tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7351904589099176534.post3095658739974423181..comments2023-10-25T05:21:38.824-07:00Comments on The Lockerbie Divide: FROM LOCKERBIE TO ZEIST (via Tripoli, Tunis and Cairo)Caustic Logichttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03082923821952309709noreply@blogger.comBlogger12125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7351904589099176534.post-40212555362600792812010-03-15T13:40:31.184-07:002010-03-15T13:40:31.184-07:00New Post for money discussion<a href="http://lockerbiedivide.blogspot.com/2010/03/professor-blacks-reward.html" rel="nofollow">New Post for money discussion</a>Caustic Logichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03082923821952309709noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7351904589099176534.post-36234581803816778412010-03-12T22:44:01.165-08:002010-03-12T22:44:01.165-08:00My point is, not to offend the Porfessor, but it&#...My point is, not to offend the Porfessor, but it's at least logically possible his project was backed by, as you infer, oil interests just looking for profit. <br /><br />If "unpaid basis" means literally that, in all way shape or form, I take his word. The point is, it doesn't change the fact that he arranged the framework for a trial where the Libyans WERE handed over to Scottish jusrisdiction as demanded. <br />Megrahi was then convicted. <br />The US maintains its sanctions though the UN does not. <br /><br />You act as if this is a bad thing, helping arrange Camp Zeist. Why would one be upset and look to discredit such work?Caustic Logichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03082923821952309709noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7351904589099176534.post-60387436382634654562010-03-11T03:37:16.510-08:002010-03-11T03:37:16.510-08:00That was a bit harsh, wasn't it? Apologies for...That was a bit harsh, wasn't it? Apologies for the parts its deserved. <br /><br />For someone trying to bridge this divide, it must seem that I'm sure being pretty divisive. And so far the comment sections here are not doing much business on the repeat customers. Hmmm...Caustic Logichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03082923821952309709noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7351904589099176534.post-43050294821151408112010-03-09T23:23:34.182-08:002010-03-09T23:23:34.182-08:002)Who exactly were the group of British businessme...<i>2)Who exactly were the group of British businessmen who approached Professor Black and what exactly were their desired “major engineering works in Libya” ? Oil springs to mind. BP perhaps? Smacks of a deal in the desert… Oh what a wicked web…</i><br /><br />That would be my guess as well. What else of much interest happens there, business-wise. Something tells me you're a real expert on them tangled web things. Oh, sorry, read it wrong. Them "wicked web" things. You were involved in the SCOTBOM web weaving, weren't you, anonymous person? <br /><br /><i>3)Pr. Black insults the reader by insinuating that anyone in their right mind would believe that he (Pr. Black) would, on an unpaid basis, endure traveling to Libya against sanctions, and risk being kidnapped or killed at that time. But then again, perhaps Black defies the definition of “right mind”, and/or "unpaid".</i> <br /><br />Yeah, maybe he got paid indirectly, or secretly, or what have you. It seems a bit of work to do for free, but hey, I haven't got a penny yet and I'm working pretty hard on this site. Black is better than me at the things needed then, and probably deserved some dough for his help in implementing the trial that US authorities were demanding and yet stonewalling. This web had to be untangled <i>somehow.</i> How much did you get paid helping to spin it? <br /><br />So, you've got no evidence that Pr. Back was paid to help Libya get off the hook to get at oil. Nothing convincing to support that the sanctions etc. were ever really deserved. You've got faith in the investigation, speculative mudslinging and slimy innuendo. Anything else? Do feel free to answer!Caustic Logichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03082923821952309709noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7351904589099176534.post-63347841029911323942010-03-09T23:09:11.442-08:002010-03-09T23:09:11.442-08:00Anonymous, you seem pretty confident in your grasp...Anonymous, you seem pretty confident in your grasp of the evidence, and yet here you are arguing the government story. That sets off alarm bells, but I do appreciate your comment. <br /><br />Nonetheless...<br /><br /><i>1) Why would it come as such a surprise? Surely Pr. Black was well aware of [...] Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command – some of whom were arrested in the Autumn leaves sting in Germany, where bomb making equipment was siezed. Said equipment had many similarities (outside of the timing device) to the PA103 bomb. </i> <br /><br />Other than the timer, you're right, and that's what investigators were thinking, and probably what happened, and why Libyan blame was a surprise. I think it was explained right in the article. <br /><br />38 minutes after take-off. That's a Khreesat bomb loaded in London, or a bizarre coincidence on top of very bad Libyan timing. How is it you're so sure that 1/2 inch sq chunk really survived a blast of "454-680 grammes of Semtex-H" just 1.5 inches away? What proof do you have it wasn't planted for political reasons? <br /><br /><i>...Libya’s involvement and support of terrorist activities; including the Abu Nidal Organization...</i><br /><br />...proves nothing in this case. That unlikely timer and the very bad or badly read evidence said to indicate Libyans Megrahi and Fhimah are all we have, except lame circumstantial ruminations like this. Ever hear of the PFLP-GC? They are terrorists that have been involved in airliner bombings and seem to have accepted $10 million from Iran to do just that in 1988. Where did that fifth bomb ever get to anyway? Where did the Bedford suitcases wind up? If they didn't blow up, why weren't they ever produced? <br /><br />continued...Caustic Logichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03082923821952309709noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7351904589099176534.post-59462256655540693212010-03-09T14:19:55.559-08:002010-03-09T14:19:55.559-08:00Some observations and questions:
