Charles Norrie's Lockerbie theory

[Rolfe]

Charles Norrie has just published the full text of his Lockerbie theory on the internet, at http://www.adifferentviewonlockerbie.blogspot.com/

This is something he's hinted at for some time on Robert Black's blog, and occasionally revealed isolated snippets. Previously he had insisted that he would only distribute it in hard copy to people who would provide a snail-mail address, but I don't think he had many takers.

I have not read the whole thing in detail yet, but from what I gather it's a MIHOP implicating the CIA in planning and executing the bombing. I have in the past locked horns with Charles on the Black blog, in relation to particular aspects of the theory he had revealed, which appeared to me to fly in the face of the known facts about the incident. I should perhaps also point out that Charles was the runaway winner of the July Stundies, with a quote from one of these exchanges.

My reason for starting this thread now is that Charles has joined the JREF and made a single post in another thread, outlining his theory and pointing to his newly-published "report". I'd very much prefer that other Lockerbie threads with specific topics didn't get derailed into discussing Charles's MIHOP scenario, so I'm opening a dedicated thread for the purpose.

Here is Charles's recent post on the matter, entitled "Let's start with the original crime".

The IR-655 was downed by the Vincennes, then trespassing in Iranian territorial waters.

Despite this VP HW Bush would make no apology for "the United States", at the General Assembly of the UN. Eventually the US would pay up but at a ridiculously low vale of life $1600000-$300000 per like lost.

The US Navy's own internal inquiry has never been fully published, and will probably never see the light of day. Even the fact that the Vincennes was trespassing in Iranian territorial waters took three years to be reluctantly divulged.

The US said the atrocity, I word I use with full measure, was an accident. It is to take a very charitable view of the behaviour of the USS Vincennes to call it that.

The commander of Vincennes, whose name should go down in infamy in naval history, had been powering up an down the Persian Gulf confrontationally for a month or more before the downing. The conditions in the control room were far from ideal and the ignorant and ill trained not worthy of being called professionals. They were awarded gongs by the US Navy, an award designed to cause the Iranians further cause to feel hurt. One can only think in the fall-out from IR-655 the US was doing everything to inflame relations with Iran, who predictably cause for revenge, with as many as between 5-12 US commercial aircraft downed in reply.

The Iranians privately were being more cautious in their call for revenge, demanding qesas or like for like retribution.

They got it eventually in the form of Lockerbie, in which an Iranian necessarily had to plant an explosive at Heathrow, and the CIA had to ensure that the aircraft was completely destroyed, by exploding a package bomb 14 seconds after the first.

(You can read all of this at www.adifferentviewonlockerbie.blogspot.com)

But why was US Navy so ill managed. I can find of no atrocity in Royal Naval history that quite measures up to this level of crime, and I accept the Iranian view it was not accidental.

Since the beginning of the C20 the level of discretion for naval commanders and admirals has become progressively narrower, certainly in the Royal Navy, but I suspect in the US Navy as well.

Other ships' commanders had complained about the Vincennes' operations for a month or more. That must have been communicated back to Washington, who then proceeded to do nothing.

In other words Washington compassed and approved of the Vincennes' behaviour and wanted to do nothing to prevent it.

It was indeed an attempt to call out the "khaki" vote before the US General Election. Before IR-655 the Bush campaign was looking weak, after by flying the flag of American exceptionalism and immunity to others' views, after with the khaki, nationalistic vote behind him, there was no looking back.

For a review of the centralisation of naval control through the last four centuries in the Royal Navy have a look at Professor Andrew Lambert's book Admirals. ISBN 978-0-571-23157-7

Rolfe.

 

[Sabretooth]

This CT is relatively new to me.

So am I reading this right? That, because the U.S. accidentally shot down Air Flight 655, they arranged to voluntarily destroy Pam Am 103?

That seems pretty darn far-fetched to me.

 

[CharlesNorrie]

The point is that it is the US claim that IR-655 was accidentally shot down.

Iran either its government or people (nor much of the reat of the world ever believed that).

Please try to understand the argument, rather that indulging in irrelevancies.

Look at what happened at the UN.

Iran considered that the US had deliberately destroyed its aircraft (and I cannot fault that pov).

What the American take on this IS ENTIRELY IRRELEVANT.

The Iranians would be allowed their revenge bombing (qeas) by the US. HW Bush did not wish to see his election bid brought down in flames by iran, which was (and is) quite capable of doing it.

