The watermark “S I B” visible ( Well, at least visible to anyone except to the experts of the CIA and the FBI as explained in: The THURING Board Watermark: FBI Analysis ) on the main board of the MEBO MST-13 timers seems to indicate that these boards were produced by a Swiss branch of the ISOLA Company.
According to a well-informed source, THURING AG always ordered the Copper Clad Laminates from a Swiss branch of ISOLA: Schweizerische Isolawerke AG in Breitenbach. (SIB)
If true (and there is very little doubt about it), this gives rise to yet another enigma.
In early 1990, the resin of a board from ISOLA (Switzerland) was tested and definitely ruled out as the source of PT/35(b)! Let us investigate this anomaly.
After the visit to Ciba Geigy on 8 February, he [Harrower] made contact with a number of companies involved in the production of fibreglass laminate used in the manufacture of PCBs, and obtained samples of the various laminates they produced for comparison with PT/35(b).
He received in total 23 different sample laminates from producers in Europe and the Middle East, which he understood covered all the production companies, and he produced DP/143 (prod 337), a schedule showing the laminate samples and suppliers.
He provided the 23 samples to John French at Ciba on 8 March 1990 for comparative analysis. He later obtained a statement from French of the results of the analysis. (…)
According to French’s HOLMES statement after his analysis of the various samples he found that two types of laminate, Ditron (manufactured in Italy) and Sefolam (manufactured in Israel) were the closest match to the spectrum obtained from DP/12 [NB. DP/12 was extracted from PT/35(b)]
Now you probably remember the MEMO of Williamson dated 03/09/1990.
“The epoxy resin is slightly altered to suit the specific purpose to which the completed PCB will be put, e.g. certain chemicals are added for their fire resistance properties etc. Each laminate manufacturer differs in the type of chemicals and the quantities which they add making their resin slightly different from that of their competitors.” (Page 2)
“On 8th February 1990, John French, Senior Chemist, Research Analysis Department, CIBA GEIGY PIc., Plastics Division, Duxford, Cambridgeshire, carried out a test in an attempt to identify the resin. Ciba Geigy PIc., are one of the worlds largest producers of resin for the PCB industry. Mr. French removed some small fragments from the piece of circuit board and analysed them on an FT-RI (Fourier Transform Infra Red) Spectrometer. This test showed that the laminate was manufactured using a Bisphenol A Epoxy Resin cured with Dicyandiamide which is very commonly used in the industry.”
“The reporting officers thereafter made contact with all companies in Western Europe, Israel, and East Germany, who manufacture copper clad laminates for the PCB industry and obtained samples of their laminates. On 8th March 1990, they returned to Ciba Geigy Plc., and supplied the following samples of laminates to Mr. French for analysis and comparison with Production PT35.”
Among the 23 samples, there are three from ISOLA, including one from ISOLA Switzerland. And yet, the report goes on with this conclusion.
“The results of the test carried out by Mr French were analysed on computer and two types of laminate, Sefolam and Ditron appear to give the closest match to Production PT35. It is worthy to point out at this stage that in the opinion of Mr French the condition of PT35 due to its exposure to extreme heat could have had an effect on the results of the analysis. Also, while the match to the two laminates, Sefolam and Ditron appear very close, this can only be treated as an indication and is in no way conclusive.”
Firstly, Mr French took two spectra of DP/12. And they are very different.– –
Mr French then compared the first of these spectra with the Selofam and Ditron samples and came to the conclusion that there was a possible match.
I will not argue here with that conclusion. Let us just say that it is “reasonable”.
In order to rule out ISOLA, he compared the second spectrum of DP/12 with a spectrum from ISOLA (MILAN) and concluded that there was no match.
OK. Fair enough… But look what happens if you compare ISOLA (SWISS) with the first DP/12 spectrum used for comparison with DITRON and SEFOLAM.
This changes everything for the match is “reasonably” good….
And indeed, I would not be surprised that ISOLA (SWISS) was the supplier of THURING AG [almost a sure bet at this point in time] and that PT/35(b) was built on such a board, although as I have explained [DP/10 : Evidence of Fabricated Proof?], one that was built some time AFTER the MST-13 boards were fabricated.
Let us now move to the TIMELINE of PT/35(b) PART V
4 March 1992
According to their HOLMES statements, on this date McAdam and Buwert travelled to Ciba Geigy and interviewed John French, who removed from DP/347(a) a small sample, DP/505 (Crown label 407) to allow infrared spectrometry, and a spectrum, DP/506 (prod 346) was produced. Mr French then examined DP/12, a sample removed from PT/35(b), and subjected it to the same test as had been done for DP/505, and produced another spectrum, again labelled DP/506 (prod 346). French’s conclusions were included in his statement.
According to the police report the result of French’s analysis was that both samples from PT/35(b) and from DP/347(a) showed bisphenol A epoxy resin cured with dicyandiamide, both samples being made from chemically similar materials. The manuscript statement of French was prod 358.
He stated that on comparing the results, he was prepared to say that the sample was constructed using the same type of resin as the sample taken from PT/35(b). The same curing agent had been used, and both samples had been made using chemically similar materials. He said it was not possible to state that they had been made by the same manufacturer.
Of course, the real question put to Mr French should have been: do PT/35(b) and DP/347(a) come from an identical copper clad laminate?
Let us simply look at the IR Spectra once more time.
The answer to this question is simply devastating. It is a resounding NO.
PT/35(b) and DP/347(a) come from two “similar” but clearly different copper clad laminates. For instance, notice the presence of the 2200 cm-1 absorption line in the DP/347(a) spectrum which is obviously absent from the spectrum of PT/35(b).
Let us summarize…
I. The “Thinning” of PT/35(b) is wrong. (Pure Tin vs Tin/Lead for the Thuring boards).
II. The density of the copper nodules on the “Matte” side of the copper foil is evidence that PT/35(b) was built on a copper clad laminate manufactured well after the time the THURING boards delivered to MEBO in 1985 had been produced.
III. The epoxy resins used in PT/35(b) and in the Thuring boards are obviously different. (Probably to take advantage of the higher density of the copper nodules in PT/35(b) as noted above.)
As the Yanks like to say:
Three strikes and you are out.
Statement of witness: Albert FRENCH