A report by investigative journalist Stewart Nicol has found further evidence that the explosives event which brought down Pan Am 103 was not caused by semtex as maintained by the Crown.

His report, entitled “Pan Am 103: What Really Happened” recounts eyewitness testimony from explosives engineers and eyewitnesses whose evidence was overlooked by the Zeist trial, which indicates both that a far larger explosion or series of explosions took place aboard the plane than proposed by the discredited Zeist evidence, and that the plane may have been under control at far lower altitudes than previously reported.

“The first blast may well have been at 31,000 feet, but the catastrophic explosions and break up happened at a much lower level than is said,” the report says.

“The fact that the Fire brigade in their report say that there was a kerosene mist in the air and a concern about fire around the town that tells you fuel may have been dumped. A frantic fight to save the flight must have happened, just prior to the catastrophic final explosions, and demise of the “Maid of the Seas.

“The massive destruction of the plane suggests, according to one expert I contacted, that at least 5 kilos (over 10lbs) must have been used to destroy the jet and that that material was close to the skin of the aircraft. Or possibly military quality munitions.

“The 800 square miles [of debris] tells you that the plane was ripped to pieces and indeed the severe damage to a number of the bodies underlines the fact of a massive series of explosions. The fact some bodies were ripped apart and others with horrific injuries is witness to the power and energy of the explosions.”

Nicol, who is known to have been investigating the Pan Am 103 events for in excess of three years, is not the first to conclude that a small amount of semtex could not have caused the catastrophic destruction of a Boeing 747.

Earlier this year Professor Robert Black and UN Observer Hans Kochler challenged the Lord Advocate Elish Angiolini to demonstrate the Crown’s “scientifically implausible” semtex theory. She declined.

The failure of the Zeist trial process to consider material evidence was criticised by UN Observer Hans Kochler, who concluded that government operatives had ensured crucial evidence was withheld.

“The presence of de facto governmental representatives of both sides in the courtroom gave the trial a highly political aura that should have been avoided by all means," he reported.

“It was a consistent pattern during the whole trial that − as an apparent result of political interests and considerations − efforts were undertaken to withhold substantial information from the Court.

“Foreign governments or (secret) governmental agencies may have been allowed, albeit indirectly, to determine, to a considerable extent, which evidence was made available to the Court.”

Nicol reports that the analysis prepared by explosives engineer John Parkes and delivered to the then Scottish Office was “lost by them and never used in the first trial, and then they did not use it at the appeal. This document is a fairly important one,” he says.

“Written by an explosives demolition man and a former military man with many connections he outlined that the bomb described could not do the damage to the Jumbo jet that occurred. He also was at the autopsy of a young girl aged about nine where he pointed out clear evidence of fragmentation to the body in her back and calves, but not on her thighs or buttocks Her socks, which were pitted with burn marks round burn marks, he felt should give valuable information on what caused the blasts.”

The Firm reported on this aspect of the case in 2007, and concluded that there was sufficient prima facie evidence to warrant an investigation into the possibility that an accidental explosion -possibly of munitions components- may have triggered the destruction of the plane.

Nicol’s analysis also includes testimony that suggests Pan Am 103 may not have been destroyed by a single explosives event, and may have under control at lower altitudes and visible to ground witnesses.

“William Eckardt’s lengthy article on Lockerbie in the Scientific American highlights a wide range of evidence never seeing the light of day in the court. Considering his wide experience and expertise and that at the time he had been the President of the North American Medical Examiners association, his eye witness accounts hint at a much lower level of fall to the ground,” he adds.

Testimony given at the Zeist trial supports the proposition that the plane may have been intact and under control at low level before being destroyed by the final explosions which broke the aircraft apart.

During his testimony, witness Roland Stephenson said he saw the Pan Am 103 travelling in a “glide path“, coming in at a “shallow angle".

“It was showing some form of lights, probably a small flame, no great flame or anything, enough for me to see the dark shape and the passage of the object, which appeared to me to be travelling in what I would call a glide path. It was coming at a shallow angle. It was travelling from the extreme right of the town to the extreme left of the town. It appeared to be travelling more or less the line of the main road,” he said.

“But it wasn't descending sharply.”

Cross examined by counsel if he had any experience of aircraft, Stephenson said he had lived under two airport flight paths, including the famous Kai Tak in Hong Kong where large jets descended amidst the built up central conurbations.

“I used to live in Hounslow West, which is right under the main runway of the approach to London airport. I also lived in Hong Kong on the actual level with the glide path where planes land at Kai-Tak. I was very familiar,” he said.

And witness Jasmine Bell testified that on the night of the event she saw the plane “just going over my head” at just above roof height, but did not see it hit the ground.

Nicol's report can be read here.