jargon buster
Banned
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2009
- Messages
- 4,773
Or was it one of those baggage handlers whos sworn testimonies you have so much fail/non-faith in?( depending on which side of the bed you get out of)
Lockerbie: London Origin Theory
- Thread starter Caustic Logic
- Start date
-
- Tags
- lockerbie bombing
Rolfe
Adult human female
You do know what a false dichotomy is, don't you?
Rolfe.
Rolfe.
jargon buster
Banned
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2009
- Messages
- 4,773
Yes, I do, but it isn't relevant.
Are you saying the person who put the bag which exploded on the plane was the "Lockerbie bomber"?
Rolfe
Adult human female
That is my considered opinion, yes. I do not believe that suitcase was placed innocently by a baggage handler who was simply doing his job.
I think I may have mentioned that already in this thread. Once or twice.
Rolfe.
I think I may have mentioned that already in this thread. Once or twice.
Rolfe.
jargon buster
Banned
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2009
- Messages
- 4,773
I just wanted to sure.
So you believe an unknown individual accessed the cargo hold at Heathrow and took the cases out and place his bomb bag on the bottom and then placed all the other bags back in the order in which he/she moved them and left without being seen by anyone?
Rolfe
Adult human female
No. Read the thread.
Rolfe.
Rolfe.
jargon buster
Banned
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2009
- Messages
- 4,773
No.
Not again, I must have missed the important bits in the deluge of waffle and counter contradictions.
Maybe thats why everyone else has lost interest.
Not again, I must have missed the important bits in the deluge of waffle and counter contradictions.
Maybe thats why everyone else has lost interest.
Blue Mountain
Resident Skeptical Hobbit
JB, briefly:
- The bomb suitcase was placed into the container in a way that guaranteed maximum damage to the aircraft. A random placement might not have brought the aircraft down. Shipping a bag from Frankfurt would force the bomber to leave the placement to chance.
- A suitcase did mysteriously appear in the container while the baggage handlers were on break. (I'm afraid I have to leave it to others to defend the veracity of multiple statements given by the baggage handlers.)
- Security at Heathrow was very lax, especially when compared to Frankfurt (where the feeder flight with the majority of the baggage came from) and Malta (where the bomb bag was supposed to have originated.) Malta had very good security and procedures.
- There was a documented break-in at Heathrow the night before the Pan-Am flight departed.
- The bomb went off very shortly after the fight's departure, which speaks to an atmospheric trigger as opposed to a timer. It would have been very difficult to ship a bomb with an atmospheric trigger from Frankfurt or from Malta via Frankfurt without it going off when either of those two flights reached altitude.
- A timer, on the other hand, set to go off only 40 minutes into a flight that lasts several hours seems strangely out of place. A delay on the tarmac would have the bomb going off in the airport instead of in flight.
In a thread like this, having a devil's advocate is a good idea. But it looks like you're just sitting on the sidelines and taking pot-shots.jargon buster said:
Rolfe
Adult human female
Blue Mountain, I'm afraid your last assessment is the correct one. Jargon Buster happily acknowledges that he's only here to troll. I have attempted to explain various parts of the argument to him earlier in the thread, but he seems incapable of understanding even the simplest concepts.
Good try, though!
Rolfe.
Good try, though!
Rolfe.
Rolfe
Adult human female
I just found a statement signed by both Hayes and Feraday, dated June 1989, which puts the height of the explosion at eight inches above that strut LittleSwan is so interested in. In fact is says something very close to what LittleSwan came into the thread declaring.
Oddly, the report then goes on to reject the possibility of a floor-level explosion, going either for the case having been vertical in the overhang (where I now think the Costa case was), or on the second layer, with the end containing the bomb jutting into the overhang.
We know it's impossible for it to have been in the overhang, because of where the lock and the hinge pieces were found. It's also a rank impossibility for it to have been on the second layer of luggage if the centre of the explosion was only six inches from the strut. Realistically, you have to allow two inches at least for the packing of the radio and the case. So the case on the bottom was a maximum of four inches deep. Really?
The obvious solution, that it was the bottom case but loaded or having slipped sideways so that its left-hand side containing the bomb was elevated on to the 3-inch shelf, doesn't seem to have occurred to anyone. That gives you a height of about 6 to 8 inches straight away.
