Lockerbie: London Origin Theory

[Rolfe]

But if this were checked luggage, it would indeed require a modification to prevent the first triggering. If it were carry-on, he could push in the headphone jack, etc. to arm it, and then just wander off and forget it.

That one doesn't fly in respect of Lockerbie at all. We know the suitcase was checked luggage.

Taking a disarmed bomb on as hand luggage (assuming you could get it past security), putting it in the overhead compartment, then calmly opening the bag to push in the jack plug once the plane had touched down at the intermediate destination, and leaving it in the overhead compartment while walking off the plane - well, that might have worked in the more innocent days of 1988. But not only was the suitcase with the PA103 bomb in a luggage container not the overhead compartment, there was an actual change of planes.

So that one's a bit academic.

Rolfe.

 

[SnidelyW]

I'm going to be brief and skim a little time off Lockerbe to look at the Cheonan sinking story tonight.

On the Jia thing, you seem to have some worthwhile ideas, though I'm still leaning to coincidence. Introducing a whole other person who'd have to disembark to arm it seems silly if it's already there. If the break-in is coincidence, maybe he brought the bomb(s) in and set them up somehow, but someone else would have to get them in the container.

As far as a timetable, my site has a chronology of the Beford story, though all you need to know is he says the bags appeared there before 4:40 pm, but after app. 4:00.

I'll come back to the transcripts later and check if there's anything interesting/useful on the Jia angle and post it here.



Interesting. I'm hazy on the details of their other planned attacks (seen allusions to this and another plane besides 103, plus a nightclub and some trains). But if this were checked luggage, it would indeed require a modification to prevent the first triggering. If it were carry-on, he could push in the headphone jack, etc. to arm it, and then just wander off and forget it.

Which German material did you want? I've got none in original, but some might be read in court or some clues in testimony (translated and transcribed real time). There are some good insights on Khreesat's bombs, from the maker, in this PDF:
http://www.4shared.com/document/RnGRNz5v/Khreesat_Advises__Marshman_FBI.html



Yes we could, and what you outlined sounds about like what I expect. We have about zero specifics, and that alone makes it feel real to me, unlike Juval Aviv's cartoon version.

Keep it up.

Just a quick note as it is quite late (early a.m.) here now...

Aviv seemed to have a definitive reason for hanging his hat on his version as it assisted the legal situation with Pan-Am.

I'd be interested in seeing the info the German police had on Dalkamoni and Mobdi Goben regarding Abu Elias, Mohtashemi, Reza Khalili et al.

 

[Caustic Logic]

So my road trip was cancelled due to car troubles and here I am again.

That one doesn't fly in respect of Lockerbie at all. We know the suitcase was checked luggage.

Taking a disarmed bomb on as hand luggage (assuming you could get it past security), putting it in the overhead compartment, then calmly opening the bag to push in the jack plug once the plane had touched down at the intermediate destination, and leaving it in the overhead compartment while walking off the plane - well, that might have worked in the more innocent days of 1988. But not only was the suitcase with the PA103 bomb in a luggage container not the overhead compartment, there was an actual change of planes.

So that one's a bit academic.

Rolfe.

Well my scenario was to show how a non-modified Khreesat bomb could have worked for the Iberia flight. In fact I'm looking at Marshman's report, on Khreesat's own statements about the plansfor his bombs:

The plan for the Iberia flight would be to have someone
get on the flight in Madrid with the BomBeat 453 IED and then get off at
Barcelona. Just before getting off the plane in Barcelona, the courier
would arm the device by inserting a pin into the radio to arm it. The
device would then detonate on the Barcelona to Tel Aviv leg of the flight.

And it's academic, relative to 103, for the reasons you give. But if it were modified past what Khreesat is known to make, all bets are off. Obviously adding a MST-13 timer would count for that. Timer set to an hour before 103's takeoff, set to blow following next prolonged ascent past 950 millibars. Could start from Malta, Tehran, Washington, anywhere.

Of course, if a MST-13 was added, that fails to explain why the planted fragment PT/35(b) just so happened to match the evaporated original they couldn't have known.

 

[SnidelyW]

...snip...

Of course, if a MST-13 was added, that fails to explain why the planted fragment PT/35(b) just so happened to match the evaporated original they couldn't have known.

Yes, wasn't it proven that all bits of the circuit board 'found' would have been pulverized to dust in the initial explosion?

