Lockerbie — Three Decades of Lies: J’Accuse…! [Chapter X : What Really Happened to Pan Am Flight 103?]

“Originally developed for Czechoslovak military use and export, Semtex eventually became popular with paramilitary groups and rebels or terrorists because prior to 2000 it was extremely difficult to detect, as in the case of Pan Am Flight 103.”

SEMTEX — Wikipedia

“Aviation investigations are replete with accident scenarios that couldn’t happen. And given the lack of bomb evidence so far, neither scenario has been ruled out, officials said. First is the possibility that the doomed plane’s front section, which has a history of structural fatigue cracks and must undergo regular inspections, simply unzipped from the rest of the plane as weakened structural frames gave way.”

 Washington Post (August 1 1996)

“Could the theory of a terrorist bomb planted on Pan Am 103, while it was in Malta, be a trump up story? Can we be sure it was a bomb, at all? Bombs have exploded on many 747’s and other aircraft but the planes landed, nonetheless. (…) I am not totally convinced that a bomb brought down Pan Am 103.”

Carl A. Davis — Plane Truth

“There was a single primary return received (…) 16 seconds before SSR returns were lost. (…) No explanation can be offered for its presence.”

Pan Am Flight 103 — AAIB Report

July 20 2020 — Over the last three decades, there have been two, and only two, widely accepted theories about Lockerbie: Libya or else Iran & the PFLP-GC. In this chapter, I wish to explore and demonstrate that another theory is  available. Unlike the others, this theory respects Logic and the Sciences. And this explanation is provable for a simple reason. It is the plane TRUTH. Follow us on Twitter: @INTEL_TODAY

RELATED POST: Lockerbie – Three Decades of Lies: J’Accuse…!

RELATED POST: Lockerbie – Three Decades of Lies: J’Accuse…! [Chapter I : A week in December]

RELATED POST: Lockerbie – Three Decades of Lies: J’Accuse…! [Chapter II : The Usual Suspects]

RELATED POST: Lockerbie — Three Decades of Lies: J’Accuse…! [Chapter III : Operation Autumn Leaves]

RELATED POST: Lockerbie — Three Decades of Lies: J’Accuse…! [Chapter IV : The ‘Wait & See’ Strategy]

RELATED POST: Lockerbie – Three Decades of Lies: J’Accuse…! [Chapter V : Blame it on Gaddafi!]

RELATED POST: Lockerbie – Three Decades of Lies: J’Accuse…! [Chapter VI : A spectacular miscarriage of Justice]

RELATED POST:  Lockerbie – Three Decades of Lies: J’Accuse…![Chapter VII : The SLALOM Shirt]

RELATED POST: Lockerbie – Three Decades of Lies: J’Accuse…! [Chapter VIII : PT/35(b) — The Most Expensive Forgery in History]

RELATED POST: Lockerbie — Three Decades of Lies: J’Accuse…! [Chapter IX – Diabolical Endgame]

Lockerbie — Three Decades of Lies: J’Accuse…!

QUICK NOTES — To make it easier for the readers to retrieve various chapters of this book, I have created a special page  “Lockerbie” where all the links to the chapters will be listed with a brief description. You can access that page directly as it appears at the far right of the top bar of this blog.

A procedural hearing in the Megrahi appeal was due to take place on 17 April 2020, but was postponed when court business was suspended because of the Covid-19 emergency. A rescheduled procedural hearing has now been fixed to take place before five judges of the High Court of Justiciary on Friday, 21 August 2020 at 10 am. The hearing will be held using Webex. [The Lockerbie Case — Procedural hearing in Megrahi appeal rescheduled]

END of NOTES

Chapter X : What Really Happened to Pan Am Flight 103?

In Chapter VI, I explained why the Lockerbie verdict is utter nonsense. In Chapter IX, I told you that even if the guilty verdict against Megrahi is quashed by the upcoming appeal, this final decision from the Court will not provide closure on Lockerbie.

If the verdict against Megrahi is indeed quashed, many will still believe that Gaddafi’s Libya was nevertheless responsible while others will conclude that Iran & the PFLP-GC are the true culprits.