Rolfe.
Oddly, the report then goes on to reject the possibility of a floor-level explosion, going either for the case having been vertical in the overhang (where I now think the Costa case was), or on the second layer, with the end containing the bomb jutting into the overhang.
We know it's impossible for it to have been in the overhang, because of where the lock and the hinge pieces were found. It's also a rank impossibility for it to have been on the second layer of luggage if the centre of the explosion was only six inches from the strut. Realistically, you have to allow two inches at least for the packing of the radio and the case. So the case on the bottom was a maximum of four inches deep. Really?
The obvious solution, that it was the bottom case but loaded or having slipped sideways so that its left-hand side containing the bomb was elevated on to the 3-inch shelf, doesn't seem to have occurred to anyone. That gives you a height of about 6 to 8 inches straight away.
Rolfe.
Last edited:
jargon buster
Banned
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2009
- Messages
- 4,773
Thanks for that Blue Mountain, I bet Im not the only one reading this thread who was happy to see a concise, succinct explanation.
TBH that post of yours should end this thread, sadly I think we are in for far more of the same.
Rolfe
Adult human female
Aw, JB, I thought you believed you were the only one reading this thread.
Rolfe.
Rolfe.
jargon buster
Banned
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2009
- Messages
- 4,773
I assume there are quite a few reading it, it would appear Blue Mountain and others came to their conclusions a long time ago.
"Conclusions" being the operative word.
I hope you manage to reach your own conclusions before you drive yourself mad.
Rolfe
Adult human female
I'm doing fine, thanks. Just need a decent ID on the seven orphan suitcase fragments, and LittleSwan's take on the height of the explosion over that infamous strut.
Blue Mountain has followed the discussion well enough to understand it, and explain it for the hard of comprehension. I think he'd be the first to admit there's still a lot of scope for clarifying exactly what happened.
Rolfe.
Blue Mountain has followed the discussion well enough to understand it, and explain it for the hard of comprehension. I think he'd be the first to admit there's still a lot of scope for clarifying exactly what happened.
Rolfe.
Huh?
Ahem.... a bit of a wrench in the Megrahi, aka "Lockerbie Bomber" conspiracy theories, hmmm???
~B.
Ahem.... a bit of a wrench in the Megrahi, aka "Lockerbie Bomber" conspiracy theories, hmmm???
~B.
Rolfe
Adult human female
Bunntamas, you really should stick around long enough to figure out what people are talking about.
You do realise we're talking about something that happened in London, that's London in England, about half past four in the afternoon? And that it has been absolutely proven beyond any doubt whatsoever that Abdelbaset al-Megrahi was in Tripoli at that time. That's Tripoli in Libya, you know. Over a thousand miles away.
There is absolutely no doubt whatsoever that the bomb suitcase was placed in the baggage container in the interline shed at Heathrow airport around 4.30 pm. This is based on evidence the police and forensics investigators had in their possession in 1989, most of which was actually presented in court in 2000.
If Jargon Buster's question had any serious intent, rather than just being random trolling, he was enquiring whether the suitcase was put in position by a baggage handler, or by a terrorist. My reply indicated that I believe the person who put the suitcase in the container was a party to the terrorist plot, whether or not he was one of the baggage handling team.
It is possible to speculate that one or more of the baggage handling team (probably Kamboj) was complicit in the plot and placed the bomb suitcase in the container himself. This isn't impossible, however the balance of probabilities (including Kamboj's apparently blameless and modest lifestyle over the last 25 years) indicates that the bomber simply put the suitcase into the container himself while Kamboj and Parmar weren't paying attention. My own suspicion is that they might have been catching an afternoon nap while things were quiet.
If I were you, I'd be getting angry at whoever was in the interline shed at Heathrow that afternoon, not with poor Megrahi who paid for something done by somebody else. I'd also be getting very angry indeed at the people who had all that evidence in 1989 and ignored it, and who spent years peddling a nonsensical story about an invisible levitating suitcase at Malta.
Rolfe.
You do realise we're talking about something that happened in London, that's London in England, about half past four in the afternoon? And that it has been absolutely proven beyond any doubt whatsoever that Abdelbaset al-Megrahi was in Tripoli at that time. That's Tripoli in Libya, you know. Over a thousand miles away.
