The Truth about Lockerbie - MartinFrost.ws

A tale of three atrocities
Technology Research in Socorro, New Mexico calculated that thirty pounds of explosives was needed
to destroy a plane the size of a Boeing 747 if the bomb was in the hold 36
lThe second explosion
Many years after Lockerbie, I decided to settle down and read the AAIB's report of the Lockerbie
bombing again. Within it, I found some extraordinary claims. For example, it goes out of its way to deny
the possibility of a second explosion. According to the last line of Appendix F-4, “No evidence was
seen to suggest that more than one IED had detonated on Flight PA103”. Why deny the possibility of a
second IED? It also, tellingly, never mentions the words 'suitcase' nor 'radio-cassette'!
After all, the AAIB didn't bother to discount alien involvement! There's a little anecdote here. A stranger
once invited himself – we had no security - to a joint UTA and Lockerbie families meeting at the Russell
Hotel, London and followed me when I popped out to the toilet. He said: “But what about the UFOs?” I
said: “If you believe that, you'll believe anything.” Unfortunately, he ran out into the night before I could
ask whether the UFO incident was a presage to the invasion of Earth – starting in Lockerbie – or was
simply an unfortunate traffic accident between a UFO and a Boeing 747.
Only one person to date has challenged the AAIB about why they actively denied the existence of a
second IED. Mr John Parks, an explosives expert, who volunteered to help after the Lockerbie
bombing, is sceptical about the official account of the blast. In correspondence I have seen, he says
"There is overwhelming evidence to indicate that a minimum of two high explosive events took place
inboard Pan Am 103."
Such a conclusion, if it can be maintained, would destroy any case against Mr Megrahi.
The AAIB report is a wonderful confection – it disguises more than it discusses. So it never says there
wasn't a second bomb on the plane. Instead, it merely states that, if there was more than one bomb,
this bomb was not an IED. So I realised I agreed with Parks in part - there must be a second, different
type of explosion from another source. This is an entirely original reinterpretation of the official reports –
my style of working means I often snap up unconsidered trifles – but initially the idea seemed quite
improbable. So I began to look for the damage the second bomb must have caused.
When the Lockerbie debris was gathered up after the disaster, parts of the recovered aircraft were
taken to the AAIB headquarters at Farnborough Airfield in Hampshire. There a carefully selected
section of the fuselage from the Boeing 747 was pieced back together. Also, within the AAIB's report of
the Lockerbie disaster, there is a diagram illustrating how the whole of the fuselage of Flight 103 was
painstakingly reconstructed.
This diagram shows huge pieces of the Boeing 747's body missing from two locations (see figure
showing white hole in rear and front of plane). The first is above the location of the IED next to baggage
container AVE4041 PA near the front of the plane.
This fuselage skin isn't missing because the search team failed to recover the wreckage from the
ground. Rather, it is characteristic of a brisant explosion where the skin was melted. Parks goes into
this at length. Brisant explosions are created by some modern high explosives which, when they
explode, quickly create a hot fireball, at a temperature of 2000 o C. This consumes everything in the
36 Lockerbie Suitcase Bomb: Scientific Implausibility http://www.docstoc.com/docs/4606643/Lockerbie-
Suitcase-Bomb-Study-by-Ludwig-De-Braeckeleer
20