However, as I have explained in chapters II, III, IV and V, the Libyan solution (Second CIA script) was nothing more than a variation of the first CIA script.

Upon close inspection, this initial script was no better than the final one. Actually, both stories are total nonsense.

The time has come to finally review the evidence, usually defined as the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

What do we really know about Pan Am Flight 103?

This reviewing process will be very unnerving as it will force us to ask ourselves a very simple question.

Knowing that the evidence of the crime was obviously fabricated, could the crime itself be a fabrication? In other words, can we be sure it was a bomb, at all?

As FBI whistleblower Dr. Frederic ‘Fred’ Whitehurst recently wrote [1] :

“We crave truth. We cannot function without it. And when our eyes are opened to truth we shade our faces in fear of the blindness that comes along… when we finally know reality.

Truth does not taste well to the faint of heart. But Dr Ludwig De Braeckeleer (Intel Today) keeps on telling it as will I.”

The Bible tells us that the truth shall make you free. Perhaps. But, more often than not, truth shall make you mad. [2]

As US President Harry S Truman famously remarked: “I never did give anybody hell. I just told the truth and they thought it was hell.” [3]

Any part of the Lockerbie saga is enough to drive a sane person to madness. The whole story is a very unpleasant picture to look at. The truth is certainly not for the faint of heart.

Besides, the truth is rarely pure and never simple. And if the truth is indeed stranger than fiction, that is simply because fiction has to make sense.

Let us now review the so-called Lockerbie evidence.

The magic luggage — An implausible scenario

Noel Koch headed the U.S. Defense Department’s anti-terrorism office from 1981 to 1986.

Koch has ridiculed — and quite rightly so, I must say — the idea that terrorists would gamble on the likelihood that unaccompanied luggage would be successfully transferred twice, first from Malta to Frankfurt, and then from Frankfurt to London. [4]

“I can tell you this much that I know about terrorism: it’s simple. You don’t complicate life. Life’s complicated enough as it is.

If you’ve got a target you want to get as close as you can to it and you don’t go through a series of permutations that provide opportunities for failure and that provide opportunities for discovery. It doesn’t work that way.”

Of course, an astute reader will also be left wondering why a terrorist would set the timer for just a few minutes after take-off instead of a few hours when Pan Am 103 would have exploded over the Atlantic, thus leaving nothing to be investigated?

And if that was not troubling enough, keep in mind that, after being transferred twice, the magic brown Samsonite suitcase was loaded on Pan Am Flight 103 against the fuselage at a very specific location (Sections 41/42) which is known to be the weakest part of the Boeing-747 airliner. Seriously? Only a child would believe such a fairy tale!

Fabricated evidence

After reading my analysis of the “evidence”, UK terrorism researcher Paul Feeney posted the following comment.

“The more I study the collection of evidence related to Lockerbie, the less sure I become that any of it is genuine – other than those items which were the possessions of the victims and which were later identified by their families.

We know PT/35(b) was fake evidence and was probably planted after the explosion, the Malta clothes are just too convenient for the prosecution and there are so many anomalies with the color, design and labels, not to mention the whole Gauci story, that it seems possible that they might have been planted after the explosion.

The white-then-black bits of Toshiba cassette radio, the intact Toshiba manual which had supposedly been wrapped around the IED, and so on. Is it possible that the forensic evidence was also faked? Indeed was any of the Lockerbie evidence genuine?

Is there any genuine, honest evidence; and, ultimately, was the explosion also ‘planted’ to look like a terrorist attack or was it all pre-planned?

At this point it becomes very frightening!”

All the evidence was fabricated

After years of silence, Lockerbie investigator George Thomson decided to speak up about this issue.

In a letter to me dated June 7 2016, Thomson addressed these questions.

“You know what my position has been since the first day we met. I am no longer afraid to say in public what I told you then.

When the German Police arrested the PFLP people in Neuss in October 1988 they found in their car a Toshiba Radio which concealed an IED The radio was contained in a cardboard box along with an Instruction Manual for the radio.