1)“It came of s...Some observations and questions: <br /><br />1)“It came of some surprise when on 14 November 1991 the prosecution authorities in Scotland and the United States simultaneously announced that they had brought criminal charges against two named Libyan nationals who were alleged to be members, and to have been acting throughout as agents, of the Libyan intelligence service”<br /><br /> Why would it come as such a surprise? Surely Pr. Black was well aware of Libya’s involvement and support of terrorist activities; including the Abu Nidal Organization and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command – some of whom were arrested in the Autumn leaves sting in Germany, where bomb making equipment was siezed. Said equipment had many similarities (outside of the timing device) to the PA103 bomb. <br /><br />2)Who exactly were the group of British businessmen who approached Professor Black and what exactly were their desired “major engineering works in Libya” ? Oil springs to mind. BP perhaps? Smacks of a deal in the desert… Oh what a wicked web…<br /><br />3)Pr. Black insults the reader by insinuating that anyone in their right mind would believe that he (Pr. Black) would, on an unpaid basis, endure traveling to Libya against sanctions, and risk being kidnapped or killed at that time. But then again, perhaps Black defies the definition of “right mind”, and/or "unpaid".Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7351904589099176534.post-72276178526904833162010-03-05T13:05:23.700-08:002010-03-05T13:05:23.700-08:00On Charles' 11/11/91 comment, that is Armistic...On Charles' 11/11/91 comment, that is Armistice day and also four days prior to the Indictment being issued, and about two years before the Professor here was even getting involved. Maybe a clue. <br /><br />Rolfe's critique is a fair one. If the terrorists used a timer, they did it poorly, and were aiming for right around the coastline, give or take, when they should have aimed for way out there. <br /><br />Obviously I'm going for option 4 as well. I'd say the possibility of over-land explosion (high, with only 30 minutes or so) was either flat unavoidable, or considered no problem for leaving clues. The amount of Semtex might have been enough to guarantee no identifiable fragments. But who needs them when you've got a 38 minute detonation so soon after Autumn Leaves? Oh, yeah... people who want to blame Libya need debris. <br /><br />If the delay on Khreesat's bombs had been longer - say 2 hours - do we think Scottish police would still have found PI/995 floating on the surface and cracked the case anyway?Caustic Logichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03082923821952309709noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7351904589099176534.post-50431357050729507732010-03-05T05:53:41.644-08:002010-03-05T05:53:41.644-08:00If possibility 4 is correct (the explosion wasn...If possibility 4 is correct (the explosion wasn't triggered by an MST-13 timer at all) as the work of Dr Wyatt indicates this would also indicate that the primary suitcase was introduced at Heathrow. (Assuming that the explosion was caused by an IED contained within the primary suitcase.)<br /><br />It would also mean that the actual time of departure was of no relevance to where the IED exploded if the plane took the same route and ascended at the same rate.<br /><br />It would also mean the bombers were indifferent to whether the plane came down on land or water or planned that it came down on land.<br /><br />In order to "solve" the case by essentially forensic means or to create the forensic evidence evidence to advance a false solution (i.e.the recovery of the MST-13 timer) it would seem to be a prerequisite that the plane did come down on land.bazhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02338162927520376063noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7351904589099176534.post-56534484126556749222010-03-04T12:57:36.962-08:002010-03-04T12:57:36.962-08:00There's an interesting sentence of Prof. Black...There's an interesting sentence of Prof. Black's that bears further examination.<br /><br /><i>The aircraft had been some thirty minutes late in leaving Heathrow. Had it been on schedule, the bomb (assuming that it was detonated by a timing mechanism) would have exploded over the Atlantic Ocean, sparing the town of Lockerbie but making investigation of the accident and recovery of physical evidence very much more difficult.</i><br /><br />The aircraft <i>took off</i> 25 minutes after its scheduled departure time. However, aircraft never actually take off at their scheduled departure time. That time is the time they push off from the gate. I haven't timed it, but I'm guessing it's usually about ten minutes more by the time the plane gets into position on the runway and off the ground.<br /><br />PA103 was scheduled to depart at 6pm, and actually pushed off from the gate only a couple of minutes after that - not really late at all, at that point. It was delayed on the tarmac due to pressure of traffic, but took off at 6.25. So really, it was no more than about 15 minutes late.<br /><br />Also, looking at its route, there's little chance as far as I can see that it would have been over water 15 minutes later. Some people say it was headed for the Ayrshire coast, but I don't think so unless it was going to make a left turn - and it was already on its great circle route as far as I know. I think it was headed much further north and would have been over land for much more than 15 minutes more.