Regardless, that still leaves the intro at Heathrow alive, as, unless there is any proof of any modification to the Khreesat device preventing explosion on the Frankfurt/Heathrow leg, what is left- that the bomb was planted airside at Heathrow. I hate making logical jumps like that without substantive proof, but indulgent speculation sometimes spurs thinking.

Is there a possible scenario involving Jia (or someone else?), arming the bomb at Heathrow, and then getting it into the interline area, or perhaps an interception and switch of an identical bag to the one checked through Frankfurt?

 

[Caustic Logic]

Yes, wasn't it proven that all bits of the circuit board 'found' would have been pulverized to dust in the initial explosion?

Oh, Dr. Wyatt said it "wasn't impossible," brags Mr. Marquise. The emphasis on the IMpossible and the general context makes it clear he means "not literally, totally impossible, but otherwise, effectively, impossible." He did 20 tests with amounts of Semtex it seems even smaller than what was used on 103. I'd like to see his results is detail, but he says no appreciable fragments from the radio or its modifications, nothing remotely like PT/35(b), appeared ever.

Regardless, that still leaves the intro at Heathrow alive, as, unless there is any proof of any modification to the Khreesat device preventing explosion on the Frankfurt/Heathrow leg, what is left- that the bomb was planted airside at Heathrow. I hate making logical jumps like that without substantive proof, but indulgent speculation sometimes spurs thinking.

There's so much pointing there, not to be cult-ish about it. Just the placement in the deadliest part of the container (lower, outboard) should make it the top choice. Placed by a pro, right there, for just what happened.

I've seen one website dismiss this as unlikely since there's no guarantee someone wouldn't move it. That site decided it came from Frankfurt, with a near-guarantee of failing due to random placement.

Is there a possible scenario involving Jia (or someone else?), arming the bomb at Heathrow, and then getting it into the interline area, or perhaps an interception and switch of an identical bag to the one checked through Frankfurt?

Possible, sure. I don't have the inclination to work one out, but I'd look over anyone else's proposal. I know I still haven't gotten to the transcripts on that, but will eventually. Hey, doesn't anyone else here have these things?

Cheers.

 

[Rolfe]

Yes, wasn't it proven that all bits of the circuit board 'found' would have been pulverized to dust in the initial explosion?

I don't know about proved, but there does seem to be serious doubt that such a fragment could have survived the explosion. Jim Swire thinks it couldn't, and he was an explosives boffin in the army before he trained as a doctor. Also, there was that recent set of trials in which just about everything that close to the Semtex was found to be vaporised.

Personally, I'm unsure about that. I could just about believe in some slightly freakish chance that allowed a little bit of circuit board to survive. But then you have the freakish chance that it happened to be a part which was identifiable (looking at the entire board, it's just about the only part where the circuitry is distinctive enough to allow the board to be identified). Then again, there is the freakish chance that it was actually recovered. While the heavy stuff all seems to have fallen short of the border, mostly on heathland where a fingertip search got a high proportion of it, lighter stuff was blown away eastward. They acknowledge that a lot was lost in the canopy of the Newcastleton and Kielder forests - this part was found just 100 yards short of the forest boundary.

Put that with the freakish chance that allowed the Erac printout to survive, and the freakish chance that "an-apple-short-of-a-picnic" Gauci (apparently) could recall a customer he'd served nine months earlier, and you do have to wonder a bit....

But anyway, maybe we could allow the freakish chance that this uniquely identifiable little fragment survived and was recovered.

But what about the Horton fragment? Even if a scrap of fibreglass survived, are we really supposed to believe a piece of paper that was right up against the explosion survived in such a way that the make and model number of the radio were still legible?

Gimme a break.

My natural instincts are to assume that the investigators were honest, even if possibly mistaken or misled. However that Horton fragment leaves me gasping. And if the Horton fragment was manipulated, then all bets are off as regards manipulation elsewhere.

Regardless, that still leaves the intro at Heathrow alive, as, unless there is any proof of any modification to the Khreesat device preventing explosion on the Frankfurt/Heathrow leg, what is left- that the bomb was planted airside at Heathrow. I hate making logical jumps like that without substantive proof, but indulgent speculation sometimes spurs thinking.

Is there a possible scenario involving Jia (or someone else?), arming the bomb at Heathrow, and then getting it into the interline area, or perhaps an interception and switch of an identical bag to the one checked through Frankfurt?