They may or may not have also recovered a copper colored Samsonite suitcase but they knew from their surveillance operation that the gang were using such a case.

As a result of what they found a warning was sent out urging airline security at all airports to be on the lookout for this type of device.

When the plane came down in Lockerbie the Investigating authorities had a fair idea who was responsible and within a short period of time they began to  “FIND” various fragments which matched the warning issued as a result of what was recovered in possession of the PFLP GC Cell in Neuss.

They claimed to have recovered from a fold in the identification plate from the luggage container fragments (AG145) which Feraday soon identified as coming from a Toshiba Radio. (He later changed his mind about the model). These fragments could not have been found where it was claimed and I can prove it.

A fragment of recovered suitcase casing with lining attached was recovered and rushed of to Samsonite in the USA BY a Scottish Officer assisted by an FBI officer. The official position was that Samsonite identified this fragment as one of their cases BUT that is also not true and I have an official FBI report on the Samsonite meeting which clearly states that Samsonite rejected the idea that the fragment shown to them originated from one of their cases.

Undeterred however the Scottish Police along with The FBI continued to build a case against against the The PFLP GC and actually submitted a report to The Lord Advocate requesting the detention of various members of the cell and this report continually asserted that the bomb which brought down Pan Am 103 was a barometric device.

They then embarked on the fallacy that they had recovered various fragments of clothing showing evidence of close explosive involvement which they managed to trace back to a shop in Malta where the shop keeper incredulously remembered selling the very same clothes to a guy who resembled Abu Talb.

What a marvelous piece of Police Investigation they were delighted and held a party to celebrate cracking the case.

Then someone spoiled the Party and decided to let the PFLP GC off the hook and the blame was shifted to Megrahi and Libya.

All they had to do was introduce the now infamous electronic timer fragment PT/35(b) into the chain of evidence and link it to MST timers sold to Libya by MEBO AND change the shopkeepers identification such as it was from Abu Talb to Megrahi. This allowed them to leave in place all the fabricated clothing evidence.

The rest is history and it resulted in the worst miscarriage of justice in Scottish Legal history.

I do not make these allegations lightly as I do have the evidence to back them up.

I would welcome an honest debate with someone such as Richard Marquis but I do not think that will happen I recently traveled to Washington with a film crew but he refused the chance to debate with me.”

A Case of “Improved Evidence”?

Lord Fraser was the Lord Advocate when charges were brought against Abdelbaset Megrahi and Lamin Fhimah for the destruction of Pan Am Flight 103.

Lord Fraser was asked if he believed that the evidence may have been planted to frame the Libyans. His answer was remarkably blunt. [5]

“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.”

However when pressed for his own view, Lord Fraser cited the story of Patrick Meehan, convicted for the death of an elderly woman who was tied up in her own home in furtherance of the theft of her husband’s savings.

Later another man confessed in incontrovertible detail. It is widely believed that the prosecution case had been “improved” by the planting documents from the safe in Meehan’s house.

“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 explained.

As we shall see in the next and final chapter of this book, Lord Fraser was hardly alone in suspecting that the CIA had planted the evidence.

Swiss Inspector Hans Knaus told the FBI that he suspected the CIA of this crime.

Amazingly, both the heads of the FBI and Scottish investigations told Inspector Knaus that they had their own doubts about the origin of this fragment! [6]

In his book, Richard Marquise — the FBI Agent who led the US side of the Lockerbie investigation — writes:

“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.”

There is no doubt whatsoever in my mind that the evidence was fabricated and planted to frame first the Neuss PFLP-GC gang, and therefore Syria and Iran, and later Megrahi and thus Libya.

And now, we must answer a frightening question. Was the crime itself fabricated?

Let us review carefully the specific evidence regarding the bomb and the explosion.

The location of the bomb

Discredited scientists first established that the primary suitcase was lying directly on the floor of the luggage container, as it would be if it had originated directly from London.

