The Lockerbie Incident – Pan Am flight 103, Part I

Few days ago we were discussing some events with my friends and one of them said what a life’s irony would be to get home after a miserable day at office, make yourself a cup of tea and then die few minutes afterwards, while you were waiting for your tea to cool down, by an airplane crashing on your garden’s table in the middle of nowhere. Shortly laughing at the point my friend made, already feeling bad about it, I quickly searched the Lockerbie airplane crash to discover it happened on 21st December 1988. That was enough to set me off, I dug into it as soon as I came home.

A quick look at the numbers involved in this event reveals:

Flight No. 103, happened on 21.12.1988, involved was Boeing 747-121 type, 243 passengers, 16 crew, 11 more victims when airplane crashed into populated area of Lockerbie, Scotland (located at latitude 55°07′ N, longitude 03°21′ W), all victims 270, out of whom are 189 US citizens (which is exactly 70% of all victims). Looking at all these numbers would suggest that Lockerbie was chosen as a site for its »55« meaning connection to death in general when considering number »5« numerologically, with longitude numbers as »3 3« indicating a »good spot« for the site. Further, winter solstice as a event’s marker would suggest it symbolizes »a new beggining« suggesting deaths involved would be seen/pushed as a sacrifice of a significant military victory following it (as we know, Reagan was already waging a war with Libya in 1988 with what is known as »Operation El Dorado Canyon«. The war that made its reasons in preceding Berlin disco bombing in 1986, where 3 US soldiers were killed as MSM suggests, done by Libyans of course and for which US investigators were able to confirm Libya’s responsibility in just 9 days. As it seems, few of this events are interconnected, flight 103 included, with high probability about such claim). All victims count of 270 would add to 9 (2+7), with US victims number adding to 9 as well (1+8+9=18=1+8=9), which would suggest some sinister meaning to matching this two numbers to some others as well (Boeing 747=>7+4+7=18=1+8=9 , 243 passengers ; 2+4+3=9, 16 + 11 other victims; 27=2+7=9, making all together 5 x 9 mentioned in the Wickedpedia text about it . Interesting enough, 5 multiplied by 9 equals 45, which adds to 4+5=9 . All this was enough for me to try to see if any alternative explanation of the event can be found, with numbers / numerology suggesting I would discover real victims and orchestrated event.

Pan Am Flight 103 was a regularly scheduled Pan Am transatlantic flight from Frankfurt to Detroit via London and New York. On 21st December 1988 the aircraft was allegedly destroyed by a bomb, killing all 243 passengers and 16 crew, in what became known as the Lockerbie bombing. Large sections of the aircraft crashed onto residential areas of Lockerbie, Scotland, killing 11 more people on the ground, all together killing 270 people.

Following a three-year joint investigation by Dumfries and Galloway Constabulary and the US Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), arrest warrants were issued for Abdel Baset al-Megrahi and Al Amin Khalifa Fhimah, Libyan nationals, in November 1991. In 1999, Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi handed over the two men for trial at Camp Zeist, Netherlands, after protracted negotiations and UN sanctions. In 2001, Libyan intelligence officer Abdel Baset al-Megrahi[i] was jailed for life after being found guilty of 270 counts of murder in connection with the bombing. In August 2009, he was released by the Scottish government on compassionate grounds after being diagnosed with prostate cancer. He died in May 2012, the only person to be convicted for the attack. He had continually asserted his innocence.

There is huge controversy when it comes to trials of the accused al-Megrahi and official investigation of Pan Am 103 flight and it comes from at least two aspects. As al-Megrahi is believed to be the single perpetrator of the incident, we will look into who we are made to  believe al-Megrahi really is. We will as well look into publications / statements of dr. Hans Koechler (Köchler in original), a UN appointed international observer to the issue of Pan Am 103 flight, who publicly introduced condemning doubt in connection to investigation, trials and truth about those. Covering these, we will further look into at some of the pictures published and try to see what they can tell us, concluding this essay with some thoughts in general.

Part I – What actually brought the airplane down?