 

[Rolfe]

This CT is relatively new to me.

So am I reading this right? That, because the U.S. accidentally shot down Air Flight 655, they arranged to voluntarily destroy Pam Am 103?

That seems pretty darn far-fetched to me.

Me too, mate!

I'm reading Charles's document at the moment, and there's so much wrong with it I don't know where to start. Most of what he claims is simply unsupported speculation, dreamed up by Charles purely with the aid of his own little grey cells. However, I've come to a chunk he revealed earlier on Robert Black's blog, where he asserts....

Once the CIA had used McKee's suitcase transponder to locate it, it must have been easy to determine which baggage container was AVE4041. [....] In the remains of AVE4041 PA, the CIA placed a pre-blown suitcase, the remains of a Toshiba cassette recorder and various miscellaneous items. They hoped that, when the Lockerbie investigation team found the suitcase, they would follow the concocted evidence to a suitable CIA selected target, which would become Libya.

I'm struggling with Charles's assertion that the original 1988 plan was to frame the PFLP-GC for the bombing, but this was later changed to framing Libya for political expediency at the time of the Gulf War run-up in 1990 (a very common Lockerbie assertion), and yet he seems to be claiming that specfic evidence pointing to Libya was planted within days of the bombing. However, that's not my main point here.

Charles imagines baggage container AVE4041 being found essentially in one place, although damaged, with certain items inside it, or associated with it. He proposes that McKee's suitcase (which was probably in that container, certainly) had a transponder in it (because he's seen these things in spy movies), which enabled the CIA team which arrived very soon after the crash to locate the suitcase and thus the "remains of" the baggage container before the Scottish searchers found this. They then placed their fabricated evidence in the remains of the container.

The problem with this is that the container was blown to bits, and brought in in pieces from widely separated locations. What was produced in court was the thing after the bits had been pieced back together again. The first piece was brought in on Christmas Eve. There was nothing "in the remains" of it. The bomb suitcase, determined to be a bronze Samsonite hardshell, was identified from nothing but a number of small-ish fragments again found scattered across the countryside. The radio-cassette player was also identified with difficulty from nothing but small fragments of plastic and circuit board, in this case mostly recovered from items of clothing into which they had been blown. The clothing rags themselves were found widely scattered across the countryside and brought in piecemeal by various searchers.

The thing is, Charles has been told all this. Multiple times. He doesn't care. He has this scenario he has dreamed up, and please don't confuse him with facts.

Rolfe.

 

[Rolfe]

Ah, cross-posting.

Charles is correct that the Iranians believed that the shooting down of IA655 was a deliberate act of war. And that revenge was high on their agenda.

Most people think they simply paid the PFLP-GC $11 million to do their dirty work for them, that's all.

Rolfe.

 

[CharlesNorrie]

Rolfe,

Why should the PFLP GC (Arabs and Sunni) do Iran's dirty work (Persians and Shia), both a racial and religious difference, even for $11M.

No one has produced anything but vapourware that the PFLP GC did it, which incidentally conflicts with official theory, and I think an early CIA framing, defeated by the onset of the 1st |Gulf War.

Interesting that Vincent Cannistraro who knows, I believe more than a little of what went on at Lockerbie, has put forward a different version of a theory.

He has said: Iran wanted a revenge and contracted the PFLP GC, who could not deliver, who contracted to Libya.

An obvious nonsense, and I think he only put it forward because he was desperate.

I admit there are ellipses in my theory. But they are there because neither the CIA nor Iran will tell us what they actually did.

We are dealing with real criminality here.

Charles Norrie

Now hoew about approaching my theory intelligently Rolfe, rather than carping. I still don't know what a Stundie is and you mire yourself in muck when you accuse me of being a conspiracy theorist. My theory may not be liked by you, but at least try to be intelligent about it.

Charles Norrie

 

[dudalb]

So am I reading this right? That, because the U.S. accidentally shot down Air Flight 655, they arranged to voluntarily destroy Pam Am 103?

Wow. What a swipe from the movie "Fail Safe:....

 

[CharlesNorrie]

Dear Dudalb,

Please get it into your rather thick head that it is the US that has said it accidentally downed IR-655. The Iranians never thrught that. They always thought it was deliberate. They had enough clout to down the 5-12 US commercial aircraft they threatened to do.

Please get serious, and understand realpolitik, not what passes for it in a conspiracy theory forum

 

[CharlesNorrie]

Somebody on this web site has compared my theory with the plot of Fail safe.

