The Truth about Lockerbie - MartinFrost.ws

A tale of three atrocities
immediate vicinity, including detonator circuits, detonators, and anything as flimsy as fuselage skin. 37 .
If the fuselage skin was melted by a fireball, of course, neither the alleged fragment of recovered
Toshiba circuit board, nor the clothing or Toshiba manual presented in evidence at Megrahi's trial could
have survived the explosion. This explains why the Lockerbie detonator was never found and means all
this evidence must have been planted.
There is a second area where fuselage skin is missing too. This is near the rear of the plane next to a
luggage storage area under the passenger compartment. This luggage compartment was accessed
through a special hatch created as part of the US Civil Reserve Air Fleet (CRAF) programme. Under
CRAF, older Boeing 747 planes were modified to carry military freight containers in case of national
emergency.
When I saw this second missing section of fuselage skin, I could draw no conclusion other than that
there was a second explosion at this location. One possible logical cause would be military material,
but I believe the device was actually a 'insurance' bomb, designed to ensure the aircraft was
destroyed, being carried in the CRAF compartment at the time of the bombing. And, if there was a
second independent explosion, Megrahi cannot be guilty.
There is even more good evidence of two separate explosions in the AAIB report. According to that
document, Flight 103 disintegrated into two debris trails. The southern debris trail was produced when
the IED went off and the plane began to disintegrate. The northern trail over Lockerbie was produced
19.5 seconds later when the aircraft suddenly plunged from 19,000 to 9,000 ft. The AAIB report does
not explain why the plane stopped gliding several seconds after the initial explosion and began to
rapidly lose height. Nor was this dive mentioned in the official Lockerbie report. This plunge must have
occurred when the second blast went off.
That 19.5 seconds was immensely suspicious, because if munitions had accidentally been exploded by
the force of the IED blast, the second explosion would have occurred almost immediately after the first.
So it was no accident – the second blast was deliberately triggered. I now believe the cause of the
additional blast was a CIA 'insurance bomb'. Its purpose was to guarantee no one survived the
bombing, ensuring the Iranians would be completely satisfied with the operation, and the Qesas
condition fulfilled. It would be easy for CIA operatives to attach a detonator to explosive material on the
flight, or introduced a package bomb.
In fact the insurance bomb was not necessary. The effect of the IED alone would have been enough to
destroy the aircraft, as the whole of the forward nose cone was torn off and landed at Tundergarth. But
I think the damage model the CIA used was that of TWA840 of 2nd April 1986, where a device had
punctured a hole in the side of that aircraft, but it remained flyable. Only five lives were lost. The CIA
did not want a miraculous survival of most of the passengers, as the agreement with the Iranians called
for deaths, so they had to introduce a second package bomb. 168 people died in the front – they were
killed by the Iranian's IED. 91 died in the rear of the plane. They were jointly killed by the CIA package
bomb and the Iranian IED. 11 died on the ground. They were killed by the CIA's package bomb,
because if that had not gone off the aircraft would have continued its steep glide into the hills north of
Lockerbie, rural countryside.
To conceal the existence of the CIA device, the bombs needed to trigger around the same time.
However, they were in different locations on the plane. So the insurance bomb had to be triggered
manually. There would have been a CIA agent on the ground where he could receive a clear radar
37 Notes of a video made by me from a video interview with John Parks. Notes made 6/10/09
21