 

Starting with controversy without looking at any pictures while at it, trying to answer what actually brought flight 103 down, let me introduce some Koechler’s quotes (source). I’d in particular like you to focus on 4 out of 20 observations here, statements he personally made public which are rarely found in the MSM articles/TV coverage on Pan Am 103 incident / trials:

»4. As far as the material aspects of due process and fairness of the trial are concerned, the presence of at least two representatives of a foreign government in the courtroom during the entire period of the trial was highly problematic. The two state prosecutors from the US Department of Justice were seated next to the prosecution team. They were not listed in any of the official information documents about the Court’s officers produced by the Scottish Court Service, yet they were seen talking to the prosecutors while the Court was in session, checking notes and passing on documents. For an independent observer watching this from the visitors’ gallery, this created the impression of “supervisors” handling vital matters of the prosecution strategy and deciding, in certain cases, which documents (evidence) were to be released in open court or what parts of information contained in a certain document were to be withheld (deleted).

6. Another, though less serious, problem in regard to due process was the presence of foreign nationals on the side of the defense team in the courtroom during the whole period of the trial. Apart from the presence of an Arab interpreter (which was perfectly reasonable under aspects of fairness and efficiency of the proceedings), the presence of a Libyan lawyer who had held high posts in the Libyan government and who represented the Libyan Jamahiriya in its case v the United States and the United Kingdom at the International Court of Justice gave the trial a political aspect that should have been avoided by decision of the panel of judges. Though Mr. Maghour acted officially as Libyan defense lawyer for the accused Libyan nationals and although he was not seen by the undersigned as interacting with the Scottish defense lawyers during court proceedings, he had to be perceived as a kind of liaison official in a political sense. It has to be noted that the original Libyan defense lawyer, Dr. Ibrahim Legwell (chosen by the two suspects long before their transfer to the Netherlands), resigned under protest when the Libyan government introduced Mr. Maghour as new defense lawyer for the two accused. In sum, the presence of de facto governmental representatives of both sides in the courtroom gave the trial a highly political aura that should have been avoided by all means, at least as far as the actual proceedings in the courtroom were concerned. Again, as to the undersigned’s knowledge, the presence of foreign nationals on the side of the defense team was mentioned in no official briefing document of the Scottish Court Service.

7. It was a consistent pattern during the whole trial that − as an apparent result of political interests and considerations − efforts were undertaken to withhold substantial information from the Court. One of the most obvious cases in point was that of the former Libyan double agent, Abdul Majid Giaka, and the CIA cables related to him. Some of the cables were finally released after much insistence from the part of the defense, some were never made available. The Court was apparently content with this situation, which is hard to understand for an independent observer. It may never be fully known up to which extent relevant information was hidden from the Court. The most serious case, however, is related to the special defense launched by defense attorneys Taylor and Keen. It was officially stated by the Lord Advocate that substantial new information had been received from an unnamed foreign government relating to the defense case. The content of this information was never revealed, the requested specific documents were never provided by a foreign government. The alternative theory of the defense − leading to conclusions contradictory to those of the prosecution − was never seriously investigated. Amid shrouds of secrecy and “national security” considerations, that avenue was never seriously pursued − although it was officially declared as being of major importance for the defense case. This is totally incomprehensible to any rational observer. By not having pursued thoroughly and carefully an alternative theory, the Court seems to have accepted that the whole legal process was seriously flawed in regard to the requirements of objectivity and due process.

8. As a result of this situation, the undersigned has reached the conclusion that foreign governments or (secret) governmental agencies may have been allowed, albeit indirectly, to determine, to a considerable extent, which evidence was made available to the Court

All of this leaves a rational mind just numb, some of us who already managed to see through the fog government officially represents would though acknowledge the fact as it is not that surprising to see the judiciary system fail when it comes to protecting the commoners. Actually, such system failure became the trademark of democratic fascist society, globally exported by all those supposedly developed nations of – as opposite of the 3rd world – the 1st (Developed) World. Let me now touch on another subject before returning to Koechler himself.

