, and his reaction to Lockerbie. When the disco bombing happened, he announced he had proof it was a Libyan operation, and shot off to bomb Tripoli and Benghazi. Such proof was never really forthcoming as far as I know, though I don't know of any proof it wasn't Libya either. (Interestingly, someone on the wiki talk page for the disco bombing seems to be suggesting Bollier might have been involved in faking evidence against Libya for that!)

Then when Lockerbie happened, Reagan's immediate reaction was the same. Bomb Libya. He was threatening to do it just seven days after the crash, although I don't think he said he had evidence, just that "terrorists need to be taught a lesson" or something like that. So far as I know he didn't actually carry out the threat on that occasion. Of course, the investigation had the PFLP-GC as the main suspects by day nine, so that may have cooled his ardour a bit.

Rolfe.

 

[Ambrosia]

Indeed, it's good reason not to dismiss any concrete suspicions of Libya as unfounded, but I'm vanishingly short on actual evidence of involvement.

Agree totally. Libya is a convenient villain which is plausible enough for them to pin the whole thing on. Somehow people still believe that Libya did it despite the court proving that Megrahi didn't do it and convicting him anyway.

There is only evidence (and not a great deal of it) to suggest that Libya provided financing and arms, to the terrorist group that most likely were ultimately responsible and that they had a presence in Libya. (PFLP-GC)

All that dreck about Megrahi blackmailing Gadaffi doesn't fit the observed facts of the case at all. Not least that fact that Megrahi has been in Libya for nearly 19 months and is still alive.

I'm not up to speed on the blackmailing stories. Just mentioning it as it's part of the (very scant) evidence that Libya had anything to do with the bombing.

However, they didn't do it for jollies. Someone was behind them, and at the moment Ayatollah Khomeini is the top suspect.

Yup.

Iran claimed responsibility more than once for Lockerbie as well as far as I remember.

Ahmad Behbahani was one such claimant.

 

[Caustic Logic]

Thanks, Ambrosia. Sorry it took so long to respond. That does seem reasonable and plausible enough, and interesting. The PFLP-GC hosted in Libya as their plot to blow up PA 103 unfurled. I'd say it's a reason to suspect possible involvement, but I still don't see any necessity. The cell in Neuss was busted, and Abu Elias was apparently mobile, the Iranians may have taken back over once the bomb was done, etc. I suspect the actual operation needed no further support from Jibril or HQ at this point, wherever they were.

In the context where "evidence of Libyan involvement" is often read as the "evidence" uncovered in the investigation, that most people accept as God's own truth, I suggest it's confusing to refer to something else (the above) while saying there's evidence of Libyan involvement. But then I can get pedantic sometimes.

 

[Bunntamas]

That does seem reasonable and plausible enough, and interesting. The PFLP-GC hosted in Libya as their plot to blow up PA 103 unfurled. I'd say it's a reason to suspect possible involvement, but I still don't see any necessity.

So, what do you think they were doing? Having little tea parties, in the Libyan dessert, whilst testing Mebo's timers designed for blowing up airliners? Heaven forbid I should re-post thos DOD doc's from "way back when" that you and Rolfe hand waved because they were "so old". Heaven forbid any of the Libyans were plotting and training with others long before the PA103 bombing.

But then I can get pedantic sometimes.

Ahem. yep. Feel free to put me back on "ignore" any time you wish.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

So, what do you think they were doing? Having little tea parties, in the Libyan dessert, whilst testing Mebo's timers designed for blowing up airliners? Heaven forbid I should re-post thos DOD doc's from "way back when" that you and Rolfe hand waved because they were "so old". Heaven forbid any of the Libyans were plotting and training with others long before the PA103 bombing.

Pardon me for saying so, but there's a huge gulf between "there were some links between PFLP-GC and Libya" and "Megrahi planted the bomb". Establishing the truth of the first does not get you very far in establishing the truth of the second.

 

[Rolfe]

Not only that, but the documents Bunntamas posted earlier weren't "handwaved away because they were so old". They were discounted as being obvious fabrications. Hell, they weren't even presented as evidence in court, which gives you some idea of how reliable the prosecution thought they were.

Bunntamas herself spotted the principle problem. The "informant" related an alleged modus operandi which involved Megrahi travelling with the bomb suitcase as far as Heathrow, where he somehow managed to intercept it in order to arm the barometric device (which would otherwise have exploded on the first leg of the flight), and then sloped off without boarding the transatlantic leg.

Of course this didn't happen. Megrahi didn't travel on KM180 that morning, or on any other flight in the direction of London. He caught LN147 for Tripoli, and was in Libya by lunchtime. The prosecution's theory was that he had used the digital MST-13 timer which did not require to be armed at Heathrow. Anyone stating that he had travelled to London clearly had no clue.

