What do you guys believe?

[Rolfe]

Quite a nice summary by The Express.

That journalist was a bit of an uphill struggle, but he more or less got there in the end. His editor wanted to put the summary document online and link to it, but the paper's lawyers vetoed the idea.

Good luck, but yeah, "long haul" is the way these things pan out. Probably 'till the real conspirators are nicely tucked-up with their pensions.

I suspect most of them already are. Two Alzheimer's victims probably among them, one already late, the other possibly soon to become so.

I suppose it's way too late for a new investigation to catch the guys who really did bomb that plane.

Rolfe.

 

[Clayton Moore]

I've always found jealousy to be the worst of the emotions.

The American Dream doesn't mention jealousy.

 

[dafydd]

The American Dream doesn't mention jealousy.

And?

 

[Dcdrac]

all I know is the Smurfs are out to get all of us....or is it just me.........

 

[Dcdrac]

the american dream was work hard and get a fair reward the right have forgotten this and have allowed a self serving mega rich group to emerge scot free and allowed to get away with damn ear anything, its time to hit them hard and make them remember you can only pee on those with less than you for so long...

 

[r-j]

We do have that evidence now.

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/366665

http://www.scribd.com/doc/117745379/Allegations-Outline-for-Press-1

I didn't even know there was accusations of cover up in regards to the bombing. Quite revealing that Scotland’s Lord Advocate used the insult “conspiracy theorists” to dismiss and defame.

Our investigation comes just days after Scotland’s Lord Advocate, Frank Mulholland QC, launched a scathing attack on “conspiracy theorists”, whose attacks were “defamatory” and “without foundation”.

His comments have further angered campaigners, already infuriated that Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill forwarded their complaints to the Crown Office and Dumfries and Galloway Constabulary – the very organisations accused of wrongdoing.

It is alleged the authorities deliberately misled judges during the 36-week hearing at Camp Zeist in the Netherlands in 2000 in an attempt to frame Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi and his co-accused Lamin Khalifah Fhimah.

If anytime "the authorities deliberately misled" somebody, that is conspiracy, then every government in the world would fit into a conspiracy, by definition.

 

[Rolfe]

That allegation of "deliberately misleading" is a direct result of what we discovered and figured out here in the "London origin theory" thread. The Crown knew the bomb was introduced at Heathrow, and realised the original investigation had either completely missed it or deliberately turned a blind eye to it. But they had to carry on with the trial in the full glare of international publicity, so they deliberately bamboozled the Court by not leading crucial pieces of information, in order to conceal this.

So it's quite nasty, really.

Rolfe.

 

[1stClassAlan]

Again, I rejoin at a late stage so apologies:-

One of the first things I learned from Shakespeare - many folk miss its significance - is a line from Henry V - a character points out the range markers for the fall of arrows in the imminent battle and Henry asks - "who has measured the ground"?

In modern terms: Who is this guy? Can he be trusted?

So when I first became aware of conspiracy - I thought it was a "good thing" but of course, I was lulled into thinking these guys were as trustworthy as the range marker and after all many folk in lowly positions have access to sensitive information - later, I realised they are for the most part morons with agenda, so disappointment all round.

Mind you - this could be a conspiracy! The deliberate posting of outrageous nonesense to cover up some of the more possible explanations!

I am also very aware that history is written by the winners. So much so that it is often very difficult to find "the truth" ( whatever that is ) concerning any event and this has become even harder in modern times purely because of the sheer volume of information available. I content myself to trying to think outside the box ( how's that for modernism from an old bloke!)

For instance while many people argue on about Pan Am flight 103 - who did it? How did they do it etc., etc., I often find myself wondering - was it a bomb at all? Did it actually break up by itself - after all the well photographed front section laying in a Scottish field has fractured at a module join and there are many concerns over the general airworthiness of all 747 airframes - especially ones of this age.

