Charles Norrie's Lockerbie theory

[Rolfe]

I’m sorry…I can see where someone might mistake IA655 and IR655 and totally get the wrong idea…it’s quite the screw up…[/sarcasm]

It's usually called IA655, by most commentators. The wiki article seems to have been edited to read IR655 since I last checked it, although I note the German version still reads IA655.

I think it's "Department of You Know What I Mean". I checked the wiki page the first time I typed it, months ago, and used IA655 because that's what that page said then.

Rolfe.

 

[Sabretooth]

"I interpret this statement as GHWB cutting a deal with Iran to gain the Presidency. If that’s not what you meant, then I suggest you rewrite your theory."

Pretty well what I meant? What's wrong with it?

I suggest you read my post #32 again.

I originally stated that Bush made a deal with Iran to be elected President.

You then stated, quote, "No, you haven't read my theory".

I then restated my point with text from your blog confirming my initial statement.

You now state that this is exactly what you meant.

http://en.wikipedia.com/Contradiction

 

[Sabretooth]

The US co-operated with them in doing it, because of the US fear of what Iran might do, which would have destroyed HW Bush's presidential chances.

How so? This just sounds like another wild unsupported assumption.

Do I bother asking you to provide facts?

 

[Rolfe]

Now, unless you are a devotee of official theory, you know there is something wrong with the chip evidence. If so, why not with the cassette evidence, discarded by AAIB and given to RARDE, then why not with the clothing, often in doubt, or the suitcase? Can you prove the suitcase evidence is right in other words. It could have just as easily been dumped.

Charles, what do you think is wrong with the chip Inspector Claiden found?

If you want to question the provenance of any of the evidence produced in the case, you have to be able to explain what's suspect about it. I know what's suspect about the MST-13 fragment and Deccy Horton's sheet of paper. I can explain exactly where in the chain of evidence the fabrication might have taken place. I'll add the pieces of black plastic believed to be from the radio-cassette.

I can't do that for the pieces of the suitcase, or (most of) the Maltese clothes. I'd be interested to hear how, when and where these might have been fabricated (and who by and on whose orders and who else knew about it).

Also, you're making no sense. First you tell us that a recognisable blast-damaged suitcase and a recognisable blast-damaged radio-cassette recorder were planted on the ground at Lockerbie. Then when it's pointed out to you that no such items were recorded as being found or produced in evidence, you declare that - what? They were re-fabricated or something?

Rolfe.

 

[Sabretooth]

I really have thought out my position, you know, and it's impregnable.

I don't think you know what the word "impregnable" means.

Unless you pony up some real facts and evidence instead of guesswork and assumptions, your theory has more holes than a block of Swiss cheese.

 

[Rolfe]

[....] your theory has more holes than a block of Swiss cheese.

This one?

Rolfe.

 

[Rolfe]

If you have tried to understand my argument, you will understand that I have rejected virtually all of the evidence on the ground at Lockerbie.

Except as I have interpreted it.

O.... K.... I'm going to regret this, but how was "virtually all the evidence found on the ground at Lockerbie" faked?

And the bits you like weren't faked?

Rolfe.

 

[Rolfe]

Did anyone else have an opinion on Charles's assertion that it would have been possible for someone to identify reliably the precise container Bedford was going to select for the PA103 interline baggage, 18 hours before the event?

Nobody on the Robert Black blog has been convinced, and someone with knowledge of airline baggage handling said no, the things are like supermarket trollies although they have identifying numbers. You just grab the nearest one.

Rolfe.

 

[Caustic Logic]

Charles, welcome.

he 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).

First, I do think it's IA-655, as in Iran Air. But maybe not (after all Air Malta comes out KM) and it's a small point. I for one am inclined to your interpretation of the incident and its role in Lockerbie. A close look at the details of the incident and it's hard to see this as clear-cut accident.

The Iranian PoV that it was somehow purposeful is actually reasonable, at least from their outside perspective.