The document alleges that both Megrahi and Fhimah attended a terrorist training camp run by Ahmed Jibril. Jibril of course was the PFLP-GC mastermind who was playing with the IEDs that used the barometric timers. The timing of the allegations relates to the offering of the $4 million reward by the US DoJ for evidence against the two men they had already indicted for the crime. It looks as if some enterprising Arab simply made the whole thing up, speculatively, in the hope that if it turned out to be helpful to the prosecution, he could be in line for some of the reward Giaka and the Gaucis ended up netting. He knew Jibril was playing with barometric timers, he knew the timing of the explosion on PA103 perfectly fitted the use of such a timer, he knew such a timer would have had to be armed at Heathrow, so he tailored his fictitious story to fit this.

The prosecution was never able to present any evidence at all against Fhimah, apart from what Giaka said and that was dismissed by the court as being fabricated. There was nothing to connect him to any terrorist-related activity at all. If the document Bunntamas refers to had had any credibility at all, it would have been presented in court to try to make something of the collapsing case against Fhimah, but it wasn't. Dammit, they presented Giaka in court, so they weren't exactly fussy about the quality of what they relied on. But that one was too far-out even for them.

I'm afraid that's the risk you take when you advertise enormous rewards available for evidence against named individuals. People are going to make stuff up. Giaka did, but he wasn't the only one.

Rolfe.

 

[little grey rabbit]

At what altitude and into how many pieces did the plane break up?

You know the famous picture of the front of the aeroplane split down the middle, I understood that to be quite some distance from the other famous picture of the ploughed out ground in the Scottish town.

So did the plane break up in mid air? And to what extent?

 

[zooterkin]

At what altitude and into how many pieces did the plane break up?

You know the famous picture of the front of the aeroplane split down the middle, I understood that to be quite some distance from the other famous picture of the ploughed out ground in the Scottish town.

So did the plane break up in mid air? And to what extent?

Your point?

 

[Rolfe]

Pardon me for saying so, but there's a huge gulf between "there were some links between PFLP-GC and Libya" and "Megrahi planted the bomb". Establishing the truth of the first does not get you very far in establishing the truth of the second.

There is one huge, enormous yawning chasm in the case against Megrahi, and that is the alleged routing of the IED from Malta through Frankfurt to London that morning. There is no evidence the bomb suitcase travelled that route. None at all. On the contrary, there is "considerable and quite convincing evidence that that could not have happened" (Lord Osborne).

The prosecution established that Megrahi was at the airport in Malta that morning, at the time the Frankfurt flight departed. However, they also established that he didn't check in any luggage for his Tripoli flight, he wasn't carrying any suitcase, and he didn't go airside at any stage. He didn't meet anyone there, and nobody else was identified as being a possible accomplice. He behaved exactly as any passenger would who was merely at the airport to catch a plane - except that he was travelling on a coded diplomatic passport he had been issued with a couple of years earlier, in connection to business deals he was negotiating for the Libyan government, which was in a false name.

They investigated the passengers and luggage on the Frankfurt flight till their pips squeaked. The security systems at Malta were surprisingly good for a small regional airport - or maybe not that surprising when you take into account who their neighbours were, and that it's easier to keep good security in a small operation. All the passengers and luggage were accounted for, all the luggage belonged to bona fide passengers, and there was simply no lacuna in the evidence that would accommodate an unaccompanied bag on that plane.

Not only that, but all the luggage that passed through Frankfurt on to PA103A was x-rayed at Frankfurt by a "careful and conscientious operator" who had been specifically alerted to the possibility of bombs disguised as Toshiba radio-cassette recorders. The x-ray operator saw nothing suspicious in that luggage.

The prosecution maintained, and the judges accepted, that somehow Megrahi had in fact facilitated the loading of the bomb on to KM180 at Malta, despite the complete lack of evidence for any such thing having happened, and pretty damn good evidence that it didn't.

This is the central plank of the concerns about the Zeist verdict. The judges acknowledged that "The absence of any explanation of the method by which the primary suitcase might have been placed on board KM180 is a major difficulty for the Crown case". They then proceeded to ignore the difficulty, and without giving any hint as to how they overcame it, simply announced that they'd decided it happened anyway.

How can this happen in a properly-constituted court of a civilised western nation - my nation, dammit? Partly, because the court wasn't "properly constituted". A special dispensation had been given for judges to hear the case without a jury. Juries do some damn stupid things sometimes so nobody can ever be sure what decision a jury would actually have come to. However, I think it takes a peculiarly twisted legal mind to concoct the circular reasoning and chain of unsupported inference the Zeist judges used to convict Megrahi.

This verdict is a judicial horror that is a stain on Scotland's justice system. And I'm sorry if it offends Bunntamas, but I'm going to go on saying so.

Rolfe.