There is absolutely no doubt whatsoever that the bomb suitcase was placed in the baggage container in the interline shed at Heathrow airport around 4.30 pm. This is based on evidence the police and forensics investigators had in their possession in 1989, most of which was actually presented in court in 2000.
If Jargon Buster's question had any serious intent, rather than just being random trolling, he was enquiring whether the suitcase was put in position by a baggage handler, or by a terrorist. My reply indicated that I believe the person who put the suitcase in the container was a party to the terrorist plot, whether or not he was one of the baggage handling team.
It is possible to speculate that one or more of the baggage handling team (probably Kamboj) was complicit in the plot and placed the bomb suitcase in the container himself. This isn't impossible, however the balance of probabilities (including Kamboj's apparently blameless and modest lifestyle over the last 25 years) indicates that the bomber simply put the suitcase into the container himself while Kamboj and Parmar weren't paying attention. My own suspicion is that they might have been catching an afternoon nap while things were quiet.
If I were you, I'd be getting angry at whoever was in the interline shed at Heathrow that afternoon, not with poor Megrahi who paid for something done by somebody else. I'd also be getting very angry indeed at the people who had all that evidence in 1989 and ignored it, and who spent years peddling a nonsensical story about an invisible levitating suitcase at Malta.
Rolfe.
Last edited:
Hi all, well done on pulling all the info together and offering some perception and clarity to the forensic descriptions given of the blasted suitcases.
I’ve always thought that this particular aspect at the trial was not presented in a particularly clear or coherent manner. The multitude, or cacophony more like, of evidence production numbers that are discussed seems to be unnecessarily complex, or worse contradicted, when given as testimony at Zeist. Providing the actual suitcase description and associated owner in correspondence with all the fragments, as they are discussed, especially in relation to association with other luggage (unnamed and not described) is rather more obscure throughout this part of the court case. Still, in hindsight this aspect isn’t anomalous with regards to evidence that specifically pertained to bags, passengers and events at Heathrow that day.
So, in attributing what is now known of the damage to the legitimate Heathrow luggage that was in AVE4041, and perhaps more importantly the damage sustained by some critical items of Frankfurt luggage, it appears to lend even further weight – if required in light of the other evidence now known about the baggage positioning – that the explosion occurred on the bottom layer of luggage with the primary case having one side raised by about 3inches resting on the junction of frame between the floor and overhang section?
The damage shown by Carlsson’s and McKee’s suitcases appear entirely consistent, positioned as described by Bedford and Sidhu, with a blast impact sustained on their lower suitcase leading edges. And just too low to be compatible with an explosion occurring on a second layer suitcase. Then we have the array of fragments and the damage sustained by Frankfurt baggage some of which included, with varying degrees, intimate or direct contact with Ms Coyles blue Tourister suitcase. I believe it appears that one suitcase, Mr Thomas’s suitcase from Frankfurt, while exhibiting extensive blast damage, also contained significant portions of Ms Coyle’s suitcase embedded within it. Other suitcases of both variety contained fragments of what was considered to originate from Ms Coyle’s suitcase, but an entire frame from the blue tourister had been blasted into a Frankfurt suitcase.
The problem being that if Ms Coyle’s suitcase is still postulated, as was held by the prosecution at Zeist, as being the suitcase that took the position of the original Bedford suitcase, and thus on the floor of the container, it must have been blown to bits from immediately above it. It seems wholly counter-intuitive that significant portion of it would be embedded in a suitcase that was actually above it – and also above the bomb suitcase. The initial energy from the explosion would naturally dissipate in all directions, and thus a bag below this rush of energy seems unlikely to result in portions rushing upwards. However, experiencing explosive forces from below, then it becomes entirely plausible that portions of this suitcase would be found, perhaps substantial sections, in other Frankfurt luggage that was loaded directly on top and around it.
The Crown’s tangled web of deceit is threatening to strangle them.
BTW Rolfe, I did try and download Hayes/Feraday’s test results zip.file from your Lockerbie file page, but the file wouldn't open for me – on various devices.