It is a very silly comparison.

I have had a deep look at the downing of IR-655 and compared it with events in British Royal Naval history. I simply cannot find a single event that compares in brutality, callousness and a failure to make amends in the whole of Royal naval history.

Please tell me if I am wrong.

The Vincennes was behaving in a highly provocative manner for a month or so before IR-655 was downed. Other ships in the convoy squadron were appalled at its behaviour, and yet nothing was done.

The crew were ignorant of their duties and poorly trained. In the Royal Nay they would have been dismissed from the service or faced court martial.

Nevertheless, the US Navy rewarded them.

 

[Sabretooth]

[...]
What the American take on this IS ENTIRELY IRRELEVANT.

The Iranians would be allowed their revenge bombing (qeas) by the US. HW Bush did not wish to see his election bid brought down in flames by iran, which was (and is) quite capable of doing it.

Um...you just reiterated what I just said.

And that is: That the U.S. voluntarily allowed Iran to “square the score” by helping destroy PA103.

It’s ENTIRELY relevant to your hypothesis. The logistics of such a plan aside, they are completely moot without some sort of motivation to allow it to happen.

As of right now, I am completely skeptical of your hypothesis and guesswork. You really haven’t shown any facts and/or evidence that supports what you’re implying. So far, it’s just wild speculation.

To summarize your bloggerific article:
- You think the U.S. intentionally shot down IA655. It’s unclear as to why you feel that statement is true, other than you just want to believe Iranian media. Or you believe the U.S. military does not make mistakes. Not sure which.
- You think GHW Bush was elected primarily because of a push from Iran to get him in office to help hatch a plot.
- You think the U.S. felt bad about IA655, and agreed to help arrange an aircraft bombing so Iran could feel better about themselves and not look like a bunch of p****’s.
- You think that Iran didn’t really want to take credit for their revenge plot, and opted to give that recognition to a scapegoat from Libya. I don’t see where you visit the reasoning behind this one.
- And to support your stories, you think the CIA covered this all up. Just because that’s what they do.

Like I said before, those accusations are pretty darn far-fetched. And until I see some hard evidence that this Tom Clancy novel you’ve concocted has any real world facts, I’m not going to take you seriously.

 

[Rolfe]

There was actually a TV documentary crew filming on the Vincennes at the time of the shooting down of the airliner. The footage has been shown quite often. It was shown during a play I attended yesterday afternoon. It sure looks accidental to me.

Someone I work with was serving on the HMS York at the time, the British Naval vessel which was close to the Vincennes at the time (and which the Vincennes spent about 15 minutes blaming for the downing of the airliner before the awful truth dawned). He is in no doubt it was an accident. He's a lot more critical of the fact that the Vincennes and the other US vessel nearby promptly sailed away from the scene and left him and his shipmates to spend the next two weeks flshing bodies and body parts out of the Persian Gulf. It's not a pretty story he tells.

Rolfe.

 

[CharlesNorrie]

Rebuttal

You think the U.S. intentionally shot down IA655. It’s unclear as to why you feel that statement is true, other than you just want to believe Iranian media. Or you believe the U.S. military does not make mistakes. Not sure which.

== Why shouldn't I believe what the Iranians say. Do you think they necessarily lie? Yours is the country with Fox News. Not mine.

You think GHW Bush was elected primarily because of a push from Iran to get him in office to help hatch a plot.

== No, you haven't read my theory. But by grandstanding after the downing of IR-655 HW Bush was doing no disservice to his campaign. See his poll ratings.

-You think the U.S. felt bad about IR-655 (please get your stuff right) and agreed to help arrange an aircraft bombing so Iran could feel better about themselves and not look like a bunch of p****’s.

== I never said that all all. In public the US was quite prepared to allow Bush to brag and campaign. In private the US (Richard Lawless, the CIA and the like) knew they had to contain and deal with Iranian anger. (What governments do in private is not necessarily what they do in public).

You think that Iran didn’t really want to take credit for their revenge plot, and opted to give that recognition to a scapegoat from Libya. I don’t see where you visit the reasoning behind this one.

== This was a private deal between the Iranian government (democratically elected, though you wouldn't like me to say that (unlike GWB I)).my take on the negotiations). (see Iran wanted revenge not publicity (a typical US failing to be able to distinguish between the two). They would not want publicity because American crude nationalist right might have decided to wage war on them.

And to support your stories, you think the CIA covered this all up. Just because that’s what they do.