 

[Caustic Logic]

So, what do you think they were doing? Having little tea parties, in the Libyan dessert, whilst testing Mebo's timers designed for blowing up airliners?

Who? The PFLP/GC and Libya?

Heaven forbid I should re-post thos DOD doc's from "way back when" that you and Rolfe hand waved because they were "so old".

Whern did that happen? I never dismiss things for being old. I love old ****. DIA chatter's problem is being chatter from many sources of mixed reliability, often contradictory, only to be considered and re-assembled later. A good portion of it's just not real, I'm sure they realize. In this case, they seem to have picked from that pool, to help create the same bias that now lets you latch onto these as the obviously true bits.

Next.

Edited by LashL: 

Edited to properly mask profanity. Please see Rule 10 re: the auto-censor.

Heaven forbid any of the Libyans were plotting and training with others long before the PA103 bombing.

Some vague, reported by Bollier, tests of a timer, whose only place in the evidence chain is clearly jammed-in late in the investigation, says what, compared to 3-D reality clues available from the beginning all suggesting a Khreesat bomb loaded in London to fulfill the Iranian vendetta?

Your eyes glaze over, I know. Mine would too, probably. I don't blame you at all.

Ahem. yep. Feel free to put me back on "ignore" any time you wish.

Nah, for now. that's an emotional reaction for when I get too annoyed. Intellectually, I always want to know what people are saying, but when it causes too much stress, and it's exactly the same every time, with no sign of learning, conversing, or even having basic respect, it's clearly time to change the channel/hit the mute button, whatever. You seem to have a better system for ignoring people and ideas than I have, so I'm glad for the button sometimes.

Cheerio-O

Adam.

 

[Rolfe]

Just in case anyone really wants the details of the break-up of the aircraft, they're here and here.

31,000 feet, and the Air Traffic Controller watching the radar at the time saw the radar trace apparently break up into three pieces.

Rolfe.

 

[little grey rabbit]

Just in case anyone really wants the details of the break-up of the aircraft, they're here and here.

31,000 feet, and the Air Traffic Controller watching the radar at the time saw the radar trace apparently break up into three pieces.

Rolfe.

Was that so hard?

 

[little grey rabbit]

Bunntamas hasn't actually caught on to LGR's modus operandi yet, I can see.... Which is a bit careless, seeing as it's pretty clearly laid out only a few posts above hers.

Rolfe.

May he/she is working on the premise that the enemy of my enemy is my friend? I don't have problems with anybody who deals with material honestly, because if approached the right way they may concede there is room for doubt. Speaking of dealing with material honestly, Rolfe, can I direct your attention to page C 11 of the Appendices of Lockerbie Air Accident Investigation that you so kindly pointed out to me and ask you opinion on this passage.

Recorded radar information on the aircraft was available from from [sic] 4 radar sites. Initial analysis consisted of viewing the recorded information as it was shown to the controller on the radar screen, from this it was clear that the flight had progressed in a normal manner until Secondary Surveillance Radar (SSR) was lost. There was a single primary return received by both Great Dun Fell and Claxby radars approximately 16 seconds before SSR returns were lost. The Lowther Hill and St Annes radars did not see this return. The Great Dun Fell radar recording was watched for 1 hour both before and after this single return [but not Claxby also?????] for any signes of other spurious [sic!!!!] returns, but none was seen. The return was only present for one paint [sic] and no other explanation can be offered for its presence

If 2 radar stations pick it up, it is not spurious. What is your opinion on this?

My view is it was probably Al-Megrahi on his broomstick chasing the Pan Am flight, waving the samsonite suitcase and crying "Fly, my pretties"

But I will bow to your superior knowledge.

 

[little grey rabbit]

Further to do this. You can see the anomalous [not spurious!] radar return on pages 59-61 of the pdf - or Figures C-14 onwards.

It also shows the plane immediately falling apart and parts shooting out in all directions.

 

[Rolfe]

May he/she is working on the premise that the enemy of my enemy is my friend? I don't have problems with anybody who deals with material honestly, because if approached the right way they may concede there is room for doubt.

Re. the first part, I think so. Re. the second, good luck with that. Let me know how you get on.

My view is it was probably Al-Megrahi on his broomstick chasing the Pan Am flight, waving the samsonite suitcase and crying "Fly, my pretties".

No, you've got it wrong! Megrahi was on his broomstick chasing KM180 while it was flying over the Med, and managed to prise open the cargo door during the flight and shove the Samsonite suitcase into the hold.

I mean it's obvious innit? There was no unaccompanied luggage loaded on that flight at Malta, and no Samsonite suitcase, that was proved. But hey, we're absolutely sure an unaccompanied suitcase came off the plane at Frankfurt. And we know Megrahi did it somehow. So how else?

Rolfe.