The Chad Device: CIA REPORT. P7

Here is page 7

DE53-07

COMMENT

Do you remember the Senegal Timer and the CIA cables about it?

DE51-3

 

To be continued…

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Chad, CIA, MEBO. Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to The Chad Device: CIA REPORT. P7

  1. Craig says:

    I’ve just read the following comment by Herr Bollier of MEBO posted on PT35b facebook page
    https://www.facebook.com/pt35b
    ————————————————
    “Edwin Bollier About the Chad Device CIA REPORT P5 > This is a intentionally providing false information from CIA ! . In this illustrated device No. 85SP002, it is not a Radio-Controlled FIRING System, or to an improvised explosive device (IED) !

    This equipment depicted is a product of MEBO Ltd., and is only a VHF pager command receiver without detonators and explosives !
    Such equipment, inside with Motorola pager receiver, was together with command VHF transmitter case’s (without detonator and explosives) developed for the Libyan military in Chad and also sold to the DDR State Security Service (STASI).

    MEBO Ltd never acted with detonators or explosives !
    by Edwin Bollier, MEBO Ltd. Telecommunication Switzerland. Webpage: http://www.lockerbie.ch
    Yesterday at 01:01″
    ———————————————

    It’s seems very surprising the aforementioned strongly held view was not also protested by Herr Bollier at trial so many years ago.
    The following questions put to the Crown witness, Herr Bollier enjoying immunity are related to the CIA report 85SP002 which is Production 285 at trial.

    I can’t understand why the Crown witness, Herr Bollier didn’t offer up any protest at trial either about the report itself or the information content.
    Seems an extraordinary long time to pass to now begin to object and protest the validity of something when one could have objected 25 years ago.

    Let’s review Herr Bollier’s answers to the CIA 85SP002 report, can you see any objection or protest ?
    —————————————————-

    Q Before we come to the modifications, can I understand this: Did you supply pagers manufactured by the Motorola company?
    A That is correct.

    Q Would you look for me, please, at a document which will be shown to you on the screen,
    Production 285. And to begin with, can we look at image 1. Do you see that this is a document which is a technical analysis of an item described as a radio-controlled firing device? Do you see that that is the heading?
    A Yes, I can see that.

    Q And do you see that in its introduction it sets out to describe: an improvised explosive device packaged in a standard attache case. The IED, the initials for improvised explosive device, consisted of six 2.5 kilogram packages of Semtex-H plastic explosive, each with a detonator wired to a radio-controlled firing device.” Do you see that?
    A Yes, I see that.

    Q The introduction continues: “Included were two radio-controlled firing device units comparable to that controlling the initial improvised explosive device, an RF actuator to remotely trigger these two radio-controlled firing devices, two packages [3702] of Semtex-H explosive, two detonators, and a timing device.”
    A Yes, I see that.

    Q And would you look now, please, to page 4. And do you see in the paragraph which is headed “System Description,” the third of the subparagraphs reads as follows: “The radio-controlled firing device is based on a Motorola Pageboy 2 paging receiver, modified to provide a switched output when a properly encoded signal is received.” Do you see that?
    A I see that, yes.

    Q Could we scroll the picture down a little, please. Do we see there a photograph, figure 4, with the description, “Prototype radio-controlled firing device”?
    A I see that, yes.

    Q And do we see attached to the exterior of the device a terminal block, such as the one we just looked at?
    A That is correct.

    Q Could we turn to page 7, please. And could we look — thank you. Do we see again figure 9, which we’ll need to [3703] scroll down a little for. Thank you.
    A Yes, I see that.

    Q And we see the terminal block again and a switch?
    A Yes, I see that.

    Q And the explanation above it reads as follows: “On the side of the unit, a quick-connect speaker terminal block is mounted, as seen in the detail of figure 9. The terminals are marked “Fuse” with Dymo-type label tape and provide the switched output voltage to the electric detonators. A red light-emitting diode (LED) is mounted in the centre of the terminal block to provide an indication when the internal output relay closes upon actuation of the paging receiver.”
    A I see that. That is correct.

    Q And could we look at page 8, please. And do we see at the bottom the description reads as follows: “The internal components in the radio-controlled firing device are shown in figure 11. The receiver is a Motorola Pageboy 2 paging receiver, modified by the manufacturer to provide an open-collector switched output rather than the normal audio transducer.” Is that correct? [3704]
    A That is correct, yes.

    Q And if we turn to page 9, we can see figure 11. And you can see that now.
    A Yes.

    Q Can we now turn to page 3, please. And do we see there a photograph described as figure 3, under which the description appears: “Radio-controlled firing device installed in improvised explosive device.”
    A I see that, yes.

    Q And are we looking at a suitcase in which there are a number of packets of explosives?
    A I see that.

    Q And are the explosives apparently connected to detonating wires, which are in turn connected to the terminal block on the radio-controlled firing device?
    A I can’t see that clearly, but it may be so, yes.

    Q Maybe if we just magnify the photograph a little. Do you see it now?
    A I see that two wires have been connected, yes.

    Q And the results of these items being [3705] connected in that fashion is that the pager could be activated remotely, whereupon the terminal block would pass current to the detonating wires and the explosive within the suitcase would be detonated?
    A That is correct.

    Q And did you supply devices of this sort to the Stasi?
    A Not the explosive in the case, but the equipment, yes.

    Q Right. So if they wanted to use it in this fashion, they would have to get their explosives from someone else?
    A Yes, that is correct. We did not supply any explosives.

    Q And you were asked if you had supplied such a device to the Stasi?
    A That is correct. Yes. [3708]

    Q And I think you explained that you specifically supplied one or two examples of the Icom transmitter with the case shown to the Minister of State Security; is that correct?
    A That is correct, yes.

    ——————————————-

    Q Did you supply items of the sort we’ve just looked at in the technical report to anyone
    else other than the Stasi —

    MR. BURNS: Don’t answer that, please. It will be obvious from what is on the screen that this answer may implicate others than the G.D.R. —

    A I have —

    LORD SUTHERLAND: Please don’t interrupt. This is a legal argument, not for you.
    Yes, Mr. Burns.
    ————————————————

    Oh, what a tangled web we weave when first we practise to deceive…………..

    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