All Lockerbie Theories, In Context

18 September 2010

Broadly speaking, there are five classes of explanation for the fall of Pan Am 103. 

1) Libya did it
  a) via Megrahi, as determined at Camp Zeist. 
  b) by some other agent, 
2) Iran did it 
  a) via the PFLP-GC using a Khreesat bomb
  b) via some more direct method
3) Someone else did it (CIA, Israel, South Africa)
4) No one did it - the whole thing was an accident. 
5) It's not clear who or what caused the bombing, but it wasn't Megrahi

The first class is worth discussing, at least in that subset a) is the legally established, officially accepted, and culturally real version (within the US anyway) and b) follows from a) mixed with the doubts of the intelligent over the case against Megrahi. It's what we're debunking here, so of course it gets mentioned a lot and in detail. Tellingly, most proponents of the official 1a) conspiracy theory are less enthuusiastic about discussing the details in depth. They'd rather just point to some judges twice acting as if they believed it all. We know this, and just aren't impressed with their reasoning.

The second category is the most widely accepted alternate to Libya. The circumstantial evidence is strong, and anchored by Iran's epic grievance over Iran Air-655. This all but necessitated they do something like PA103 around the time it was done, and there's reasons to believe the German PFLP-GC cell making altimeter bombs was on this job. I'm all about informing or reminding people about this. To be sure there are many versions that aren't quite correct, like the drug swap theory. But the clues for a London infiltration of the bomb fit superbly with the Iran's desire to actually succeed, and with the known PFLP-GC technology. 

Subset b) of "Iran did it" is occupied, to my knowledge, by Charles Norrie only. He also falls into group three, suggesting a joint Iranian-CIA operation. His theory is discussed in this post. Continuing with the scant category three, Patrick Haseldine has proposed - widely, loudly - the notion that apartheid South Africa carried out the bombing. At the Divide, that's discussed here and nowhere else. Andrew Killgore of WRMEA has hinted that - perhaps - Israel was to blame. That's covered here and nowhere else (no need).  

It's the last two categories that I have yet to address. On #4, the sparse allegations that a tragic accident was to blame for those 270 deaths, are - so far as I've seen - too irrational to bother discussing. To the extent I may be wrong, I've just created a post and invite full commentary on such issue there - and nowhere else on my blog, if you please.  For some reason, I've also lumped in different explosion theories in the same post - allegations the blast was too powerful, too far this way or that, a second bomb elsewhere, etc. In short, if your problem is what caused the plane to break up (and there is some room for legit questions), that is where I'd like to have it discussed.

Of these four, only "Iran did it" account for the obvious grievance Iran held in latter 1988. The others, proposing that Libya, or the South Africans, or happenstance, happened to blow up a mostly American plane within six months of its mirror image, while the Iranians apparently decided to let it slide at about the same time raises the question why?What amazing evidence compels you to propose such an amazing coincidence?

On option 5, proclaiming no good guess just always seems to me like a cop-out. Really, after all this time to consider the facts, you still don't have a best guess who or what caused such a historic event? Alright, well I suggest you read up a little more and try to at least narrow it down.

Other than links and some elaborations I may add, that pretty well sums up the allegedly confused field of "whodunnit" conspiracy theories. Five groups, four of which have something concrete to say. One dominates with the collusion of political power, one solidly challenges with the legitimacy of dethroned reality, and two are appear to be just wacky ideas supported by a small handful of persistent wingnuts.

Please do not allow yourselves to be too confused by all this. 

5 comments:

Anon said...

The great bulk of the evidence points to the CIA doing it.

- Aangirfan.

Caustic Logic said...

Dear Aangirfan

Thanks for your first comment here, but I disagree. Is CIA connected to the Bedford suitcases that we know of? Did they sponsor the Khreesat/Abu Elias bomb-making op?

You have posted on the possible CIA links of Abu Elias, and that's interesting. He seems to have an American link even before the bombing, and is now reportedly living over here in VA as one Basel Bushnaq. You should update your blog post on that.