There is another controversy about this aspect of the flight 103 incident and the actual reason for mid-air disintegration, that I was not able to find published anywhere except in the official Pan Am 103 flight crash report by Air Accidents Investigation Branch, a UK government agency (source here). When the airplane’s black box /air-flight recorder was examined there were several unexplained things discovered. Among them:

»It is not clear if the recorded sound is the result of the explosion or is from the break-up 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.«

(I would again encourage readers to take all links involved in this blog post and learn about it themselves as sources reveal much more details about the mechanism of this whole event) .

This is something that early on in official report suggests in particular – that we should read it with utmost attention. Reading few pages on in the same report, at the page #36, there is the last paragraph on the particular page, reading as:

»The items used to define the datum line included those exhibiting positive evidence of a detonating high performance plastic explosive, would have been the first pieces to have been released from the aircraft. The datum line was projected westwards until intersected the known radar track  of the aircraft in order to derive the position of the aircraft along track at which the explosive items were released and therefore the position at which the IED had detonated. This position was OS grid reference 146786 and is annotated point C in Appendix B, Figure B-4. Point C was well within the circle of th position at which the loud noise was heard on the CVR (point B). There can, therefore, be no doubt that the loud noise was directly associated with the detonation of the IED and that this explosion initiated the disintegration process and directly caused the loss of the aircraft.«

As direct as this conclusion about the bomb is, there is another controversial section of the same report (at page C-1, Appendix C) that directly refutes the possibility that a SINGLE bomb would have been able to do both – tear the airplane’s fuselage apart so violently, that the CVR recorder would have lost all 4 active power sources at the same time (as well as battery power source located in the cockpit) and open the fuselage only at one side of the fuselage as the investigation showed (opening only 20-inch hole when exploded). In addition to separate (redundant) power sources meant to avoid power loss of crucial cockpit equipment there was another battery installed within the cockpit to take care of possible power loss on all »active« power sources. However, the CVR was still not able to record any sound similar to bomb exploding and more over, the report indicates that sensors connected to the recording procedure would all have to become dysfunctional within milliseconds of the explosion/power disruption in order to be able to reproduce mechanism of the findings.

To cut a long story short, it seems as if even the investigators were scratching their heads trying to figure out how the airplane got disintegrated in the mid-air. As much as it could be assumed that single explosive device was the actual cause, there are at least 3 concerns about this »a bomb did it« hypothesis that any serious investigation should answer about:

1)      no single bomb would be / is able to produce both a) evident damage to the fuselage (the disruption of the passenger floor across its entire width[ii], which disrupted the power supply) and b) »just« 20-inch (510 mm) hole that is consistent with such single explosion and

2)      there is an explanation missing to electrical supply disturbance / power loss recorded on black box (CVR) that would be satisfactory.

3)      As well, the main condemning pieces of evidence of the alleged direct bomb blast onboard Pan Am 103 flight were pieces of chemical traces suggesting IED (bomb) was made of plastic explosive compound. It should be established beyond reasonable doubt that such evidence was indeed found among Pan Am 103 debris and not planted there thus preventing the public to learn the truth about the incident[iii].

Knowing that Koechler confirmed unknown officials interfering with evidence and trial in general, I begin to doubt about the source of the condemning evidence of onboard explosion (such as i.e. onboard cargo containers bomb/explosion markings). It might have been as well planted there from some other air-crash that was actually caused by a bomb in mid-air, maybe even produced as such in a controlled environment with no casualties involved in the process of such »evidence« creation. Additionally, that same report suggests (at page C-8 in Appendix B) another »mystical« power disturbance in another airplane accident involving same Boeing 747 airplane type, Air India AI 182 flight. I’d presume and expect that digging into it would reveal anomalies about the true reason for such power loss.

This all unfortunately brings serious doubt about dr. Koechler himself. As Koechler puts it in another statement :

»It is obvious that an intelligence officer alone – from whichever country – was never in a position of planning, financing and carrying out a terrorist act such as the bombing of a large jetliner in midair. It would have been the duty of the Scottish investigating authorities to continue their investigations so as to find out which persons from which country (or countries) actually ordered, financed and carried out the terrorist act.«

With it Koechler refers to the bomb(ing) as if it was true and indirectly confirms it without any reasonable doubt about what actually brought the airplane down. It is hard to imagine that somebody as broad-minded and wise as Koechler doesn’t open the reason for mid-air disintegration of an airplane to discussion and doubt, unless it is his intent and purpose to do so (while cleverly disguised).