I think it's well-nigh impossible for anything which arrived from Frankfurt to have been substituted at Heathrow. The connection was tight anyway, and on that day PA103A was running a little late. It didn't land at Heathrow until 17.40 GMT, with PA103 scheduled to take off at 18.00 GMT.

The net result sems to have been a bit of a mad scramble to get the New York luggage off PA103A and on to Maid of the Seas in treble-quick time. The bags had been loose-loaded at Frankfurt, and a "rocket" transporter was used to shoot them out of the hold of PA103A and into AVE4041, where they were stacked by the baggage handlers.

As far as I can make out, this is the one stage of the proceedings where the luggage was not x-rayed. (I'm not completely sure, but I haven't seen a reference to an x-ray system out on the tarmac at that point.) However, I can't see how it would have been realistically possible for anyone to substitute anything in that 20-minute period where so many workers were all swarming around trying to make the 6pm departure time for the transatlantic leg. In fact they made it - Maid of the Seas pushed off from the gate only a couple of minutes after six.

I'm for the Bedford suitcase(s) being the bomb bag. It was the late arrival of PA103A that led to there being quite an opening there - Bedford had labelled up AVE4041 for PA103, intending that it be used to receive the New York luggage coming in from PA103A, but also used it for the small number of interline bags which had arrived on earlier connecting flights into Heathrow. The result was that this container was sitting around unattended (or pretty much unattended) for a while, with only a few pieces of luggage in it, waiting for PA103A to land. This is when the mysterious brown Samsonite suitcase(s) materialised in it. I don't know who did the materialisation, but Jia could be a candidate.

If the MST-13 timer was ever an integral part of the device, I believe its purpose was to prevent detonation on an earlier, unknown leg into Heathrow from an unknown airport - possibly when it was accompanied luggage. I don't think it came in on PA103A, or substituted for anything that came in on PA103A.

Rolfe.

 

[SnidelyW]

The legal assistance I was counting on has evaporated, so I'm still poring through transcripts on my own. Patience has its rewards.

Perhaps the simple availability of AVE 4041 at Heathrow was the only reason 103 was targeted. It had Pan Am markings, and that was all it was about- simple opportunity to place THE bomb bag in THE correct spot in ANY Pan Am container.

SO, it seems both the Horton fragment and the circuit board fragment if they were planted were designed to lead right to Khreesat and the others. However, I am getting too far ahead of myself here.

I'll continue to look at transcripts.

 

[SnidelyW]

As an aside, I have quoted Clare Connelly above, but did not provide bona fides;

Clare Connelly joined the School of Law in 1995 as a Lecturer. She graduated from the University of Glasgow MA (Soc. Sci.) (Hons) (1989), LL.B. (1991), Dip.L.P. (1992) and was admitted as a solicitor in 1993. She was a Parson’s Scholar at the Law School, University of Sydney in December 2001 and from February – August 2005.
She was also the Director of the Lockerbie Trial Briefing Unit.
"The Lockerbie Trial Briefing Unit was established within the School of Law of the University of Glasgow in the autumn of 1998 to provide a resource for those with an active interest in the trial of the two Libyan suspects in the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 in December 1988. The School of Law determined that it should apply its expertise to assisting those with a professional or personal interest in the trial to understand its legal dimensions. This was, after all, destined to be the international trial of the decade and the Scottish trial of the century. The trial was regularly attended by members of the unit."

Here is more of her trial review regarding Talb;

"The cross-examination continued with Richard Keen suggesting that Talb had collected a bomb from a house in Germany shortly before the Lockerbie disaster"

And from July 14, 2000;

"The defence referred to a reservation that Abu Talb had on a flight to Malta from Stockholm which was valid until November 1988."

 

[Rolfe]

The legal assistance I was counting on has evaporated, so I'm still poring through transcripts on my own. Patience has its rewards.

Many hands make light work, but I'm not sure if a lawyer is a help or not. It's the evidence that's important, not the legal niceties.

Perhaps the simple availability of AVE 4041 at Heathrow was the only reason 103 was targeted. It had Pan Am markings, and that was all it was about- simple opportunity to place THE bomb bag in THE correct spot in ANY Pan Am container.

I think that's a very possible scenario. Of course it's all a bit odd when you consider what else was going on with that plane - CIA agents and alleged drug smuggling for a start - but it's perfectly possible that any US carrier flight bound for the USA would have done.