But that US forces actively helped the revenge succeed is a whole different thing I still don't get why you're so sure about.

What might be useful here is your best assessment, in one post, of just WHY the CIA would want to plant and trigger an "insurance bomb" aside from the Iranian one.

I've already posted a more limited critique of some of your points at my blog. It mostly goes to (apparently) flawed methodology. More important however would be the evidence you have for this second explosion, which tends to prove a second party's involvement. That's also going to be trounced here, I predict.

Sorry, no time for anything else from me. Best of luck, mate.

 

[Rolfe]

I think it was an accident. But I believe the Iranians thought it wasn't, so it scarcely matters.

Calum said they had to match legs by pairing the shoes. He was only 20 at the time he had to do this.

Rolfe.

 

[Caustic Logic]

Charles' theory that the US assisted in the bombing does have a certain logic to it, and shouldn't just be dismissed out-of-hand without first considering the evidence. (We're waiting for this, hopefully)

Whether IA655 was purposeful or not, it's really Iranian perceptions that matter. And the video doesn't disprove much of anything, as I remember. I need to see the longest edit again, but I think it just shows them saying things like 'looks like a fighter jet.' Problem is, they were saying these things looking at screens or radar data and so on that weren't shown, and when reviewed later, the computers showed nothing of the sort. IA655 was faultless (except for the IA policy of busying their emergency hailing frequency with more ground control chatter).

The plane and the ship agreed, and the error was purely mental, being explained by the military as "scenario fulfillment." This is an obscure mental disorder that caused the whole crew to believe or act as if they were in a training exercise, and Capt. Rogers was known to run his exercises a certain way - to the hilt, shoot first and ask never, rules of engagement are for pansies. So they erred on its speed, location, heading, altitude profile, transponder signal, listing in flight registries. No response on the emergency channels is the only clue they got right, and it's not enough to shoot someone over.

Call it what you will, I'm convinced that's criminal in at least one or two major ways. But the details are impossible to establish to know just what went wrong with sending that guy and that ship to that place at that time. It certainly helped Iran decide to end the war, as Washington had been urging for a while.

But all of that is important for only one element of Charles' theory, and the one that many others already believe or suspect. What's more relevant here is the other aspects - the Iranian's bomb and how it worked and was smuggled aboard, and the CIA's "insurance bomb" that proves Western complicity. I don't know enough yet about what you say, and so I suspect most others know even less.

 

[Rolfe]

There was no "pre-blown" suitcase, or (identifiable) remains of a radio-cassette recorder spacially associated with any/either of the pieces of the baggage container. Have you seen the presentation of the suitcase fragments, which were picked up from all over the place?

Can you prove that Rolfe, or is it an argument from common and lazy assertion?

Let's examine this in a bit more detail.

Charles has asserted in his article that a recognisable "pre-blown" suitcase and identifiable remains of a blast-damaged Toshiba radio-cassette recorder were planted in (or associated with) the remains of the baggage container.

I've pointed out that the baggage container was found in several pieces at different times and in widely separate locations. I've pointed out that the remains of the suitcase as presented in evidence were nothing more than a number of fragments, again found scattered to the four winds and not associated with the pieces of baggage container. I've pointed out that the only remaining evidence of the radio-cassette player was tiny fragments of plastic and wire, and a couple of very small pieces of circuit board, plus that highly dubious manual page (which had no Arabic text on it, contrary to his assertion). Apart from the last item, these fragments were found blasted into various pieces of shredded cloth, again scattered all over the countryside.

Charles's response is to ask me if I can prove this!

Now wait a minute. It's Charles who is asserting that this evidence was planted. I have pointed out that the evidence presented to the court bore no resemblance to what he says was planted. It's a matter of public record what was presented to the court as regards the suitcase and the Toshiba.

Why would the conspirators cleverly plant an identifiable "pre-blown suitcase" and radio-cassette recorder, somewhere near one of the parts of the baggage container - only to spirit them away again, and present the court with this story about small fragments found randomly across the landscape?

