So if there is no clear motive, gain, or even a follow up, and the cost and the risk of exposure are predictably very high, why would the British officials want to fake an event of this sort? They are, after all, rational people, regardless of what one may think of their ethics. I understand that for a conspiratorial mind, the absence of any evidence is further proof of conspiracy, but you do not fall into this mold, no?
........................
Sorry, but 'real or faked?' isn't the right question.
And to be honest, I haven't a clue how you could read the Reg article (which focuses on the technical questions) and conclude that anyone is suggesting the police case has been faked in the way you suggest they mean.
The right question is whether or not London and Washington, for political reasons, are describing a (yet to be proved) plot that a variety of technical people and security specialists have determined to be deeply unfeasible as the greatest threat to airline safety to-date. The right question is whether they excitedly leapt to erroneous conclusions based upon a movie plot understanding of explosives and terrorism. The existence of a terrorist plan may not be in doubt; what's in doubt is the accuracy of official hyperventilations about that plan.
There are innumerable problems. Articles pointing them out have already been posted so I won't repeat them.
I raised many of these same questions about the difference between real counter terrorism and what Bruce Schneier (Google him) calls 'security theater' a while back - when London police shot and killed a man they believed, for no good reason, to be carrying a backpack explosive.
You needn't be a 'conspiracy theory' fan to see the weakness of the case as presented.
.d.
I never liked you Rusty...you were always a smart alec, a sass mouth and a bit of a giggle puss.
Dr. Impossible
...................... http://monroelab.net/blog/