Libya Blamed by "American" Six Weeks After Bombing

June 28 2010
updates/edits/links 6/30


Early 1989 was a time of intense recrimination between German authorities and their British and American counterparts over whose airport security failed on December 21 1988. One of the lesser charges hurled at the time also bears a then-oddball but now-familiar stamp of blame. On February 3 1989, based on what someone had told them, CBS News reported that Libyans may have been behind the whole thing. The Herald (Scotland) reported on this, and I thank to JREF forum member Spitfire IX for the tip.

Libyan link to Lockerbie blast
3 February 1989
“INVESTIGATORS believe that employees of Libyan Arab Airways in Frankfurt planted the bomb which destroyed a PanAm Jumbo jet four days before Christmas, killing 270 people in and around Lockerbie, according to the American television network CBS News.”

This is far too early for any of the bogus clues against Megrahi to have emerged. It’s also far too early to be motivated by Gulf War alliances mandating a blind eye to Syria, as some assess the motive. It doesn’t appear to be based on any evidence (see below), but it must have been based on something or it wouldn’t have been said.

“CBS said that at least 100 Libyan airline employees are intelligence operatives under the command of Abdullah Senoussi, who is related to the country's leader Colonel Muammar Gaddafi. Senoussie reportedly has a printing plant which produces forged luggage tags, among other documents.”

That certainly would not explain accused Fhimah’s later plot to flat steal Air Malta tags for the bombing, a "clue" that wouldn’t emerge for over two years. In fact, these sounds like hollow points of speculation, maybe just a handy occasion to again draw attention to Frankfurt while floating a novel solution to the embarrassing truth. Of course, only a few people would know this soon just how embarrassing that would be.

“The bomb, said by CBS to contain 20lbs of plastic explosives, was in a suitcase falsely labelled to fly to New York, via London, on flight 103. It was not searched, x-rayed, or even weighed-in at Frankfurt airport, where it was smuggled in through a ''back door,'' the TV report said, citing an American source.

CBS said the device was believed to be identical to a suitcase bomb found by West German police, in the days before the Lockerbie disaster, when they arrested 14 members of Jibril's Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine - General Command.”


There is no likeness, "identical" or otherwise, implied in the given description. Mot obviously, the ones seized were designed to blow up within 30-45 minutes or an hour (it's complicated) of leaving the ground, which has never fitted with an origin at Frankfurt or further out. Not with the blast 38 minutes after leaving London. Further, the only one of the PFLP-GC devices known of at the time contained 312 grams of Semtex-H, or well under one pound. Three found later were comparable, and the bomb used on 103 was at least that weight, and perhaps as high as 680 grams, based on the container damage. Again nowhere near this alleged 20 pound Libyan monster.

In fact, such small amounts of explosive could only work as fatally as happened on Soltice ’88 with the choicest placement within the luggage container - against the sloping outboard floor panel just two feet from the plane's skin. This is entirely possible by random baggage loading, but far less than a 50/50 shot. There’s still no guarantee, but at least a good 50/50, if the luggage is actually arranged by a terrorists who knows of the sweet spot. Someone else could then move it, or not move it. And of course that could only happen at Heathrow where the container was loaded, hundreds of miles from those dastardly Libyans at Frankfurt and their "back door" antics that still have never been elaborated.

That unspecified “American source” would have presumably been someone involved in an investigation. And we know the CIA’s probe into 103 was headed by Vincent Cannistraro, head of Agency’s counter-terrorism center. Previously, Cannistraro was one of Reagan’s make-s***-up-about-Libya men (See Maltese Double Cross – 42:40 mark). Along with Ollie North and Howard Teicher at the NSC, he used input from CIA and Deprtment of Defense to seed disinformation in the media to justify a policy of covert U.S. harassment of Col. Gaddafi up to coup plans and attempted assassination by Cruise missile, in 1986.