You need to think this through a bit better, Charles.

Rolfe.

 

[Rolfe]

Charles' theory that the US assisted in the bombing does have a certain logic to it, and shouldn't just be dismissed out-of-hand without first considering the evidence.

Actually, no. I don't feel any need to consider such a suggestion until I see some credible evidence. Which I haven't as yet.

I don't disagree with much of the rest of your post. Rogers was a gung-ho menace and it maybe wasn't so surprising something went badly wrong. But to suggest that any of that was pre-planned - no, I don't need to consider it without good evidence.

Rolfe.

 

[Caustic Logic]

Did anyone else have an opinion on Charles's assertion that it would have been possible for someone to identify reliably the precise container Bedford was going to select for the PA103 interline baggage, 18 hours before the event?

Nobody on the Robert Black blog has been convinced, and someone with knowledge of airline baggage handling said no, the things are like supermarket trollies although they have identifying numbers. You just grab the nearest one.

Rolfe.

John Bedford selected i himself from among others, and clearly recalled the number when talking to investigators. It's been suggested (unsourced at Wikipedia, perhaps based on something I can't find) he selected 4041 for his and his wife's birth years (1940 and 41). That in itself would be a little odd, but it can't be ruled out, as Bedford was 60 at the time of the Zeist trial in 2000.

Anyway, he does seem to have selected this thing himself on some personnal whim. Charles' story and body f clues seems to completely ignore Mr. Bedford's contributions. If the bomb was attached o the container instead of inside luggage, all this would have to be coincidence or a complete fabrication (that was always ruled coincidence).

 

[Rolfe]

I think in fact Bedford only said he remembered the number of the container because of the coincidence of the birth dates - not that he selected it for that reason. It's not that surprising - that's the way many people remember phone numbers and so on, by associating them with other memorable numbers. It happens even when you're not consciously trying to memorise a number too.

There's simply no reason to imagine Charles's theory of specified "sets" of luggage containers always doing the same job being the system in place. It would require far more containers, as they would be lying idle for much longer waiting for "their" plane to return. This would require more storage space. It would also be more time-consuming, as handlers searched for the right container behind the wrong ones (as would inevitably happen). And that's even assuming it all went to plan. All you need is one mistake, or (worse still) one plane diverted for some reason, and you're screwed - the knock-on effects would never end. Also, imagine the stress if the wrong container was inadvertently loaded with luggage, then it all had to be transferred at the last minute if this was noticed!

The things are like supermarket trollies. They belonged to the individual airline and Pan Am would use Pan Am's containers. They were individually numbered for identification. But when one was required, the loader would simply select the most convenient from the ones standing idle at the time. Nobody would know before Bedford pulled it out that it would be AVE4041 that day.

Charles's theory that an Iranian would have been able to break into the airside space around midnight, and sabotage an empty baggage container in the sure and certain knowledge that the thing would stand idle until mid-afternoon the following day when it would then be selected for the PA103 interline baggage, is pure fantasy. He has had this explained to him before, but he never listens.

And as for the whole Bedford suitcase story being just coincedence - well, that's what the Zeist judges said too, so I suppose Charles is in august company there!

Rolfe.

 

[CharlesNorrie]

Dear Rolfe,

I really don't know what you are wittering on about. I am simply saying that all all the evidence in Lockerbie was planted (the CIA were attested to be at the scene of the crash - see David Johnston). Anthing could have been planted, bits of suitcase, cassette recorder, chip evidence (though this was done after May 12 1989 at RARDE). I site was polluted in the very early hours after Lockerbie, probably while bodies were being collected up. Then it's found by the police and the natural inference is that it's come from the crash.

What about the case of the non Newtonian chip which performed a U- turn to bury itself in a data plate on a baggage conatiner and was handed by AAIB to RARDE.

But nobody has really tried to analyse what the CIA did, except it seems me. And don't go on about the evidence not being there. It's my interpretation of the evidence that there is that's important to my theory.