Later, they ‘relocated’ the luggage to the second layer of baggage, as it would have been if the suitcase had come from Luqa and Frankfurt airports. So much for vertical accuracy!

And what about horizontal accuracy? In their report, AAIB investigators had estimated the  distance between the IED and the fuselage — known as the stand-off distance —  to be about 25 inches (63.5 cm). [7]

However, it was eventually revealed that the calculation was erroneous. After correction of an obvious mistake, the stand-off distance was reduced to no more than 12 inches (30.5 cm). [8]

This scientific result leads to a paradox as such short distances put the locus of the explosion outside the luggage container.

This result not only runs against the official narrative, it also makes it impossible to understand how the only pieces of the luggage container showing ‘evidence ‘ of an explosion had the pitting marks on the wrong side? [9]

Of course, the folks at the CIA have never let scientific facts interfere with their ‘truth’.

Eventually, the CIA wizards solved the issue by hiring psychic spies — people with mysterious super-natural powers — to correctly assess the locus of the explosion. [10]

Fascinating, but in the real world, the conclusion is undeniable. There is simply no scientifically sound solution to this question!

This should have been a serious warning right from the start. But, let us keep going.

No explosive residues — ZERO evidence of SEMTEX

Contrary to the often repeated claim, there is actually ZERO evidence of SEMTEX being used in the case of Pan Am Flight 103.

Obviously, the spooks are still editing Wikipedia. [11]

The Lockerbie trial statistics are impressive. The trial amassed 10,232 pages of evidence amounting to more than 3m words. The court was shown 2,488 pieces of evidence and heard 229 prosecution witnesses. The trial cost £ 60m. [12]

One would therefore safely conclude that the evidence of SEMTEX in the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 Flight is well established.

One would be wrong! None of the important fragments — radio, timer, pieces of clothing surrounding the IED  and pieces of the Samsonite suitcase— were actually tested for explosive residues. When asked why, the experts answered that it was expensive and not necessary! [13]

Only two pieces of debris (parts of an aluminum beam from the luggage container) — out of 4 million pieces collected — seemed to indicate the presence of SEMTEX. And even that ‘evidence’ is highly dubious.

Pentaerythritol tetranitrate (PETN) is an explosive material, structurally very similar to nitroglycerin.

Along with RDX — a white solid without smell or taste — PETN is the main ingredient of Semtex.

RARDE scientist Dr. John Douse analyzed swabs made by Dr Hayes. One method (gas chromatography) appeared to reveal the presence of both PETN and RDX in very small amounts while a second method (Thin Layer Chromatography) revealed no trace of RDX. [14]

Gordon McMillen — an explosive expert from the Forensic Science Agency of Northern Ireland — rightfully concluded [15] :

“These results, together with observations on the sequence of examinations relating to PSI/1, the fact that the swabs taken from CAD at Longtown were negative, the absence of examination of any other items from the incident and as a result of our own experiences of contamination, leave in my view a considerable doubt …”

As Lockerbie investigator John Ashton pointed out long ago,

“There is no indication that Dr. Hayes had taken precaution to ensure that his work area was free from explosive traces.”

Indeed, when I first saw these data, I immediately understood that something was badly wrong.

The spectrum indicated that all kinds of explosive residues were present in the swabs. This is clearly nonsense as some of these explosives, such as TNT and SEMTEX components, do not mix. Obviously, this was a case of contamination.

Years later, we learned that the UK laboratory that had conducted these measurements, RARDE, was indeed totally contaminated.

One could find explosive residues in the offices, in the library, in the restaurant, anywhere and everywhere.

Time-lapse between the “explosion” and the break-up of PA 103

Here is the official plot of the debris. [16] Allow me to explain these data, the Black dots as well as the Red and Green lines which I have added to the plot.

The Northern trail (Red crosses) is mostly made of parts that belong to the back of the plane while the Southern trail (Green crosses) is essentially the front part of the plane.

Remember that the plane broke up at the rather infamous Section 41, which had a history of structural fatigue cracks and had to undergo regular inspections.

