Charles, how do you get from:
I think that the positioning of the bomb and the way that it blew the whole plane apart is just another sad coincidence.
I have no problem believing that the bomb was placed into the cargo hold with the perpetrators fully believing it to be powerful enough to blow the plane out of the sky no matter it's actual position within the hold relative to the skin of the aircraft. I think that the bombers wanted to blow up the plane and didn't much care where or when it happened so long as it was at cruising altitude and not on the tarmac, I think it just so happened that the bomb was placed within the container in about the right place to destroy the plane entirely.
to
Ambrosia, you've rather made a point for me. If the bomb were placed at such a point it did so much damage destroying the power systems and control cable harness, it could not have been put there by accident. The odds are rather against it.
Thats 180degrees opposite.
In order to place an explosive device accurately at such a critical juncture of the aircraft you need detailed engineering knowledge of that aircraft.
While this is childs play if you live in fantasy land and your perpetrators are the "CIA" in the real world it's not that easy.
Lets assume for the moment that you are a terrorist and your aim is to blow up PA103. You've not long ago blown up UTA-772 using a plastic explosive device that was about twice as big as the device was at Lockerbie. Why not use the same, or very similar device for the next flight? If you double the size of the bomb then anywhere you place that bomb inside the cargo hold will bring the plane down. Why bother making the device smaller at all? If you have to go the trouble of placing it so exactly you will need a sure fire way of getting it onto the plane which means you also get around about the only reason to make the thing smaller and less detectable to airport security in the first place.
It does not add up.
A bigger explosion means there will likely be smaller and less identifiable pieces of bomb left should the explosion not occur over the sea as well.
There is no good reason to make the bomb just big enough to blow apart the plane, but only if it's placed just so. There are a number of reasons for making the bomb bigger than neccesary.
Hence my belief that the terrorists thought the bomb was plenty big enough to cause the destruction of PA103 and didn't much care where in the cargo hold it went as long as it was in there somewhere.
Finally the Lockerbie bomb did more than damage control systems and power harness. It caused an explosive decompression of the plane entirely, the plane broke into 3 major pieces and many smaller pieces and rained down into a small Scottish village, the centre section comprising of the two wings, full of fuel, weighing about 1500tonnes, detonated on impact causing a crater 47m long and 530cubic metres in volume, this major secondary explosion killing more people on the ground and blasting debris that had already hit the ground airbourne again [
link ]
There is a lot of detail in the AAIB report (linked above) about how the plane was torn apart in the air. The forward section was detached within 2-3 seconds of bomb detonation, that bomb did a lot more than destroying power systems and control cable harness.
On your site you state:
Charles Norrie website said:
In my opinion, the pattern of explosion outlined in the AAIB report and described by air accident experts at Megrahi's trial provides compelling evidence for my theory.
So you must have read this report and to an extent understood it in order for you to claim it provides compelling evidence for your theory.
Please can you explain in more detail how this is the case, as I do not understand how the AAIB report does so. What training in the analysis of explosive decompressions have you had in order to make such a definitive claim?
You also state on your site regarding the nature of the explosion and subsequnt breakup:
This befuddled me for years – how could such a small device completely obliterate Flight 103?
The short answer is that the device blew a hole in the plane and it was in fact the difference in air pressure outside the airliner and inside the airliner that ripped the plane apart inside 3 seconds, all of which is laid out clearly in the AAIB report, is based on sound physics, which is both well documented and pretty basic stuff, not top mention the large clue in the name given to the event 'Explosive Decompression'
If you know enough to state definitively that the AAIB report provided "compelling evidence for your theory" how can you remain unaware of basic physics in this regard?
There are many glaring holes in your narrative, and places where you claim one thing but do not back up that with evidence, or sound reasoning based on evidence. For example:
Charles Norrie website said:
During the trial, AAIB investigator Peter Claydon reported that an improvised explosive device (IED) ... 'punched' through the baggage container and side of the plane leaving a square hole
...
Peter Claydon told the court the bomb created an 8-inch square hole in AVE4041 PA and a 20-inch square hole in the skin of the aircraft.
According to the report itself:
AAIB report said:
Following immediately behind the primary shock wave, a secondaryhigh pressure wave - partly
caused by reflections off the baggage behind the explosive material but mainly by the general
pressurerise caused by the chemical conversion of solid explosive materialto high temperature gas -
emerged from the container. The effectof this second pressure front, which would have been more
sustainedand spread over a much larger area, was to cause the fuselageskin to stretch and blister
outwards before bursting and petallingback in a star-burst pattern, with rapidly running tear
fracturespropagating away from a focus at the shatter zone.
Note the report is highlighting a starburst shaped and
not square hole
if we review actual testimony from the Zeist trial given by Peter Claydon he says:
actually he says nothing, the man I believe you are referring to is Peter Thomas Claiden, Senior inspector of accidents at AAIB, he was interviewed at the Zeist trial on day 10/11 May 25th and May 30th 2000. you can't even get his name right. You can see a list of people who helped to compile the report and Peter Claidens name in
appendix A of the report itself.
Peter Claiden said:
Q is this material contributed by you to the report?
A It is.
Q Can we read, then, the two paragraphs above heading 8 on that page.
A "With the two container reconstructions placed together, it became apparent that a relatively mild blast had exited container 4041 through the rear lower face to the left of the curtain and impinged at an angle on the forward face of container 7511. This had punched a hole, figure F-10, approximately eight inches square, some ten inches up from its base" -- that's the top of the base, remember -- "and removed the surface of this face inboard from the hole for some 50 inches. Radiating out from the hole were areas of
[1558]
sooting, and other black deposits, extending to the top of the container. No signs were present of any similar damage on other external or internal faces of container 7511 or the immediately adjacent containers ..."
Q And did that lead on, then, to the final two paragraphs under the heading of "Conclusions"?
A It did.
Q Could you read those to us, please.
A "Throughout the general examination of the aircraft wreckage, direct evidence of blast damage was exhibited on the airframe only in the area bounded approximately by stations 700 and 720 and stringers 38 and 40 left. Blast damage was found only on pieces of containers 40" -- there is a typo here; "4041," that should be -- "and 7511, the relative location and character of which left no doubt that it was directly associated with airframe damage. Thus, these two containers have been loaded at positions 14 left and 21 left as recorded on the Pan Am cargo loading documents.
There was also no doubt that the IED had been located within container 14 left, specifically in its aft outboard quarter, as indicated in figure F 13, centred on station 700.
[1560]
"Blast damage to the forward face of container 7511 was as a direct result of hot gases and/or fragments escaping from the aft face of container 4041. No evidence was seen to suggest that more than one IED had detonated on flight PA 103."
He's actually reading from appendix F of the AAIB report (linked above) he states shortly after describing an 8inch approximately square hole in AV4041 as you claim that only 1 IED caused the destruction of Pan Am 103. I can't find him stating that the the blast punched a 20" square hole in the fuselage of the plane anywhere in his testimony, perhaps you would care to enlighten me as to where this quote is sourced. In fact Fig F-12 in the appendix of the AAIB report shows a diagram showing the estimated size of the hole in the fuselage caused directly by the bomb blast and it's vaguely rectangular and about 20" by 10".
Furthermore a little later in his testimony Peter Claiden desribes the finding of a fragment of later determined to be from a Toshiba brand radio casette player. On your site you forward Peter Claydons[sic] testimony as compelling evidence for your theory, but then dismiss out of hand other evidence he gives on the same day at Zeist about there being only 1 bomb and him finding fragments of circuit board. Which is it, do you regard him as a credible witness or not?