And since there's quite a lot of positive response to what I have been writing, I doubt I shall bother with this blog again.

 

[CharlesNorrie]

Here we go again.

Baggage containers.

Until someone does some back-breaking hard work and proves beyond reasonable doubt that the almost reasonable re-use of containers is utterly impossible my theory stands.

As it is the container at 14L was originally destined to have been placed at 13R (check the trial transcript) which suggests that normally a pool of containers was allocated to a set of locations in the hold, even if the loading plan go a bit mangled when implemented.

I done know why everybody goes on about Mr Bedford's recollection. He seems to have been rather a fly airline worker, and workshy, ready to bunk off early when it seemed 103A would be arriving late.

Suggestion by the police of his recollection of two suitcases (made during the reconstruction of events Bedford did in the early January) seems to have been happening here.

Quite possibly after 12 years Mr Bedord's recollection of really a rather boring evening's work became confused with the police interest in it.

And the important point is that the police did not disclose the break-in until the appeal, when the defence is often at its weakest position.

If the break-in had been disclosed at the trial, what do you think, even with a bench as prejudiced as the Zeist one, their lordships would have been able to find Margrahi guilty.

No.

 

[CharlesNorrie]

Dear Sabretooth,

It's impregnable to people who think rigidly like you.

You don't think your precious United States is capable of such villainy, and you don't like it when you are told truths you don't like.

The real reason we don't know what happened is that the CIA will never share with us their guilty and nefarious knowledge.

The agencies that support the US regime are odious, self-righteous and downright criminal. All countries have them, but MI6 says it doen't do wet jobs, and I have no reason to disbelieve them. On the other hand the CIA has signed up to no such self-denying ordinance, and behaviour (such as the use of the predator against "terrorists", who usually turn out to be the family homes of extended families) suggests they put other peoples' lives at an incredibly low value, and are quite prepared to sacrifice US lives for political purposes.

 

[CharlesNorrie]

Rolfe,

Let me take you to your supermarket example. Make it a very simple example of a single set of trollies all chained together with those coin operated locks in a single stack of trollies.

Consider a not very busy day the supermarket. On the front trollies will come off the stack and be used in the supermarket. Those at the back will not change there places all day. Trollies will be somewhat random if they have been used in the stack.

My problem is rather like can I predict which checkout a particular trolley will be used from position in the stack. No you can't really and that's like the 13R 14L confusion. But the trolleys at the head of the stack will go the checkut (rather like finding a location in the baggage hold).

Simple concept isn't it.

 

[Rolfe]

I am simply saying that all all the evidence in Lockerbie was planted (the CIA were attested to be at the scene of the crash - see David Johnston). Anthing could have been planted, bits of suitcase, cassette recorder, chip evidence (though this was done after May 12 1989 at RARDE). I site was polluted in the very early hours after Lockerbie, probably while bodies were being collected up. Then it's found by the police and the natural inference is that it's come from the crash.

Yes, the CIA were early at the scene of the crash. The CIA lost operatives on that flight, operatives who might well have had sensitive material in their luggage, which was now scattered across the Scottish countryside. Not necessarily surprising or even especially sinister that they might have been in there looking for it, interfering with evidence and even acting a bit aggressively paranoid about it.

You have no evidence at all that any evidence was planted on the ground in the first days after the crash.

What about the case of the non Newtonian chip which performed a U- turn to bury itself in a data plate on a baggage conatiner and was handed by AAIB to RARDE.

Yes, I was wondering when you'd get to that. Please explain the physics of what you're alleging.

But nobody has really tried to analyse what the CIA did, except it seems me. And don't go on about the evidence not being there. It's my interpretation of the evidence that there is that's important to my theory.

But the evidence isn't there. You're interpreting fantasy-evidence.

And since there's quite a lot of positive response to what I have been writing, I doubt I shall bother with this blog again.

Suit yourself. This is a forum, though, not a blog.

Rolfe.