The black dots are the Radar returns of the plane. Point A is the last “normal” return before break-up. I added the last three previous returns.

Three seconds after the last (normal) return (point A), the black box recorded a loud noise.

Knowing the speed and the trajectory of the plane, one can locate this event at point B.

Now, the AAIB investigators used a line going through the southern debris to estimate the position of the plane at the time of the break-up: Point C. The time between point B and C is about one second.

However, I want to point out the following fact. The direction of the trails is given by the wind which was of course blowing in the same direction for both trails. The direction of the northern trail is easily determined:  255°.

Now, if you draw a line going through the largest chunk of the Green debris AND parallel to the northern trail, this line intercept the plane trajectory right at point B.

This would imply that the only noise recorded by the black box was caused by the disintegration of the plane.

No Noise — The silent Bomb?

What does it mean? Let me repeat once more. It means that it is entirely plausible, indeed almost certain, that the plane broke up at the time the loud sound was recorded.

It is thus very likely that the only sound recorded is the sound of the break-up and no sound of a “bomb explosion” was recorded.

The reader may be surprised to learn that, contrary to allegations made by the Washington Post [17], the AAIB investigators never claimed otherwise. [18]

“It is not clear if the sound at the end of the recording is the result of an explosion or is from the breakup of the aircraft structure.

The short period between the beginning of the event and the loss of electrical power suggests that the latter is more likely to be the case.”

The two Black Boxes stopped at the same instant.  One single loud noise was recorded and that sound was caused by the breaking-up of the plane.

That is right. There is simply no record of an explosion sound!

Just the Facts

The aircraft operating Pan Am Flight 103 was a Boeing 747–121, registered N739PA and named Clipper Maid of the Seas, formerly named Clipper Morning Light prior to 1979.

It was the 15th 747 built and was delivered in February 1970, one month after the first 747 entered service with Pan Am.

At the time of its destruction, Clipper Maid of the Seas was 18 years of age and had accumulated over 75,000 flying hours. The plane had 16497 cycles. [19]

Old before their time

Beside PAN AM Flight 103, the destruction in flight of two other Boeing-747 remains the subject of intense debates to this day: AIR INDIA 182 and TWA 800.

Wherever the truth may lie, there is at the very least one fact about these three disasters that cannot be disputed.

In each case, the front part of the Boeing-747 detached from the main body of the aircraft and  thus landed earlier that the rest of the plane.

In the mid 80′s, Boeing had noticed a serious engineering problem with the front section of the Boeing 747.

In short, due to the unusual shape of that part of the plane, fatigue effects on the structure of section 41 — and to a lesser extent section 42 — were far more severe than anticipated.

This issue had been expected but grossly underestimated.

Cracks near section 41 due to the fatigue effect

Boeing introduced about two dozen “Airworthiness Directives” requiring immediate inspections and repairs.

All 747 planes built after the 686th were re-constructed according to a new design.

The 747 had been expected to serve 20 years, 20,000 cycles or 60,000 hours.

But the problems encountered with sections 41 and 42 made it clear that these expectations were not realistic.

In some cases, “fatigue cracks” would appear as soon as after just 6,500 cycles. Pan Am Flight 103 had 16497 cycles. [20]

Suspicious Radar Return

This picture shows the last radar returns of Pan Am Flight 103 observed by the Great Dun Fell radar, which rotates at a frequency of about 8 seconds.

The unexplained return — marked by the rhombus on the right side of the second return before last — has been recorded by two radar stations: the Great Dun Fell and the Claxby radars. [21]

This picture shows the last radar returns of PA103. The unexplained return — marked by the rhombus on the right side of the second return before last — has been recorded by TWO radar stations.

Investigators took this unexplained return very seriously. They analysed the data from hours before and after the event and they did not detect a single anomaly.

They even investigated that it may have been caused by space debris or a meteor… Ask yourself a simple question.

If they knew that Pan Am Flight 103 was destroyed by a bomb, why would they care investigating such issues?

It is rather obvious that this ‘unexplained’ Radar Return was very real. There is little doubt that it was the first warning sign of the imminent disintegration of Pan Am Flight 103.