Then there's 911 - to me, above all else - three huge buildings fell down! Yes, two were hit by aircraft but they survived that didn't they? To fall later by the effects of fire which every expert in the world would have told you they could stand on 910! So I do believe in conspiracy to some extent - can you imagine the panic if everyone realised the buildings they worked in could all fall down!!? Of course, the Twin Towers were special cases making then particularly vunerable and once the whole thing became a National Emergency - the idea of America under attack totally shrouded the structural disaster in a thicker cloud than the collapsing dust.

I am a buildings professional in England - or rather I was - I consider myself well out of it! Building regulations are in general much more conservative in this country but I have seen them gradually eroded in the same way as America in efforts to attract foriegn investment - we now have to "take on board" - "fast track construction" and other modernisms I detest.

Therefore, I predict that there will be further failings in future of aircraft and buildings - with the folk responsible always on the look out for a convenient hook on which to hang the blame.

 

[Rolfe]

For instance while many people argue on about Pan Am flight 103 - who did it? How did they do it etc., etc., I often find myself wondering - was it a bomb at all? Did it actually break up by itself - after all the well photographed front section laying in a Scottish field has fractured at a module join and there are many concerns over the general airworthiness of all 747 airframes - especially ones of this age.

The evidence for the plane having been brought down as a result of explosive decompression triggered by an IED inside a suitcase in the bottom front left-hand corner of baggage container AVE4041 is absolutely overwhelming. That evidence began coming in from the fields only three days after the disaster and it was reported contemporaneously in the press. The idea that someone had all that evidence of terrorism ready-prepared to plant on dark Scottish fields for searchers to find virtually as soon as the crash happened, all for the purpose of covering up a mundane air accident that would have embarrassed Boeing for about six months, is ludicrous. (That this evidence also happened to match witness statements that hadn't been collected at that point is an even bigger boggle, as it happens.)

It's perfectly possible that an airframe weakness contributed to the break-up of the plane, of course. The disintegration mostly happened because of the decompression, not the primary explosion (which was relatively small), so it's only to be expected that it would break up according to the lines of least resistance. (I don't mean that it would have survived the explosion but for an airframe fault - I don't believe that has ever been suggested. I mean that the lines of fracture would inevitably have been along the weakest parts of the structure.)

The only serious argument in terms of the physical evidence is whether the explosion occurred inside the suitcase that was on the bottom of the container, or the one on top of it. Recent evidence has shown that it was in fact the bottom suitcase in the pile, the one loaded at Heathrow.

Rolfe.

 

[LSSBB]

Alan, for the following snippet I defer to Rolfe's explanation, and add that Rolfe and others due discuss significant evidence of a possible cover up other thread, please refer to those threads.

For instance while many people argue on about Pan Am flight 103 - who did it? How did they do it etc., etc., I often find myself wondering - was it a bomb at all? Did it actually break up by itself - after all the well photographed front section laying in a Scottish field has fractured at a module join and there are many concerns over the general airworthiness of all 747 airframes - especially ones of this age.

For the following comment, you can best discuss it in the 9/11 subforum, however please note that WTC7 also had it's own "vulnerabilities", to several hours of unfought fires. There really is no mystery to how it fell beyond the exact beam or girder to column connection responsible. Plus, WTC7 was empty of people when it collapsed and had little effect on the public consciousness as much as I can recall.

Then there's 911 - to me, above all else - three huge buildings fell down! Yes, two were hit by aircraft but they survived that didn't they? To fall later by the effects of fire which every expert in the world would have told you they could stand on 910! So I do believe in conspiracy to some extent - can you imagine the panic if everyone realised the buildings they worked in could all fall down!!? Of course, the Twin Towers were special cases making then particularly vunerable and once the whole thing became a National Emergency - the idea of America under attack totally shrouded the structural disaster in a thicker cloud than the collapsing dust.

