The Lockerbie Incident – Pan Am flight 103, Part III

Part III – Lockerbie bombing

When you introduce the word »bomb« into one’s mind, bombarding him/her with the term in newspaper articles and TV news flash, with a picture such as this :


…your mind doesn’t get suspicious seeing this as a consequence of huge explosion, does it? That’s just how it is supposed to look, right? I mean, we’ve all watched movies back then and TV was flashing us with war zone coverage from the Iran-Iraq War, Palestine fighting back Israel, Invasion of Grenada, Arab-Israeli Conflict, Lebanon War, Falklands War, Soviet war in Afghanistan, Salvadoran Civil War, South African Border War, etc… (the list is just shocking to comprehend). So we should have no doubt that this picture represents a crater made by kerosene explosion.They’ve said so on TV, right? And they’ve said so in all newspapers that one crazy Libyan can be responsible for something like this (+270 dead people), so you should have no doubt about it again. Or do you, just as I do too, doubt about all this Lockerbie bombing event?

In the picture above is Sherwood Crescent, part of Lockerbie town area where as the story goes, 91,000 kg of fuel apparently landed and exploded. We see a large cylindrical hole in the ground, but very little charring if any. This remark goes especially for the part of this half-tunnel, closer to us in lower middle focus, like if some magical curtain would prevent fireball from reaching it. Houses in the immediate vicinity are unscathed, first such white house just above the half-tunnel seems to have furthest window glass to the left intact. I’m not an expert on explosives nor did I ever witness an explosion of 91.000 kg of kerosene, but I suggest all window glass in town should have been shattered due to a compressed air wave following such enormous explosion. Same would be suggested for the red car that can be noticed  just above the half-tunnel, with his rear window still inside the chassis (it looks broken, but not shattered).

Here is the picture, that many sources tagged as »photo most associated with Pan Am 103 flight« :


First thing I wondered about is just how could a front window glass of a cockpit, that fell from 31.000 feet stay attached to the cockpit chassis? With glass below the chassis even touching the ground although it came to full stop in split second as it touched the ground? Really? This glass is for sure made by the same factory that made that red car’s windows, must be some meteorite proof add-on option .

Aerial picture (capture from this video) of the cockpit part of the fuselage shows:


Here are two more, in black&white version as I couldn’t find any color version of the same pictures (or any decent aerial picture of the crash site, actually), but it is enough to show my point:



There we have three pictures of the remains of the cockpit / flight deck of Pan Am flight 103 from some elevated point (what are those cracks on Earth’s surface in B&W pictures anyway?), enough to see that such piece of metal came to stop in the same and relatively small area where it first hit the ground. No bouncing, no falling apart, no window glass shattering, it simply hit the ground with estimated 120 kts weighing approximately 17.500 lb (7.937 kg) and got squashed to approximately half of its original size (page #35, Official report here). With the force of impact we can only imagine, I think the flight deck should have a) moved/bounced at least  enough to notice it on the ground and b) been much more damaged, which especially applied to window glass . Although the Official report said the flight deck had no obvious horizontal speed at the moment of impact, the Earth’s surface does move as it rotates. It shure looks more like flight deck was dropped from some elevation, not to high above the ground though, as in example from a crane:


Oh, excuse me, I made an error here, that is a picture of a crane removing the cockpit section afterwards. But it may look as if it was just prepared to drop though, doesn’t it?  I would really like to be on the opposite side of the flight deck than shown here above, its remains look to nicely modeled as if it was prefabricated to look like wreckage.


Above is the picture of flight deck’s interior, evidently flight deck’s fuselage got stripped of everything because of the force of impact. Surprisingly enough, rust can be seen on the chassis pillars in the left of focus, something I wasn’t expecting to see on a 747 jet airliner flying regular oversea roundabouts until few hours before this picture was made. Notice that quite substantial volume of this squashed flight deck is filled with rubble coming from itself, all shredded to rather small pieces, which makes me wonder about the mechanism of this shredding process. What I can conclude after all, those pieces must have been shredded only after the deck made a touchdown for sure or else they would have been blown away by that monstrous wind capable of carrying heavy pieces of fuselage for miles and miles, right? I presume as well this is the main reason, the shredding effect, that we can find no explicit or less explicit pictures of Pan Am 103 victims at the crash site.

But then there is more to the story of cockpit / flight deck of what was once known as Clipper Maid of the Seas. As it can be read and learned in Official report , page #16, last paragraph on that page reads as:

»The complete fuselage forward of approximately station 480 (left side) to station 380 (right side) and incorporating the flight deck and nose landing gear was found as a single piece (Appendix B, Figure B-9) in a field approximately 4km miles east of Lockerbie at OS Grid Reference 174808. It was evident from the nature of the impact damage and the ground marks that it had fallen almost flat on its left side but with a slight nose down attitude and with no discernible horizontal velocity. The impact had caused almost complete crushing of the structure on the left side. The radome and right nose landing gear door had detached in the air and were recovered in the southern trail.«

(There is more details about the timeline in the Official report, where we can learn that nose section / flight deck of the airplane was the first piece to fall to the ground).