Striking Similarities with TWA 800 : No Bomb, No Case.

In the case of TWA 800, the FBI is known to have attempted to hide vital information pointing to a mechanical failure while trying to portray the accident as an act of terrorism. [22]

FBI’s former chief metallurgist, William Tobin, testified that bureau officials repeatedly and angrily dismissed scientific evidence that pointed to a mechanical malfunction.

‘The FBI didn’t want to hear about anything but a missile or a bomb, because otherwise there was no FBI case,” said (Senator Chuck) Grassley, chairman of the Judiciary subcommittee on administrative oversight.

“Their conduct was disturbing from the very beginning.”

The similarities between the Pan Am 103 and TWA 800 cases are just striking.

After the crash of TWA 800, the investigators immediately recovered parts of the plane showing “pitting and sooting” which was interpreted as evidence of a high performance explosive.

Then, analysis of a few swabs indicated that SEMTEX was the explosive used by the terrorists.

After the black box was recovered, the investigators concluded that the sharp noise at the end of the tape was clear evidence of a bomb explosion. [23]

“Sound spectrum analysis of cockpit voice recorders has proved to be one of the most effective means for spotting and describing explosive damage.

The Pan Am 103 bombing over Lockerbie left such a detailed explosive signature that the recording alone was evidence of a bomb.”

Please note that, as I explained above, the Washington Post was lying about the “detailed explosive signature” of the last recorded noise. The Lockerbie investigators never made such a claim.

Assistant FBI Director James K. Kallstrom claimed that the TWA 800 tape resembled findings from the 1988 disaster over Lockerbie, Scotland. [24]

From the beginning, James Kallstrom thought that terrorists were responsible.

“The sudden halt to voice transmissions from the cockpit before the explosion was consistent with the pattern of Pan Am 103. So was the mid- air disintegration of the aircraft.”

Vincent Cannistraro — the man who headed the CIA investigation into the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 — repeated the same claim ad nauseam. [25]

“There’s no mechanical event I know of that would cut off everything that suddenly. I don’t have much doubt that it’s an act of sabotage,” Cannistraro said.

“There was a normal conversation and then a crunching sound like the airplane breaking up. That was the bomb.”

“A massive catastrophic event that cuts off everything at once is probably a bomb, not a mechanical problem.”

A few seconds before the disintegration of TWA 800, several radars recorded an anomaly. [26]

“Investigators were particularly perplexed by a small blip that appeared near the jet on radar screens just before the crash.”

When asked why a terrorist organisation would bomb a plane and not take credit for the act, Assistant FBI Director James K. Kallstrom simply answered [27] :

“it doesn’t matter whether anyone claimed credit or not. The event in itself is a public statement. No one claimed credit for Pan Am 103.”

And then, bit by bit, all the ‘evidence’ went away.

On May 10, 1999, Senator Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) held a one-day hearing with witnesses offering damaging testimony about the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s role in the TWA 800 probe. [28]

Grassley’s  opening remarks were particularly critical of former FBI Assistant Director James Kallstrom for failing to uncover the cause of the explosion that killed the jumbo jet’s 230 passengers and crew on July 17, 1996.

Grassley’s hearing focused on two star witnesses. One was Andrew Vita, assistant director of field operations for the Bureau of  Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (BATF).

The second was William A. Tobin, former chief metallurgist for the FBI. Both supported Grassley’s claim that Kallstrom needlessly prolonged the probe.

Vita testified that several months into the investigation the BATF concluded there was no evidence that high explosives caused TWA 800’s mid-air disintegration.

In late January, 1997, Vita put the BATF’s views in an unsolicited, written report to be submitted to the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB).

But, Vita testified, he “met resistance” from the FBI. Grassley discovered that Kallstrom had suppressed the report and never forwarded it to the NTSB.

Tobin testified that Kallstrom adamantly believed a bomb destroyed TWA 800.

When traces of the high explosives PETN and RDX  were found on the aircraft, Tobin says Kallstrom claimed it was proof of a bomb. Tobin thought otherwise.