But no, I think if they executed it, or had a direct hand in allowing it even, they'd have planned the cover story and its clues better.As it was they had to scramble and plant things sloppily with a million inconsistencies.

The CIA's involvement seems to be of the cover-up sort, and it started only after the crash.

But that's just my take.

baz said...

Your categories are not mutually exclusive - you refer in theory 2a to "using a Khreesat bomb". But Khreesat was not just the PFLP-GC bombmaker he was also a CIA asset
(apparently controlled via the Jordanian Intelligence Service a CIA proprietary. Indeed their Lordships got it into their heads that Khreesat had been instructed to make his bombs harmless - however his "evidence" was to the contrary. Khreesat's CIA connections were to the Judges evidence of his innocence not his culpability.

I personally suspect the involvement of Britain's domestic intelligence service MI5 for reasons related to the struggle against the IRA. Did they improvise the Libyan solution after the bombing or plan it before? That is a judgement call.

Is there a CIA or "intelligence" link to the Bedford suitcase? Well if the plan to blame "Libya" and some Libyan for the bombing through the "Malta" clothing then very likely yes.

In link analysis terms is Khreesat within the PFLP-GC circle or the CIA circle or do these two circles overlap with the name Khreesat within both.

You write "the CIA's involvement seems to be of the cover-up sort, and it started only after the crash." That is your take - mine is very different - that the response to the Vincennes Incident wa expected and planned for as demonstrated by the Autumn Leaves incident. In particular I do not see the supposed presence on flight PA103 of CIA officer Matthew Gannon as being coincidence but part of a plan.

Caustic Logic said...

Hey Baz, and nice to hear from you again lately.

I take the CIA link less solidly than you, apparently. He's JSO, which is CIA-friendly. I started out kind of suspicious of him, but in reading his account, it had the feel to meof possible truth.Maybe it'll be shown wrong,but for now I'm advancing on the idea he was a double-agent only, not triple, and sort-of framed by the people he was supposed to be fooling. They weren't fooled, and used him to implicate JSO/CIA and cause embarrassment to further encourage a cover-up>It's a theory.

"...their Lordships got it into their heads that Khreesat had been instructed to make his bombs harmless - however his "evidence" was to the contrary."
Actually it wasn't contrary. No one denies that he made four live bombs, but his originally orders were to make none. Or so we've heard. Khreesat's given reason was Abu Elias, who had studies his bombs and was coming to inspect these. So he didn't dare get caught making duds.

I will say Abu Elias is such a convenient character, causing live bombs to be made,and brining the crucial fifth one himself, he'd make a good fictional character to cover triple-agent

But many others seem to testify this guy existed, and clues I'm still not ready to share give the whole story a logical continuity if he were moved here re-branded.

"Is there a CIA or "intelligence" link to the Bedford suitcase? Well if the plan to blame "Libya" and some Libyan for the bombing through the "Malta" clothing then very likely yes."

Personally, I'm leaning towards the clothes being planted later. Wyatt's tests leave me little room to accept clothes that intact, nor the radio obviously. Dunno if the Bedford bags had an intel link, but they didn't have any of the stuff in them that was found pointing to Libya. Only about 1/2 bag was recovered in bits from an original 2 matching, presumably stacked. That's 1 1/2 cases reduced to drifting cinder as I see it...

See, we can run ahead of each other in different directions. It's all cool. Otherwise, some interesting thoughts. I don't rule out foreknowledge or advance planning.In fact, defined very loosely, I suspect both. It's still coming together though.

baz said...

No Khreesat's "evidence" (given hearsay by an FBI agent) was to the contrary. Khresat supposedly said that because he was being closely supervised he was constrained from making his bombs harmless. They were fully functional.

You can take the view that the CIA (and MI5) colluded in the bombing or that it came as a surprise and a politically convenient "solution" was improvised (or that Megrahi was the culprit.) My point is that if a false solution was improvised it is an astonishing coincidence that the widow of Matthew Gannon was the daughter of the CIA's D/Ops Thomas Twetton. Frankly my suspicion is that Mr Gannon died elsewhere.