Lockerbie 30th Anniversary — PT/35(b) : When Was the Lockerbie Key Evidence Forged?

“Could the CIA have planted the evidence? I don’t know. No one ever came to me and said, ‘Now we can go for the Libyans’, it was never as straightforward as that. The CIA was extremely subtle. For me the significant evidence came when the Scottish police made the connection with Malta. [Pressed for his own view, Fraser cites a Scottish murder case, that of Patrick Meehan, in which, it was alleged, the prosecution case had been “improved” by the planting of evidence.] Was there a similarity? I don’t know, but if there was one witness I was not happy about, it was Mr Bollier [Founder of MEBO], who was deeply unreliable.”

Lord Fraser — The Lord Advocate at the time that charges were brought against Abdelbaset Megrahi and Lamin Fhimah for the destruction of Pan Am 103

“Cretton [Real name : Swiss Inspector Hans Knaus] expressed his concerns (…) The first was that the CIA had planted the chip [PT/35(b)] in the wreckage found at Lockerbie. Henderson and I told him this thought had also crossed our minds. Neither of us believed the CIA or any government official would do such a thing, but we had discussed the possibility.”

Richard Marquise — FBI Agent who led the US side of the Lockerbie investigation

PT/35(b) — Notice how the ‘imperfection’ at the right end of the upper track looks exactly like the original design made by MEBO Lumpert.

PT/35(b) is a small fragment of a timer circuit that was allegedly found among the debris of Pan Am 103 near the town of Lockerbie. After more than ten years of investigation, I have come to the conclusion that PT/35(b) is a forgery that was planted among the debris to implicate Libya in the bombing of Pan Am 103 and to steer the investigation away from the original suspects.

To mark the 30th Anniversary of the Pan Am 103 tragedy, INTEL TODAY will re-post one of our best Lockerbie stories every Wednesday until the end of the year. We would like to know what you think. Please, take this poll and encourage your friends to participate.

As I explained in the last posts, it is abundantly clear that the fragment PT35(b) did not come from a Thuring circuit board supplied to MEBO to manufacture the MST-13 timers delivered to Libya. I have already told you how PT/35(b) was made. But, WHEN was it made?  Follow us on Twitter: @INTEL_TODAY

RELATED POST: Remembering Lockerbie — Pan Am 103 Quotes

RELATED POST: LOCKERBIE 30th Anniversary — PT/35(b) : “A RIDDLE, WRAPPED IN A MYSTERY, INSIDE AN ENIGMA.”

RELATED POST: LOCKERBIE 30th Anniversary — PT/35(b) : An Overview of the Lockerbie Case

RELATED POST: Lockerbie 30th Anniversary — PT/35(b) : The Fairy Tale of the Togo Timers

RELATED POST: Lockerbie 30th Anniversary — PT/35(b) : Dirty Tricks & Tribulations in Senegal

RELATED POST: Lockerbie 30th Anniversary — PT/35(b) : MEBO TELECOM and the Story of the MST-13 Timers

RELATED POST: Lockerbie 30th Anniversary — PT/35(b) : The Most Expensive Forgery in History

RELATED POST: Lockerbie 30th Anniversary — PT/35(b) : How was the Lockerbie Key Evidence Forged?

Do we have any information that might help us to figure out WHEN  PT/35(b) was fabricated? Short answer: YES! But until now, the truth has been swept under the mat.

In the very late 80’s and well into the 90’s, the CCL (copper clad laminate) industry modified the production of the copper foil and the laminating process to improve the adhesion of the copper to the board.

The copper used must be able to achieve good peel strengths so the copper does not pull away from the glass and resin. So pay attention to the so-called “matt side” of the copper track of PT/35((b)!

Definition:

Peel Strength; This measurement is taken to evaluate the adhesion of the resin to the copper cladding, in units of lbf/in or N/m. Measurements are taken after samples have been conditioned in the following manner: as received, after thermal stress, and after chemical processing.

Thermal Stress; This measurement is taken to evaluate the thermal integrity of laminates after short-term exposure to solder, 10 seconds at 550°F (288°C). The samples are evaluated for evidence of blisters and delamination.

Copper adhesion is achieved by a combination of physical and chemical bonding. ED copper foil has a natural “tooth structure” formed during electro-deposition and the nodular treatment provides a locking mechanism when the resin coats and encapsulates the copper teeth/treatment.

Magnification of the matt side (underside) of the copper tracks of PT/35(b)

Chemical treatment of copper foils can also enhance bonds. Many of the foils in use today have proprietary silane or other treatments which chemically enhance bond to a variety of resins.

Please, understand that all copper finishes will not work equally well with all resins.

Optimization of lamination process and selection of the foil finish for each resin system is critical to achieving good bonds.

Finally, in order to reduce oxidation and make a more thermally stable treatment, brass, zinc or sometimes nickel is plated lightly over the deposited copper nodules.

The characteristics of the matt side of the PT/35(b) copper tracks reflect all these improvements.

The number of nodules (peaks) per unit area is higher on PT/35(b) than on the control sample of the PCB produced by THURING for MEBO in 1985.

Moreover, brass is clearly visible on PT/35(b), but not on the MEBO control sample.

“The yellow Matte side colouration was evident, indicating the presence of a brass barrier layer.” (Michael Whitehead Precognition — Statement S5587H)

And I have already explained that the resin of PT/35(b) is different from the resin of the control board, as expected for the reason mentioned above.

These differences clearly indicate that the CCL of PT/35(b) was manufactured at later time than the CCL used for the MEBO timers delivered to Libya in 1985/1986.

But when? Perhaps, the presence of brass traces in the bonding layer is the key — or at least the easiest path — to unlock that mystery.

According to an anonymous British expert, this process (the inclusion of a brass layer) was patented in 1991.

However, one should keep in mind that it can take several years for the patent to be granted.

Of course, one is not required to wait until he has obtain a patent to start exploiting the invention.  He can begin doing so — under certain conditions — as soon as the patent application has been filed.

So, here is the question. When was that patent filed, and when was that technology implemented?

I do not know the answers yet, but I have suggested long ago that it happened sometimes in the late 80s, and perhaps indeed after the Lockerbie tragedy.

For sure, this technology did not exist in 1985 when THURING delivered the PCBs to MEBO.

REFERENCES

Anatomy of a Copper Clad Laminate. Part V: Post-processing of the Copper Foils

DP/10 : Evidence of Fabricated Proof?

PT/35(b) — How was the Lockerbie Key Evidence Forged? [UPDATE & Comments]

=

Lockerbie 30th Anniversary  — PT/35(b) : When Was the Lockerbie Key Evidence Forged?

This entry was posted in Lockerbie, PT/35(b) and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s