== It took me about 15 years before I was ready to blame the CIA.

You are a very silly and ignorant American nationalist.

Do not use insults to argue your point.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Lisa Simpson

 

[CharlesNorrie]

There was actually a TV documentary crew filming on the Vincennes at the time of the shooting down of the airliner. The footage has been shown quite often. It was shown during a play I attended yesterday afternoon. It sure looks accidental to me.

Someone I work with was serving on the HMS York at the time, the British Naval vessel which was close to the Vincennes at the time (and which the Vincennes spent about 15 minutes blaming for the downing of the airliner before the awful truth dawned). He is in no doubt it was an accident. He's a lot more critical of the fact that the Vincennes and the other US vessel nearby promptly sailed away from the scene and left him and his shipmates to spend the next two weeks flshing bodies and body parts out of the Persian Gulf. It's not a pretty story he tells.

Rolfe.

Rather silly Rolfe. It would not have been edited to show the crew were not guilty. Have you read the US Navy's reports, the bits that have been published. I thought not.

And I have a private quote from a British professor on naval history who says the incident could not have happened in the Royal Navy. Unlike the captain of the York, he has written a book on command and control in the navy during the last 400 years. Now put that in your pipe and smoke it. I find your behaviour in these forums quite insufferable, and you are unwilling to learn from those who have studied more deeply than you.

 

[CharlesNorrie]

Apologies. Mispost. I meant to say that the TV film would have been edited to show the crew of the Vincennes were not guilty.

 

[Rolfe]

- You think the U.S. felt bad about IA655, and agreed to help arrange an aircraft bombing so Iran could feel better about themselves and not look like a bunch of p****’s.

There's a variant of this theory which makes a bit more sense. Tam Dalyell, a Scottish MP who gets a mention in Charles's article, is also a Lockerbie L- or MIHOPer. His version is that the Iranian revenge obligation required the destruction of not one but multiple US airliners. I think ten is mentioned, though I've also heard five (the PFLP-GC were caught with five barometric-trigger bombs of course).

According to this theory, the deal the CIA made with Iran was that only one airliner would be targeted, and as a quid pro quo for being allowed and/or aided to accomplish that unhindered, Iran would stop at that and not threaten any more planes.

Rolfe.

 

[Rolfe]

Apologies. Mispost. I meant to say that the TV film would have been edited to show the crew of the Vincennes were not guilty.

Charles, if you see a mistake you can edit your posts in this forum for up to 2 hours after making the post (after that you have to ask a mod if there is something important enough to need changing). There is a button at the bottom right corner of the post box which allows this.

Also, try out the quote button (same position) to make it clearer when you're quoting someone else. You can interpolate your own comments within a quote simply by closing [/ quote] and re-opening [ quote] the tags as appropriate. Once you're used to the software you'll find it quite versatile.

Also, read the damn membership agreement. Two yellow cards in your first six posts is quite a record. If you don't play nice, you'll be suspended or even banned, and that wouldn't be good.

Rolfe.

 

[CharlesNorrie]

Makes a lot of sense Rolfe, but the claim is between 5 and a dozen aircraft. If Iran ahd done that what would the US response have been - Nukes? The Iranians and the the US bargained down to a one for one reply, in accordance with qesas.

It took four rounds of negotiation, and the Iranian side seems to have been more divided. But they did it.

There were side deals, on what could be claimed and publicised, on the embargoing of Iranian funds, on compensation and the return of the Lebanese hostages (which would not happen until after Fhimah and Magrahi were charged).

Perhaps both sides are happy in this. I have a right not to be.

 

[CharlesNorrie]

Rolfe I'm mostly quoting my theory, which anyone can find at adifferentviewonlockerbie.blogspot.com

 

[Rolfe]

Makes a lot of sense Rolfe, but the claim is between 5 and a dozen aircraft. If Iran ahd done that what would the US response have been - Nukes? The Iranians and the the US bargained down to a one for one reply, in accordance with qesas.

But Charles, you said "an eye for en eye". (Which is of course the merciful Old Testament mitigation of the earlier thirst for escalating vengeance.)

So which is it? An eye for an eye, or multiple airliners for one?

Rolfe.

 

[Rolfe]

Rolfe I'm mostly quoting my theory, which anyone can find at www.adifferentviewonlockerbie.blogspot.com

I have read it. It doesn't contain insults directed at the people you're speaking to. I recommend avoiding these in the forum also.

Rolfe.