A huge inconsistency with the official story is already evident, how could a 21-inch hole (blown to the right side of the airplane by alleged bomb) tear it apart in several pieces? By what mechanism? Is there something more to this Official report and its appendices that would explain it in appropriate manner? Most certainly so :


I’ve taken this graphics depicting spots where debris was found to show how irrational this theory looks when looked from a birds perspective. As the alleged bomb goes off (or as the sound is heard on the CVR flight recorder), the airplane is at point B , taking a nose-down dive from 31.000 feet to approximately 19.000 feet, where it begins to disintegrate,  two major portions of the wreckage fell on the town of Lockerbie and other large parts, including the flight deck and forward fuselage section, landed in the countryside to the east of the town. A larger, dark, delta shaped object, resembling an aircraft wing, landed at about the same time Sherwood area of the town. The delta shaped object was not on fire while in the air, however, a very large fireball ensued which was of short duration and carried large amounts of debris into the air, the lighter particles being deposited several miles downwind. (The wind is reported as upper winds of 250° and 260° and decreased in strength from 115kt at Flight Level 320 / Flight Level 310 was 103’s designated flight level of 31.000 feet/ to 60kt at FL 100 and 15kt-20kt at the surface). Debris from the aircraft was strewn along two trails, one of which extended some 130 km to the east coast of England (page #3, Official Report). (For practical purposes the trails of debris ended at a range of approximately 25 km, beyond which only items of low weight / high drag were found).

Just amazing how far the debris allegedly flew with no propulsion attached to it, aided just with atmospherical wind conditions. Surprisingly, the delta shaped object – wing section with 91.000 kg of kerosene – was not set on fire by alleged bomb explosion or disintegration process only to explode at the touchdown. So what exactly was the mentioned fireball fueled with if not by jet fuel? By what kind of physics can the debris be flown up to 25 km (and even 130 km to the east coast of England) aided by wind only ? Aircraft was traveling at approximately 500 kt at the moment the alleged bomb exploded, taking a nose-down dive first, disintegrating while at descent, so allegedly flight deck landed on the ground with no significant horizontal movement. Shouldn’t the same principle stand firm for all other debris (except some paper, interior trim parts and insulation pieces maybe) ? Why and how would the flight deck be landed farther from the Heathrow airport where it originated than largest part of the fuselage? What is the physics behind it,  mechanism to explain it? If aircraft is more-or-less in one piece, taking a nose-down dive at the point when the alleged bomb exploded, starting to disintegrate while there was much less (or none) horizontal movement involved, what is the explanation for a 25 km long trail of debris? Is it actually possible to have Earth’s (not i.e. Jupiter’s) atmospherical winds carrying pieces of substantial weight such as :



…to deposit them up to 25 km in downwind direction? With no random scattering of falling debris? Such pieces of wreckage could be easily deployed i.e. by pushing them out of a cargo aircraft, such as Lockheed C-5 Galaxy, capable of carrying up to 118 tonnes of cargo. Weight of empty Boeing 747-121 is given as approximately 168,2 tonnes, meaning we’d need to deploy two of those C-5’s, thus delivering two parallel wreckage lines consistent with findings on the ground. Possible? As much as winds carrying that mass of wreckage for miles, but possibly much more probable, I’d say. With the remark, that order of found wreckage debris on the ground matches only to the order of wreckage piece as they were loaded into the aircraft carrying it. First in-last out or something like that.

Let’s look at some pictures of the alleged devastation left by the impact of wing section, which hit Lockerbie’s Sherwood Crescent. Here is the impact site :


Why is earth / dirt not charred at all? 91.000 kg of kerosene explodes exactly at this spot yet there is no visible remains of a devastating fire? Not even rocks have any marks of heat or char? I wonder if anybody thought of taking some dirt samples and analysing those for chemical residues. If so, I’d really like to read such report about it.

Let me introduce some more angles of the same crater / half-tunnel :


Interesting enough the road was not significantly damaged, one may argue even that the road was not damaged at all. Looking at the bunch of curious guys below, where they are standing on that particular road very close to the crater’s edge, it looks intact. Again, like if a mysterious curtain was preventing the enormous blast of 91.000 kg of kerosene from damaging the road. Oh, wait, I forgot, we already have that curtain installed at the last third of the half-tunnel. All clear.


Those pictures sure have more of a construction site feeling to them than some serious crime scene investigation site. But not to be rude, there was some effort invested by the investigators at the crime scene:


Just what in the world is this fireman doing? And what did water jet hit changing the angle of it? I just can’t see it there.

To be continued…

(in the meanwhile, just be careful, you never know when an airplane may fall on your head)



2 thoughts on “The Lockerbie Incident – Pan Am flight 103, Part III

  1. Man, YOU are really a complete idiot. So, your very clever method of coming clother to something called “truth” is to take a look on the photographs from the official crash investigators (BTW. not very clever to publish these shots, if its all a big lie – just saying^^). Then you point on things in these photos you don’t understand. But your conclusion of things you don’t understand is not to think about the possibility that you are just clueless nobody. NO! Your conclusion is that something must be very, very suspicious about this incident. In every word of you it becomes very clear that you simply have no clue about anything, I would suggest you are a little bit mentally retarded, isn’t it? All of your points are just so stupid and laughable. The fireman water jet photo is clearly the strongest evidence, that this was all staged 😀 Man: get a life, a girlfriend or at least a job – instead of wasting the internet with your YouTube University graduate thoughts.


    1. Your logic is really beautiful. The point of showing that the pictures were / are doctored is exactly the opposite of your suggestion. Your choice of words is even more telling, as if I made you really angry by disclosing a certain scam. Are you sure that it was the Lockerbie case that pissed you off? I have a gut feeling you chose this post of mine to give your barking an echo just for the purpose of barking for what it really is. I guess hearing your voice makes you a bit more courageous and at the same time it proves that barking dogs really can’t bite.

      Now, go learn some manners, kiddo.


Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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