I am a buildings professional in England - or rather I was - I consider myself well out of it! Building regulations are in general much more conservative in this country but I have seen them gradually eroded in the same way as America in efforts to attract foriegn investment - we now have to "take on board" - "fast track construction" and other modernisms I detest.

Therefore, I predict that there will be further failings in future of aircraft and buildings - with the folk responsible always on the look out for a convenient hook on which to hang the blame.

 

[1stClassAlan]

The evidence for the plane having been brought down as a result of explosive decompression triggered by an IED inside a suitcase in the bottom front left-hand corner of baggage container AVE4041 is absolutely overwhelming.

Hmm... I'd argue over that "explosive decompression" business too - there have been quite a few goodly explosions (let's also include rapid explusions of compressed gases to be more correct ) that have NOT brought down the airliner - so what was different about this one?

[/quote]That evidence began coming in from the fields only three days after the disaster and it was reported contemporaneously in the press. [/quote]
I don't trust the press for the day of the week let alone something far more important.

The idea that someone had all that evidence of terrorism ready-prepared to plant on dark Scottish fields for searchers to find virtually as soon as the crash happened, all for the purpose of covering up a mundane air accident that would have embarrassed Boeing for about six months, is ludicrous. (That this evidence also happened to match witness statements that hadn't been collected at that point is an even bigger boggle, as it happens.)

Hmm.. again, are you aware that the manufacturer of the circuit boards that were supplied for all that model of Bombax cassette recorder disputes the tiny peice found weeks later was one of his? Forgive me if this guy has been debunked.

I appreciate your opinion of the likely effect of one aeroplane crash - but this is ALL of them and as far as I'm aware they've known of the problem for years and have done very little about it. I fly (pax) Airbus but expect they've their own skeleton in cupboards too!

........ I don't believe that has ever been suggested. I mean that the lines of fracture would inevitably have been along the weakest parts of the structure.

The biggest sticking point for me is the lengths that folk have gone to - actually staging an explosion in an old aircraft. However, despite saying the explosion was rigged to exactly emulate the alledged bomb - they put it a different place and when detonated the nose assembly stayed firmly rivetted at junction 41-42.

I've spent many a frustrating hour in fire testing facilities trying to perfectly model reality so in comparison I find the above test ludicrous and something for a uneducated T.V. audience.

Oh, and as for back tracking a certain bag through an airport - how come they lose so many bags yet know everything about this one? I've worked at Heathrow (Thiefrow) and have seen the operations in B.A. and Singapore Airlines along with some cargo - anyone who puts his hands on his heart and says I know exactly what happens to a particular bag - is a liar.

But don't get me wrong - I'm not in need of a tinfoil hat - I just think that some folk get a bit carried away with proving a point.

 

[1stClassAlan]

...... please note that WTC7 also had it's own "vulnerabilities", to several hours of unfought fires.

Yes, I am well aware of them - I've done a few shoehorning jobs remodelling existing buildings here in the U.K. - if I'd had known about the amazing plan to remove floor six to accomodate Salmon Brother's stand by generators - I'd have tried to get on it!!! I helped jack up a building temporarily in London after a bomb which was such a job as it sounds but I would have loved to see the stress frames being constructed in situ while the top 40 floors were supported!

....... There really is no mystery to how it fell .......l.

Agreed, it's largely for the interest of people like me - but there's still the enormity of the public's loss of faith - which never seems to have materialised because it was a special case.

 

[Rolfe]

Hmm... I'd argue over that "explosive decompression" business too - there have been quite a few goodly explosions (let's also include rapid explusions of compressed gases to be more correct ) that have NOT brought down the airliner - so what was different about this one?

[ /quote]That evidence began coming in from the fields only three days after the disaster and it was reported contemporaneously in the press. [ /quote]
I don't trust the press for the day of the week let alone something far more important.

I don't know what you're trying to compare it to, so I don't know what was "different" about this one. The AAIB report is detailed and complex. I know some people think it's a complete fabrication, but I have a few reservations about that.