About six weeks into the probe, Tobin testified, he decided there was no evidence of terrorist act and told Kallstrom the crash was an accident.

So, whatever happened to the pitting and the SEMTEX evidence?

“The operation of the salt on the metal causes pitting, and there was concern that such pitting caused by the salt could obscure or be confused with the pitting normally caused by high explosives.”

It was alleged that there may have been a canine bomb-detection test carried out on TWA 800.

Still the mystery remains how such casual contamination could have left traces of explosive after weeks of immersion in salt water.

Both FBI laboratory and independent scientific tests show that water washes away all traces of high explosives within 24 hours.

So this SEMTEX evidence was at best the result of contamination or, possibly, fabricated evidence.

And of course, in both Pan Am 103 and TWA 800, the front part of the plane detached from the rest of the aircraft… Just at the infamous Section 41/42.

Conclusions

The Cockpit Voice Recorder of Pan Am Flight 103 did not record the noise of an explosion and the two black boxes stopped working at the same time.

The conclusion is rather straightforward: the nose of the plane detached from the rest of the aircraft, cutting off power to the Black Boxes, the CVR and the Flight Data Recorder.

The disintegration in flight of Pan Am Flight 103 resulted from a massive mechanical failure due to the well-known weakening of Sections 41 and 42 by metal fatigue.

In the early 80’s, Boeing  knew that the 747 airliners had serious fatigue-cracking problems.

With the crash of Air India 182 — also falsely blamed on terrorism — they learned that the problem of Sections 41 and 42 was deadly serious.

The tragedies of Pan Am 103 and TWA 800 followed because the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) — the agency responsible for the regulation and oversight of civil aviation within the U.S. — never had the authority, let alone the courage, to regulate Boeing.

Pierre Salinger (June 14, 1925 – October 16, 2004) served as the seventh White House Press Secretary for United States Presidents John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson.

After leaving politics, Salinger became known for his work as an ABC News correspondent, particularly for his coverage of Pan Am Flight 103 and TWA Flight 800.

In both cases, Salinger promoted wild conspiracy theories.

In a November 1989 report for ABC’s Prime Time Live, Salinger claimed that Iran had paid Syria and Ahmed Jibril, the head of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command (PFLP-GC), to carry out the Pan Am 103 bombing.

During a press conference held on November 7 1996, Pierre Salinger stated he had proof that TWA 800 was shot down by a missile, and the incident was being covered up by the government.

Shortly before his death, Salinger boasted that he had been paid USD 5 million to introduce this conspiracy theory into the public domain.

Who would pay such an amount for a conspiracy theory? And why?

Obviously someone who did not want the public to know that the old Boeing 747 had a serious problem with Section 41/42.and that, in the span of a few years, three Boeing 747 have disintegrated in flight due to structural mechanical failure.

As an astute journalist wrote after the crash of Air India 182,

“One thing however is worrying aviation observers in India and abroad, and that is the time being taken to complete the inquiry and inform an eagerly waiting aviation world about the reasons which caused Kanishka (Air India 182) to break up.

The whole industry has huge stakes in the Boeing 747 and if, for example, it were found that structural defects or fatigue had caused the crash, the repercussions for world airlines would be disastrous.

All 747’s would have to be grounded and checked for structural fatigue.”

The truth would have destroyed Boeing’s prestige and the company would have been unable to compete with the European Airbus if all 747’s had been grounded for immediate repair.

And thus, Boeing simply gambled on the life of trusting innocent passengers and diverted the blame for these tragedies on imaginary terrorists.

Boeing airliners are so important to the export of US soft power and American geopolitics that a US president once declared that he was the real CEO of the company.

It is hardly a secret that anything Boeing wants from the White House, Boeing gets from the White House.

Logic led us to the Truth. But, in some (head) quarters, Logic is an enemy and Truth is a menace.

Lockerbie — Three Decades of Lies: J’Accuse…!

Chapter X : What Really Happened to Pan Am Flight 103?