<br /><br />Of course, the plane was taking a more northerly route than usual, but even if it had been on a more southerly route, it would have been anybody's guess whether it would have been over land or sea at 7pm, when the explosion happened. This meme that we keep hearing about, that the explosion would have been over the deep Atlantic if only the plane hadn't been late, is nonsense.<br /><br />Far more to the point, this was a flight from Heathrow, at a busy time, in the evening, in December. What were the chances that the plane <i>would still be on the tarmac</i> at 7pm? Quite high, I would have thought. And if it had been, it would barely have been a damp squib. Complete failure.<br /><br />And that could be avoided, virtually for sure, just by setting that versatile MST-13 for midnight. So what happened? There are several possibilities.<br /><br />1. The terrorists were were dumb as a bag of hammers, and just thought, oh, the plane takes off at six, just set it for an hour later, that'll do.<br />2. The timer malfunctioned and went off prematurely.<br />3. The suitcase was supposed to be on an earlier flight, one that would have been over the Atlantic by that time.<br />4. The explosion wasn't triggered by an MST-13 at all, but by a Khreesat-style altimeter device.<br /><br />I think 1 is ridiculous. Whatever these people were, they weren't stupid. 2 and 3 are possible, though difficult to investigate. However, in both cases, there is the little matter of the interesting coincidence that the explosion, purely accidentally, happened right in the time window post take-off when a Khreesat-type device would automatically have detonated.<br /><br />Or of course it could just have <i>been</i> a Khreesat-type device.<br /><br />It's an intriguing conundrum. However, the one explanation that absolutely <i>doesn't</i> fly is to declare that of course the explosion would have been way out over the Atlantic if only the plane hadn't been late.Rolfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16206952819245786811noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7351904589099176534.post-21929318940361955472010-03-04T04:22:05.096-08:002010-03-04T04:22:05.096-08:00I am probably going to regret trying to make sense...I am probably going to regret trying to make sense of Charles' comment but what is the significance of the 11.11.91 (apart from being Armistice Day) and why would that be a particularly propitious day for Professor Black to seek Charles' views?<br /><br />Who was the "him" Dr Swire was calling on the phone six weeks earlier?bazhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02338162927520376063noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7351904589099176534.post-44254645475833934882010-03-02T23:19:03.422-08:002010-03-02T23:19:03.422-08:00Charles: Great post, thanks. I think physical safe...Charles: Great post, thanks. I think physical safety fears were legitmate, all things considered. In fact, the part I wanted to comment on was this passage:<br /><br /><i>"A secondary consideration was the issue of the physical security of the accused if the trial were to be held in Scotland. Not that it was being contended that ravening mobs of enraged Scottish citizens would storm Barlinnie prison, seize the accused and string them up from the nearest lamp posts. Rather, the fear was that they might be snatched by special forces of the United States, removed to America and put on trial there (or, like Lee Harvey Oswald, suffer an unfortunate accident before being put on trial)."</i><br /><br />I think that might well have happened, having looked now at the evidence they'd have had to put to judge and or jury. I dig the "CT" (Conspiracy Theorist) twist - I'm not a Kennedy nutter, but that strategically poor security circumventing the need for an open trial is just darn convenient, at the least. But, I needn't alienate possible readers getting too "woo" on this page. <br /><br />But whatever I think, the Libyans were suspicious, and evenn when a "neutral" venue was agreed to by the Americans, <br /><i>"the chosen location in the Netherlands for trial was Kamp van Zeist, a former NATO base to which the air force of the United States still had extant treaty rights of access.</i>"<br /><br />Would those fears of special forces snatchery have proved true if the verdict had been different? Would the Americans really have let the acquitted just go home, as reasonable judges would have ordered, when everyone KNOWS they're guilty? Of something so heinous? The answer hovers out there somewhere, in the Twilight Zone.Caustic Logichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03082923821952309709noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7351904589099176534.post-915624206953634182010-03-02T20:11:30.154-08:002010-03-02T20:11:30.154-08:00I wish that Professor Black had approached me duri...I wish that Professor Black had approached me during the 1990s, say on 11 November 1991 and asked for my views. Though then very incomplete, for we were not to know for years about Police, RARDE, CIA and MI5 perfidy, it was clear to anyone who knew anything about either Lockerbie or UTA, that Mr Medrahi had been set up.<br /><br />Jim Swire said he had his doubts on a phone call to him from outside the Palais de Justice, Paris some six weeks earlier and said Libya was not on his radar for Lockerbie.<br /><br />He suspended doubts until the trial, but soon realised what the Crown was presenting was pure cods-wallop.<br /><br />By this time I had been sure for some years that Libya had done UTA and had had nothing to do with Lockerbie.<br /><br />If Professor Black had not proposed his trial, the outcome might have been worse for Mr M. Mr Marquise, the FBI lead investigator, makes it clear that the one thing the Scots Courts would have looked very dimly upon would have been the kidnapping or false inducement of the suspects to face trial. Consequently, they would have appaered before a US Court, and Mr Megrahi no doubt summarily despatched by lethal injection.<br /><br />Professor Black, you saved two lives!Charleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03662285337385107290noreply@blogger.com