This is the beauty of the barometric trigger, of course. It doesn't matter a bit how long you have to delay while waiting for the opportunity, the thing won't blow until the plane is airborne. Playing that game with a simple timer would be verging on the insane.

SO, it seems both the Horton fragment and the circuit board fragment if they were planted were designed to lead right to Khreesat and the others. However, I am getting too far ahead of myself here.

No, I don't think so. These items were both specifically linked to Libya, especially the timer fragment. A great deal was made in the trial of the exclusivity of these timers to Libya. Of course, Libya was supplying all sorts of terrorist groups with munitions (notably including the IRA), and there's no compelling reason the PFLP-GC couldn't have acquired one, but the official line was clear MST-13 = Libya did it.

I'm not convinced these items were planted - I baulk at the sheer enormity of the accusation. However, there is a lot to suggest they might have been, and we also have to consider the other stuff known to have happened in relation to the Birmingham Six and so on.

The oddity seems to be the timing. If you read all the theses about how the direction of the case suddenly altered at the time of the invasion of Kuwait and Desert Storm, you imagine the very idea of blaming Libya instead of Iran/Syria only arose in late 1990 or early 1991. However, if there was deliberate manipulation of the evidence in this case, it seems to have happened in the late summer of 1989 - long before Saddam turned his beady eyes on Kuwait.

Of course, Libya and Libyan agents were of intense interest to the CIA anyway, Lockerbie or no Lockerbie. Giaka was trying to sell information before the plane even crashed. As I said in the other thread, I'd love to know when the CIA realised that Megrahi was right smack there at the check-in desk when KM 180 was boarding for Frankfurt, and that flight connected fairly neatly with PA 103A.

This could be a bust of an idea, but given that we know Bush and Thatcher were seriously unkeen to implicate the Palestinians as early as March 1989, that could have been the handy little factoid used to fix on an alternative scapegoat - and the fact that this was highly convenient in 1991 just a bonus.

Rolfe.

 

[SnidelyW]

That's why I like the research and the discussion on this incident- it has so many facets.

The difficulty appears to be sticking to the thread, as it is so easy for the discussion here to flow to the strictly political angles, or any one of many other talking points.

Regarding lawyers, I had requested my legal friend to examine the appeal documents to tell me what wasn't said, and why. I've learned (through osmosis- as she has an amazing legal mind) that there are often reasons to leave out certain things, depending on which way one wishes to present other things.

I may yet be able to cajole her into it, but until then, I'm happy to plug away.

 

[Rolfe]

Ah yes. An interesting angle. I can think of a few things that weren't said in the original trial. Why didn't Heathrow get a more serious investigation at the outset? What happened to the Frankfurt baggage records? How was Gauci first identified as having sold some interesting clothes (maybe that's available, I need to do more reading).

Maybe you can pump your friend a bit more, later?

We could bump the other threads if you like. I bumped the Frankfurt baggage thread the other day, and there's one about Gauci and one about the MST-13 timer fragment. I just think it helps to try to separate the topics a little bit.

Rolfe.

 

[Caustic Logic]

I haven't really studied the first appeal, but it's said that it didn't say the right things. Apparently too heavy on the London theory replacement without first knocking down the original story. So the appeal judges said London doesn't fit with Megrahi who was convicted, etc. and appeal denied.

I had a couple of interesting thoughts about Khreesat, PFLP-GC/Abu Elias, recurring radios and a matching set (?) of matching sets of brown hardshell Samsonites.
http://lockerbiedivide.blogspot.com/2010/05/pflp-gc-radio-recycling-and-khreesats.html
The luggage itself is most interesting - Leppard at least writes that Khreesat and his wife brought a matching set of such bags to germany in October 88. Such a matching set occurs again in Bedford's statements. Hmmm...

I've already been leaning towards a clever PFLP-GC co-option of the Western infiltrator. Of the Khreesat devices, the one that might have gone on 103 was apparenltly built by Abu Elias. It was based on Khreesat's work, and only passed by him for a simple soldering job. Using a copy (?) of his luggage would also fit that pattern.

Speculative, but, hey, huh?

I will bump other threads.

 

[SnidelyW]

...snip...

I've already been leaning towards a clever PFLP-GC co-option of the Western infiltrator. Of the Khreesat devices, the one that might have gone on 103 was apparenltly built by Abu Elias. It was based on Khreesat's work, and only passed by him for a simple soldering job. Using a copy (?) of his luggage would also fit that pattern.