I wish to dedicate this story to FBI’s former chief metallurgist, William Tobin.

I wish to tell you an anecdote about Tobin but first I will give you the New York Times version of this event. [29]

But William A. Tobin, a forensic metallurgist who retired from the F.B.I. a year, ago said that the bureau was determined to find a bomb or missile and was blind to everything else.

After an F.B.I. lab made its third finding of traces of an explosive in the wreckage, he said, ”I was approached in a very excited manner and the statement was, ‘We’ve got it, we’ve got it, it’s confirmed.’ ”

Mr. Tobin said the official who approached him, Mr. Kallstrom, was ”in a very agitated, or hyper-emotional state.” Mr. Tobin said that he argued that the plane itself showed no sign of blast from explosives.

”He got about six inches from my face and he proceeded to advise me in rather graphic terms that it was a bomb,” Mr. Tobin said.

Eventually, investigators concluded that the traces were either from explosive samples used for testing dogs that sniff out bombs, or from soldiers who had flown in the plane.

And this is what actually happened. During a presentation of the investigation, Kallstrom claimed that TWA 800 had been destroyed by a bomb located in an overhead-bin.

Tobin asked Kallstrom the following question.

“Are you telling us that the bomb that destroyed the aircraft was located in a bin that was recovered in one piece?”

Kallstrom approached him, spat in his face and replied:

“That is exactly what I said and that is what happened.”

I truly believe that TWA 800 would have been just an other Lockerbie if it was not for the competence and courage of William Tobin.

Lockerbie — Three Decades of Lies: J’Accuse…!

Chapter X : What Really Happened to Pan Am Flight 103?

REFERENCES

1) See: Intel Today — What they say about us

2)  Book of John, chapter VIII, verse 32. The CIA headquarters has this bible verse etched in the wall of the building. It is the unofficial motto of the CIA.

3) President Harry S Truman argued that the CIA should be disbanded.

4) Noel Koch in ‘Shadow over Lockerbie’ — Chapter 8 — The Malta Connection

5) Peter Fraser pins colours to the mast — The Lockerbie Case

6) Richard Marquise — Scotbom

7) M.M. Charles et al., Report on the Accident to Boeing 747-121, N739PA at
Lockerbie, Dumfiesshire, Scotland on 21 December 1988, Air Accidents Investigation
Branch, Department of Transport, Aircraft Accident Report 2/90, HMSO, 1990.

8) Mach Stem — John Ashton

9) Tom Thurman

10) CIA Psychic viewers

11) Wikipedia

12) Lockerbie trial statistics

13) Dr Douse

14) See John Ashton

15) Gordon McMillen

16) AAIB Report Fig.

17)  WP Aug 21 1996

18) AAIB 2.3.2 Cockpit Voice Recorders

19) Plane history

20) BOOK: PLANE TRUTH – Carl A. Davies

21) AAIB

22) Washington Post May 9 1999

23) WP Aug 21 1996

24) Kallstrom — FBI Sought to Suppress Report on TWA Crash TWA Flight 800 By Michael Grunwald Washington Post (Sunday, May 9, 1999)

25) TWA JET’S BLACK BOX REVEALS CLUE By James Rutenberg and Wendell Jamieson — NEW YORK DAILY NEWS (July 26, 1996) (Updated: Feb. 7, 2012)

26) radar blip — ‘Possibility of Criminal Act,’ Says U.S. Aviation Official By Lawrence Malkin, International Herald Tribune (July 20, 1996)

27) Kallstrom — TWA Debris Yields More Explosive By RICHARD A. SERRANO (AUG. 31, 1996)

28)  Senator Charles Grassley — FBI Sought to Suppress Report on TWA Crash

29) Kanishka disaster: ‘Black box’ recovered, investigators to probe what caused the crash — India Today (Aug 15 1985)

30) Investigators Describe a Stubborn F.B.I. at Hearing on Jet Explosion — NYT (May 11 1999)

==

Lockerbie — Three Decades of Lies: J’Accuse…! [Chapter X : What Really Happened to Pan Am Flight 103?]