I wonder too about these intensive efforts led by the Crown to uncover any new evidence in our new-found haven of safety nowadays, Libya. Well, perhaps they will uncover something that supports the Heathrow introduction with complicit Libyan involvement. And there’s seems little reason, and far fewer arguments, that can be offered to reject the incontrovertible evidence of a Heathrow introduction of the bomb that brought down Pan Am 103. Not that this would resolve the questions that remain over the initial investigation and evidence that was presented but contrived, or withheld and never offered to the court. It begs another question about the reasons for the, and I’ll be generous here, apparent ‘failings’ in the initial investigation. Other might not view any reasons quite so favourably.
So, hypothetically, allowing for hindsight and in light of the misdirection the investigation was ushered down, would the primary objective be to protect BAA and Heathrow airport’s reputation not being tarred with the disaster, or if at all possible, conjure a reason – read, some evidence – that would enable blame to be apportioned to Libya? I’d suggest the latter carried the greatest incentive, and although the former would have been uncomfortable for many in the Govt to explain, not to mention the BAA board of directors, if the evidence had indicated Libyan involvement at Heathrow, and had it ever existed, that would have been a bitter but politically (and militarily) acceptable line to follow. The closer you look, the earlier the evidence was being ignored, and people were just itching for things to point to North Africa rather than anywhere else, and especially not Persia. Had it really existed, ever, it would have been undoubtedly viewed as nothing short of manna from heaven, regardless of it’s origin.
It’s often muted that the investigators were just about ready to issue indictments in early/middle of 1989, with Abu Talb and associates, including those in Germany, at the top of that list. The evidence was substantial and plausible after the discoveries during Autumn Leaves. But where was the bag thought to have introduced at this point? The Brits were insisting there was nothing to see at Heathrow and the culprit was a Frankfurt bag, and the German’s were saying Khreesat’s device wouldn’t have got to Heathrow if loaded in Germany, while also keeping all their documentation behind their backs. So, where did the investigation think the bag was introduced at this stage? It has been claimed that a call between Thatcher and Bush around this time laid out the ‘new ground’ the investigation would take.
But was it even earlier than months? Was it in the hours, days and weeks immediately following 103’s fall from the sky?
I’ve always thought that this particular aspect at the trial was not presented in a particularly clear or coherent manner. The multitude, or cacophony more like, of evidence production numbers that are discussed seems to be unnecessarily complex, or worse contradicted, when given as testimony at Zeist. Providing the actual suitcase description and associated owner in correspondence with all the fragments, as they are discussed, especially in relation to association with other luggage (unnamed and not described) is rather more obscure throughout this part of the court case. Still, in hindsight this aspect isn’t anomalous with regards to evidence that specifically pertained to bags, passengers and events at Heathrow that day.
So, in attributing what is now known of the damage to the legitimate Heathrow luggage that was in AVE4041, and perhaps more importantly the damage sustained by some critical items of Frankfurt luggage, it appears to lend even further weight – if required in light of the other evidence now known about the baggage positioning – that the explosion occurred on the bottom layer of luggage with the primary case having one side raised by about 3inches resting on the junction of frame between the floor and overhang section?
The damage shown by Carlsson’s and McKee’s suitcases appear entirely consistent, positioned as described by Bedford and Sidhu, with a blast impact sustained on their lower suitcase leading edges. And just too low to be compatible with an explosion occurring on a second layer suitcase. Then we have the array of fragments and the damage sustained by Frankfurt baggage some of which included, with varying degrees, intimate or direct contact with Ms Coyles blue Tourister suitcase. I believe it appears that one suitcase, Mr Thomas’s suitcase from Frankfurt, while exhibiting extensive blast damage, also contained significant portions of Ms Coyle’s suitcase embedded within it. Other suitcases of both variety contained fragments of what was considered to originate from Ms Coyle’s suitcase, but an entire frame from the blue tourister had been blasted into a Frankfurt suitcase.
The problem being that if Ms Coyle’s suitcase is still postulated, as was held by the prosecution at Zeist, as being the suitcase that took the position of the original Bedford suitcase, and thus on the floor of the container, it must have been blown to bits from immediately above it. It seems wholly counter-intuitive that significant portion of it would be embedded in a suitcase that was actually above it – and also above the bomb suitcase. The initial energy from the explosion would naturally dissipate in all directions, and thus a bag below this rush of energy seems unlikely to result in portions rushing upwards. However, experiencing explosive forces from below, then it becomes entirely plausible that portions of this suitcase would be found, perhaps substantial sections, in other Frankfurt luggage that was loaded directly on top and around it.