Speculative, but, hey, huh?

I will bump other threads.

Regarding co-opting an unsuspecting accomplice, and speculation, what about any one of the Iranian Air employees accessing the interline baggage area to place the bomb bag? A quick in and out... make sure you're not seen... and a few thousand in your bank account for a minute or two... and seriously, would they EVER come forward and admit that THEY were the one who planted the bomb? Not likely.

 

[SnidelyW]

I haven't really studied the first appeal, but it's said that it didn't say the right things. Apparently too heavy on the London theory replacement without first knocking down the original story. So the appeal judges said London doesn't fit with Megrahi who was convicted, etc. and appeal denied.

...snip

I am studying the appeal documents now, as well as the second appeal documents. Not being a lawyer, I am cross-referencing a lot to the trial synopsis, so it might take a bit of time to be thorough enough to report here on anything which might be worthy of a post or two.

 

[Caustic Logic]

Regarding co-opting an unsuspecting accomplice, and speculation, what about any one of the Iranian Air employees accessing the interline baggage area to place the bomb bag? A quick in and out... make sure you're not seen... and a few thousand in your bank account for a minute or two... and seriously, would they EVER come forward and admit that THEY were the one who planted the bomb? Not likely.

Previously I suspected Abu Elias himself, but lately I'm more in favor of some Iranian working through Iran Air at Heathrow. It's quite a logical choice, all things considered.

IIRC Trail of the Octopus says Abu Elias handed the bomb off to an Iranian contact in Lebanon after leaving Germany. Could be. Maybe he also included a set of luggage for them to use, so they could help implicate the West's own agent. Could also be a coincidence, I'm just not a fan of presuming that.

Whaddya think?

 

[SnidelyW]

Previously I suspected Abu Elias himself, but lately I'm more in favor of some Iranian working through Iran Air at Heathrow. It's quite a logical choice, all things considered.

IIRC Trail of the Octopus says Abu Elias handed the bomb off to an Iranian contact in Lebanon after leaving Germany. Could be. Maybe he also included a set of luggage for them to use, so they could help implicate the West's own agent. Could also be a coincidence, I'm just not a fan of presuming that.

Whaddya think?

The 'implicate Khreesat' theory seems to be gaining momentum, but, other than pure speculation, there doesn't appear to be much in the way of proof that Abu Elias knew, or much less suspected Khreesat was the Jordanian double agent. He made the bombs, his work was verified at the behest of Jibril, and all seemed quite satisfied.

 

[SnidelyW]

Previously I suspected Abu Elias himself, but lately I'm more in favor of some Iranian working through Iran Air at Heathrow. It's quite a logical choice, all things considered.

IIRC Trail of the Octopus says Abu Elias handed the bomb off to an Iranian contact in Lebanon after leaving Germany. Could be. Maybe he also included a set of luggage for them to use, so they could help implicate the West's own agent. Could also be a coincidence, I'm just not a fan of presuming that.

Whaddya think?

'Trail of the Octopus' also says this;

"What Pan Am was saying was that, good, bad or indifferent (and they were certainly bad), its security arrangements at Frankfurt were probably irrelevant. Intelligence information strongly suggested that the bomb suitcase had been put on the conveyor after the baggage for Flight 103 had been cleared through the airline's security checks."

I'm presuming it actually means 103a, if it's referring to the Frankfurt to Heathrow feeder.

However, that raises the entire question, again, of the arming of the device after the 103a flight from Frankfurt, and the general pell mell of the baggage loading situation at Heathrow.

So, it can't be both ways. Can it?

 

[Caustic Logic]

'Trail of the Octopus' also says this;

"What Pan Am was saying was that, good, bad or indifferent (and they were certainly bad), its security arrangements at Frankfurt were probably irrelevant. Intelligence information strongly suggested that the bomb suitcase had been put on the conveyor after the baggage for Flight 103 had been cleared through the airline's security checks."

I'm presuming it actually means 103a, if it's referring to the Frankfurt to Heathrow feeder.

However, that raises the entire question, again, of the arming of the device after the 103a flight from Frankfurt, and the general pell mell of the baggage loading situation at Heathrow.

So, it can't be both ways. Can it?