I’d bet money that Vincent Cannistraro was the source for this allegation. He’s friendly with the press, and always eager to tell them whatever’s convenient at the moment with some flair and no compunctions. The story had Libyan intel agents working through LAA at an airport connected to the Lockerbie bombing. The CIA at that time had Abdul Majid Giaka’s stories on file, mentioning both Megrahi and Fhimah as just such agents, but attachedto LAA at Luqa airport on Malta.

Of course, no further moves were made for quite a while, as investigators spent all of 1989 and 1990 at least publicly pushing the PFLP-GC leads - and increasingly Malta leads. Even the suspicious, possibly backdated evidence pointing at Libya was dated around May ’89 and not generally understood for around a year. If this is indeed an early stirring of Vince’s Libya solution, it was too early after waking from the haze of no leads that can be pursued. Libyan guilt rather than PFLP-GC/Syria/Iran probably did look nice and comforting passing through the national news, but just six weeks after the bombing, it was clearly something to come back to after a cup of coffee and a fistful of planted clues.

3 comments:

baz said...

If you believe that Mr Al-Megrahi was framed for the bombing the further question arises - was the plan to frame him improvised after the bombing or did the plan predate the bombing itself?

If you are casting around for the "source" of the early claims of Libyan involvement I would pay particular attention to Mr Al-Megrahi's associate Herr Bollier.

According to David Leppard's excellent "On the Trail of Terror" Mr Cannistraro was an early advocate of Libyan involvement although his two "culprits" were two different Libyans, the two Libyan agents arrested in Senegal in Febraury 1989 (one of who gave evidence at Camp Zeist!) Their assistant purchased the Malta clothing.

I would stress my view that the object of the "emergence" of evidence was not to bring anybody to trial but to impose UN Sanctions upon Libya which gives a different perspective to the "investigation".

Caustic Logic said...

was the plan to frame him improvised after the bombing or did the plan predate the bombing itself?

I would guess after. The names were known before. I could entertain a "let it happen" scenaio on the U.S end, but if they had the frameup in mind ahead of time, they could have made the actual evidence fit, which didn't happen. A new script had to be written, it seems.

Awesome comment.
If you are casting around for the "source" of the early claims of Libyan involvement I would pay particular attention to Mr Al-Megrahi's associate Herr Bollier.

Indeed. Bollier named two Libyans - I forget if it was Marzouk and Saber or Gaddafi and Senoussi. I need to sort that out. This "catch letter" as Bollier calls it was handed to a State Dept. office in mid-January '89 and would soon get to the CIA.

According to David Leppard's excellent "On the Trail of Terror" Mr Cannistraro was an early advocate of Libyan involvement although his two "culprits" were two different Libyans, the two Libyan agents arrested in Senegal in Febraury 1989 (one of who gave evidence at Camp Zeist!) Their assistant purchased the Malta clothing.

Leppard p 210 has Cannistraro doing some early 'assessment" of the MST-13, and speaking of aLibyan planning meeting that was known of BEFORE Lockerbie, but AFAIK never came up in the evidence against Megrahi and Fhimah. I'll have to look into his theory on them, and the testimony of the one. Sometime.

Facts just appearand disappear as often as needed to give an excuse to say useful things.

I would stress my view that the object of the "emergence" of evidence was not to bring anybody to trial but to impose UN Sanctions upon Libya which gives a different perspective to the "investigation".

I concur. This would explain the eagerness for indictments only, and for sanctions, and press manipulation, and unreasonable demands re: the "desired" trial, and the initial refusal of the Zeist trial. It took a lot of pushing just to get the Americans to agree to trial, despite that being what they always said they wanted.

The results show why. A bogus storyline was only partly accepted, when the previous AngloAmerican stance was it was all true, had to be, and worth choking a nation over.

Caustic Logic said...

above, was confusing "LIHOP" with "MIHOP" (make it happen on purpose) a bit. If only LIHOP, the authorities would not control the bombing itself, but would just allow it.

Anyway, IF they planned Libyan blame in advance, it would have been as a contingency, in case the Iranians got their revenge, in case on or more of those 'autumn leaves" managed to work. So it's possible. At any rate, by six weeks after, the intention to frame was made known (to the perceptive).