To conclude on this part of the event concerning official findings on the investigation – as long as we talk about a crazy Libyan planting a bomb and bringing down a 747, killing 270 people with it, all is under control for the actual perpetrators. I as well let you decide in particular about Koechler on your own, as theorizing about it would bring nothing substantial to this essay but prolong it with irrelevance.

To be continued ….

LINKS:

Official flight 103 report HERE

dr. Hans Koechler statements HERE

[i] Another spelling suggest he was identified as Abdelbaset al-Megrahi

[ii] Official Report Appendix C, page C-8, paragraph i and ii

[iii] Very interesting story about it found here: “From the beginning the case has been shrouded in mysterious goings-on. Evidence at the scene of the crash went missing. Large numbers of US intelligence agents flew up to Scotland, in addition to the legitimate role of FBI agents investigating the fate of the many US citizens who had been on board the flight.

Pan Am records showed that a number of US diplomats cancelled their bookings on Flight 103 from Frankfurt to London at the last moment. There were 159 empty seats on the plane. The security services had gotten wind of a plot and on 5 December warnings were sent to the US embassy in Helsinki that a bomb would be planted on a Pan Am flight from Frankfurt in the next two weeks. Eighty percent of the staff in American embassies who had reserved seats on Pan Am flights out of Frankfurt cancelled their bookings. The bereaved families are still trying to find out why they never heard about the warning. All they have been told is that the warning ‘was a hoax’ and it was a mistake posting it.

Advertisements

4 thoughts on “The Lockerbie Incident – Pan Am flight 103, Part I

  1. Interesting … I still have to read Parts 2,3 and 4. I found myself wondering if it is possible to manufacture an entire crash scene without a real plane … if so, then the judges and investigators would have to be in on the hoax. It’s been done before. We’ve had many large show trials in the US.

    Also, just so you know, as I think you do, any number divisible by nine will add up to nine – it is just the nature of that digit. (45 – 4+5=9), (81, 8+1 =9), (108, 1+8 =9), (1026 – 1+2=6=9), (999 – 9+9+9=26=2+7=9) and so on. I suppose spooks use it due to versatility and the fact that it is also expressed as 3*3. Is it not odd that the same numbers keep popping up again and again and again. Simple law of averages says we need some fours and 2’s and 14’s.

    Like

  2. Hi Mark and welcome! I’ve been wondering about manufactured events since 9/11 event, the “mother of all hoaxes ever” (although we’ve been hoaxed many times before it’s most impressive and arrogant so far). If it can be done on a large scale then minor events (like Lockerbie i.e.) are like a practice done to perfect many aspects to it. What a sick way to live a life, which goes to every single player in that gang of people performing and orchestrating such events. So I very much agree, US hosted many show trials and I’ve read about a few of those as Miles covered them, where he’s torn those clown-shows apart.

    I agree about number 9, it’s an interesting “property” to be aware of when looking at numerological markers. 9 is heavily abused, I would as well connect that fact to 9 being 3 to the power of 2, so 3^3=27 and 3^4=81 and 3^5=243 (the number of alleged onboard victims in Pan Am 103 event, i.e.). So 3, 9, 27, 81, 243, etc, represent some spooky meaning which I did not yet decipher (other than being 3 to the power of n), as it is empirical way that I’m learning about this numerological magick, it may take deconstruction of 9/11 to understand it properly. I don’t know what kind of fetish this particular number 9 represents to TPTB gang, but I understood that once the mother of all hoaxes, 9/11, was done on that particular date, both numbers 9 and 11 must be malevolently sacred to them.

    Like I once mentioned on your blog, I still think shoveling the numbers around and computing some allegedly sinister meaning to it – is crap 🙂 But at the same time, it’s absolutely necessary to learn about it. If one is aware about such markers being used though, it’s so much easier to spot fakery. But that’s all its useful meaning I’m going to attach to it, ever.

    Like

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 )

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s