The Crown’s tangled web of deceit is threatening to strangle them.
BTW Rolfe, I did try and download Hayes/Feraday’s test results zip.file from your Lockerbie file page, but the file wouldn't open for me – on various devices.
I wonder too about these intensive efforts led by the Crown to uncover any new evidence in our new-found haven of safety nowadays, Libya. Well, perhaps they will uncover something that supports the Heathrow introduction with complicit Libyan involvement. And there’s seems little reason, and far fewer arguments, that can be offered to reject the incontrovertible evidence of a Heathrow introduction of the bomb that brought down Pan Am 103. Not that this would resolve the questions that remain over the initial investigation and evidence that was presented but contrived, or withheld and never offered to the court. It begs another question about the reasons for the, and I’ll be generous here, apparent ‘failings’ in the initial investigation. Other might not view any reasons quite so favourably.
So, hypothetically, allowing for hindsight and in light of the misdirection the investigation was ushered down, would the primary objective be to protect BAA and Heathrow airport’s reputation not being tarred with the disaster, or if at all possible, conjure a reason – read, some evidence – that would enable blame to be apportioned to Libya? I’d suggest the latter carried the greatest incentive, and although the former would have been uncomfortable for many in the Govt to explain, not to mention the BAA board of directors, if the evidence had indicated Libyan involvement at Heathrow, and had it ever existed, that would have been a bitter but politically (and militarily) acceptable line to follow. The closer you look, the earlier the evidence was being ignored, and people were just itching for things to point to North Africa rather than anywhere else, and especially not Persia. Had it really existed, ever, it would have been undoubtedly viewed as nothing short of manna from heaven, regardless of it’s origin.
It’s often muted that the investigators were just about ready to issue indictments in early/middle of 1989, with Abu Talb and associates, including those in Germany, at the top of that list. The evidence was substantial and plausible after the discoveries during Autumn Leaves. But where was the bag thought to have introduced at this point? The Brits were insisting there was nothing to see at Heathrow and the culprit was a Frankfurt bag, and the German’s were saying Khreesat’s device wouldn’t have got to Heathrow if loaded in Germany, while also keeping all their documentation behind their backs. So, where did the investigation think the bag was introduced at this stage? It has been claimed that a call between Thatcher and Bush around this time laid out the ‘new ground’ the investigation would take.
But was it even earlier than months? Was it in the hours, days and weeks immediately following 103’s fall from the sky?
Last edited:
jargon buster
Banned
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2009
- Messages
- 4,773
So you believe its a possibility that one of the baggage handlers was the terrorist?
If thats the case you have put a lot of time into defending the baggage handlers and their recollection of how and where they put the cases possibly for nothing.
If it does turn out to be a baggage handler then can you imagine how much time has been wasted on the discussion of suitcase sandwiches.
Last edited:
Rolfe
Adult human female
I know you're just trolling, but all the same.
It doesn't matter whether it was one of the baggage handling team who put the suitcase there or not. We know where it was put, therefore the discussion on positioning is unaffected.
And no, it probably wasn't any of the baggage handling team. Kamboj has attracted a lot of suspicion from certain quarters, but as far as I can tell it is unjustified.
Rolfe.
It doesn't matter whether it was one of the baggage handling team who put the suitcase there or not. We know where it was put, therefore the discussion on positioning is unaffected.
And no, it probably wasn't any of the baggage handling team. Kamboj has attracted a lot of suspicion from certain quarters, but as far as I can tell it is unjustified.
Rolfe.
jargon buster
Banned
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2009
- Messages
- 4,773
But if it was one of the baggage handlers then as far as you are concerned it should be case closed because it wasn't Megrahi.
Or are you trying to re-try the entire case via an internet forum to establish who did it?
You know where the case was put yet you continue posting multiple different possible positions of the bomb case ad infinitum?
You say you know it wasn't Megrahi because he wasn't in London and was in Tripoli.
Great, just concentrate on getting Megrahi cleared, you don't need to identify the real bomber to do that.
It's the job of the police and CPS to try and identify the real bomber
Yes, you're right, I cant follow this thread at all, its because it doesn't really make any sense why after all this time you continue with it.