I don't trust the press either, but someone had to release the information to them about the blast-damaged fragments of baggage container and suitcase that were coming in from 24th December. These fragments were also seen by a lot of people at that time, and dated photographs taken. How do you explain that, if the crash was an accident?

Hmm.. again, are you aware that the manufacturer of the circuit boards that were supplied for all that model of Bombax cassette recorder disputes the tiny peice found weeks later was one of his? Forgive me if this guy has been debunked.

I fear you're badly mixed up. The radio-cassette player involved (or said to be involved) was a Toshiba Bombeat RT-SF16. The fragment of circuit board widely believed to be a fabrication was never held to be a part of that. The radio circuit boards were phenolic paper while the fragment in question was 9-ply fibreglass.

The fragment, PT/35b, was said by the prosecution to be part of an MST-13 digital timer manufactured by MEBO of Switzerland, containing PCBs made by Thuring of Switzerland. One of the proprietors of MEBO is Edwin Bollier whose role in the Lockerbie mystery is highly mysterious, shall we say. He makes up so much stuff that anyone who believes anything he says without independent confirmation needs professional help.

The reason we know that PT/35b was never part of one of the MST-13 timers is a completely different one, to do with the metallurgical analysis of the coating on the circuitry. A point Edwin has even now failed to comment on, though he's constantly regurgitating the same tosh about non-functioning prototype boards (this from today).

I appreciate your opinion of the likely effect of one aeroplane crash - but this is ALL of them and as far as I'm aware they've known of the problem for years and have done very little about it. I fly (pax) Airbus but expect they've their own skeleton in cupboards too!

Yes, well, evidence is a bummer, isn't it?

The biggest sticking point for me is the lengths that folk have gone to - actually staging an explosion in an old aircraft. However, despite saying the explosion was rigged to exactly emulate the alledged bomb - they put it a different place and when detonated the nose assembly stayed firmly rivetted at junction 41-42.

Look, they set of four or five explosions simultaneously in that test, so no wonder the plane essentially came apart at the seams, despite being on the tarmac. The plane was a DC10 anyway, not a 747, so it was all a bit irrelevant. As an exercise in blowing up a plane in a manner as unlike the Lockerbie crash as possible, it was quite successful I suppose.

I've spent many a frustrating hour in fire testing facilities trying to perfectly model reality so in comparison I find the above test ludicrous and something for a uneducated T.V. audience.

You're not far wrong. The main point seems to have been to find some way to continue to maintain that the explosion had been in the suitcase on the second layer, though.

Oh, and as for back tracking a certain bag through an airport - how come they lose so many bags yet know everything about this one? I've worked at Heathrow (Thiefrow) and have seen the operations in B.A. and Singapore Airlines along with some cargo - anyone who puts his hands on his heart and says I know exactly what happens to a particular bag - is a liar.

But don't get me wrong - I'm not in need of a tinfoil hat - I just think that some folk get a bit carried away with proving a point.

I've got access to the full raw data and the contemporaneous police memos regarding the Frankfurt luggage transfers. It's a complete bugger's muddle and while the baggage tray in question is certainly an anomaly and has some questions to answer if it could talk, there is no way I can see to tell what was in it between 13.07 and 15.23. It's ridiculous.

If you're really interested, there are several different threads going on different aspects of the case, but I have to say you have a bit of catching up to do.

Rolfe.

 

[1stClassAlan]

If you're really interested, there are several different threads going on different aspects of the case, but I have to say you have a bit of catching up to do.

Rolfe.

Many thanks Rolfe - I admit I'm way behind - but I am interested! Ironically, I have the wierdest connection - back in the 1980's I kept a horse and one year hay was short in our area so several horse yards sought supplies - from Scotland - guess where in Scotland? Our lorry driver had his house destroyed by the falling body but was luckily away at the time.