Alright, I'll respond to that now. Yeah, 103A is often simplified as 103 (subset of), and that book, while it's bound to get some things right, does center on Frankfurt intro, based on a lot of people saying things. In fact, when I was more focused on Abu Elias and his airport security skills, and fair complexion, I got stuck on the image of him AT Heathrow doing the placement. So for two reasons I dismissed Coleman's claim of a Beirut handoff to some Iranians to take back to Frankfurt.

But being open-minded, I wonder if the handoff part is actually based on something. In fact, Coleman cites the PLO's report, which doesn't suffer the same credibility problems (diff. ones, maybe).

According to the PLO's sources, the Toshiba radio-cassette bomb used to destroy Flight 103 had been built by Khaisar Haddad, also known as Abu Elias, a blond, blue-eyed Lebanese Christian member of the PFLP-GC, who passed the completed device on to an Iranian contact in Beirut.

And from there to a contact with iran Air at Heathrow?

There's still a lot of just throwing ideas around to do.

 

[Rolfe]

'Trail of the Octopus' also says this;

"What Pan Am was saying was that, good, bad or indifferent (and they were certainly bad), its security arrangements at Frankfurt were probably irrelevant. Intelligence information strongly suggested that the bomb suitcase had been put on the conveyor after the baggage for Flight 103 had been cleared through the airline's security checks."

I'm presuming it actually means 103a, if it's referring to the Frankfurt to Heathrow feeder.

However, that raises the entire question, again, of the arming of the device after the 103a flight from Frankfurt, and the general pell mell of the baggage loading situation at Heathrow.

So, it can't be both ways. Can it?

Both Trail of the Octopus and The Maltese Double Cross are very hot on the Frankfurt luggage substitution theory, apparently first raised by Juval Aviv and Interfors. I think it's smoke and mirrors - Aviv has never produced the evidence he has claimed to have. The sheer amount of detail presented, with none of it ever having been substantiated, rather screams fiction to my mind.

Of course, the wholesale disappearance of the Frankfurt baggage records could be precisely aimed at covering all this up. But I'm far more inclined to think it didn't happen like that. Possibly the Frankfurt cover-up was partly motivated by a fear that that's exactly what happened, and maybe PA103 was chosen for the bomb because it was known that drug smuggling on that flight would confuse the investigation nicely. But I don't honestly think the bomb went on board at Frankfurt.

If it did, the 38-minute detonation makes no sense. If it was an altimeter decive, it should have trashed Paris, not Lockerbie. And if they had a timer like the MST-13, they'd have set it to detonate much later, maybe midnight GMT.

Also, a Frankfurt introduction leaves it entirely to chance where in the contained the bomb bag fetches up. It really had to be pretty much where it was, or the plane would not have been catastrophically damaged. Heathrow is the only place where there was even the possibility of influencing the placement of the suitcase.

Rolfe.

 

[SnidelyW]

...snip

Also, a Frankfurt introduction leaves it entirely to chance where in the contained the bomb bag fetches up. It really had to be pretty much where it was, or the plane would not have been catastrophically damaged. Heathrow is the only place where there was even the possibility of influencing the placement of the suitcase.

Rolfe.

I think you've hit upon two things in the paragraph above which, for many reasons, lends credence to the Heathrow plant and the PFLP construction.

First, how would one know that the bomb had to be near the outer skin of the aircraft? I have zero experience in blowing aircraft out of the sky, and for me, a placement next to a cargo area frame support might be just as good or better, as opposed to the outer skin placement. To go to the trouble to ensure that exact placement infers detailed knowledge gained through either intimate engineering experience with structural integrity of the Boeing 747, or prior experience in blowing aircraft out of the sky, which Jibril and Co. had.

Secondly, to ensure maximum destructive power, the baggage not only had to be near the outer skin, but low in the container. How best to ensure that? Introduce the bomb at the last possible location where potential placement could be compromised, right?





Look at 'Detail B' in the diagram above. To me, an untrained person, as HIGH in the container where the container wall intersects with the floor above it and skin of the aircraft might be where I'd want the bomb. That might break up the aircraft faster if that floor panel was destroyed.

As well, the bomb maker had to know that a hole of just 18- 20 inches in diameter in the outer skin, at that altitude and speed, would tear the plane apart. That sort of knowledge isn't gained from reading technical manuals.

So, experience in destroying aircraft had to be a pre-requisite, although I'm not as convinced as most that Abu Elias could reverse engineer Khreesats device to construct one of his own.

Photo from from AAIB 2/90 AAR.