Charles Norrie's Lockerbie theory

[Zep]

Zep, I am not the one going to be proceeding against Rolfe.

Oh? Then perhaps you might be more specific as to who might be, and why. You raised this issue - perhaps you might like to finish it off?

I'm just telling her to be careful.

Of what? Or of whom? If nothing or no-one, why bother even mentioning this?

Please don't try to play the heavy here - you are well out of your depth and not in the least bit intimidating. You are in the company of people who actually do know a thing or two about science and the law, because they do it for a living. And right now you are failing miserably in both subjects.

 

[Rolfe]

The actual statement in the AAIB report says "not more than one IED", which leads me to believe that the AAIB were prepared to accept the CIA's statements that they must have been told about the package bomb in the CRAF hold.

An AAIB report is always written very defensively. Liability may be apportioned by such a report and it will be a prime statement in any litigation process. A friend of mine, an air accident lawyer has told me that the report finally written can bear no relation to previous drafts, so important what it actually says is.

So they knew there was a second expolsion caused by military ordnance, but they covered it up, but instead of simply not mantioning it at all, they introduced a coded sentence that the clever conspiracy theorist can decode to see the truth.

This is getting more like 9/11 twooferism by the minute.

By the way the Maid of the Seas was a very old Boeing 747, and had been retrofitted as part of the CRAF reserve fleet changing its name from Morning Light.

IR-655 as a nice new Airbus, but the CIA were not going to waste a nice new aircraft in the plot were they? The demand was for blood, not airframes, so an old Boeing would do.

That's disgusting.

Rolfe.

 

[CharlesNorrie]

I don't think I am out of my depth here. I have answered all sensible questions put to me.

I think I have demonstrate I know something about science and English libel law, which many who blog here don't. (e.g. the range of a radar gun is limited to 400m). Hantzauman had a proper radar set capable of receiving secondary radar controlled by NATS in Southern Scotland and also the reflected primary response.

I have simply warned Rolfe not to make unsubstantiated libels, which I have not done.

 

[Rolfe]

Ambrosia, welcome back!
Actually, and thanks for the reference, it was referring to the neighboring container AVN 7511, which had a hole in it.

It's that 10" up that established the bomb's height - as if blast debris only travels in directly horizontal lines. Did some rough geometric visualizations on this once.
http://lockerbiedivide.blogspot.com/2010/07/container-geometry-and-blast-location.html

Well, they decided that the primary suitcase wasn't on the floor of the container because of the absence of pitting. Then they decided Karen Noonan's suitcase had been beneath it. That fits reasonably well with the 10" part. Are you suggesting it might have been higher? I don't think it was.

Charles, I warned you that if you came here planning to get banned and call that suppression, it would be shallow, unoriginal, and obvious.

Your antics are just about the speed of the debunker community here, and have made for a lively thread. For that I thank you.

It's fascinating the way this thread has grown, simply because there's an obvious conspiracy theorist to debunk. That's what people like doing, after all.

Not debunking a solid theory doesn't seem so attractive, and I notice Bunntamas didn't really get any takers when he tried to push the Official Version using only argument by blatant assertion.

Rolfe.

 

[CharlesNorrie]

I'm sorry you think my analysis is disgusting, Rolfe, but it is my analysis and I did not commit Lockerbie. I was in Spain on holiday at the time, and I remember recognising the name of the town when it came up on the news on tv.

Don't blame the messenger for the message.

I never believed I would have to dedicate years of my life to having to understand what went on.

 

[Rolfe]

Now, Ambrosia, don't you think it rather odd to bury away a claim "that there was not more than one IED at the bottom of Appendix F.

It looks rather like an afterthought.

And permit me to suggest it is a very carefully written sentence. Rolfe doesn't believe me in this, but I don't think that she has spent years reading dusty old Government policy documents.

I think there was a row between the CIA and AAIB. The CIA did not want any reference to IEDs, and in the end AAIB insisted, but it ended up tacked on like a coda at the bottom of Appendix F!

We could bicker about this for hours. Anyone want to approach Mr Protheroe or Mr Charles.

Charles, baseless supposition does not a credible theory make.

Do you really think that nobody at all in the AAIB would have made any serious waves either then or in the intervening 20 years, about such an enormous cover-up? If the evidence that was published really did support what you're asserting?

Rolfe.

 

[Rolfe]

I shall repeat my claim about libel Rolfe. You're the one doing it, not me. I actually saw that Hugh Tomlinson QC this morning.

If you think I have libelled anyone, feel free to point this out exactly. Indeed, feel free to report the post to the moderators.

Rolfe.

 

[Rolfe]

As I've point out my Pan Am 103 score on Google has now improved from 58 to 1300

Oh dear. I thought only Kumar indulged in argument by Googlefight (is that the term, Zep?).

Rolfe.

 

[Rolfe]

\rolfe,

Posting silly animated characters may be your idea of how to conduct an argument, but it isn't mine.

I hope I have a good general scientific eduction, and knowing a little of how radar works is part of it.

Please grow up, rather than sounding off like a teenager in a civic studies class.

I'm really having to restrain myself with the laughing dog in this thread. But sometimes it's unavoidable.

Charles, on JREF you're dealing with a group of people with more than "a good general scientific education". Get deep enough into anything, and the likelihood is that someone will show up with a PhD in the subject.

This is not however the subject of my PhD.

Rolfe.

 

[Rolfe]

That actually makes my theory simpler. Tanks for that. I'm always will to learn.

Charles, that's a fundamental point that comes out clearly in even the most supeerficial reading of the sequence of events at Heathrow. The idea that you didn't know this previously makes a complete mockery of your claims to have studies the Lockerbie incident for 20 years, especially as the location of the containers overnight and Bedford's selection of AVE4041 are absolutely central to your thesis.

Speaking of things being simpler...using the Quote take makes it much simpler for members to follow along with the discussion. You have been asked to use them when quoting posts - please do so. If you need help, PM me or any member of the Mod Team. If you continue to refuse to do so, escalating moderation action including suspension or banning may apply.

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

Charles, last night I sent you a PM explaining a very quick and easy way to use the speech-bubble icon to generate quote tags, if you wanted to cut-and-paste the actual quotes. I did this because I really don't want to see you suspended again or even banned for this silly behaviour. What's wrong with you?

Rolfe.

 

[Rolfe]

I don't think I am out of my depth here. I have answered all sensible questions put to me.

No, you haven't given your source for believing that the luggage in AVE4041 was first class luggage. Either the original interline stuff, or the Frankfurt-origin stuff. It's been pointed out to you that Karen Noonan was flying economy.

I think I have demonstrate I know something about science and English libel law, which many who blog here don't. (e.g. the range of a radar gun is limited to 400m). Hantzauman had a proper radar set capable of receiving secondary radar controlled by NATS in Southern Scotland and also the reflected primary response.

I think those of us who have been intimately following the Simon Singh case know more than you might think about English libel law. And as I mentioned, many members of this forum have higher degrees in scientific subjects while you boast an O level.

I have simply warned Rolfe not to make unsubstantiated libels, which I have not done.

Might I reciprocate by warning you not to break the speed limit? Unless you have something more specific in mind than my completely made-up assumption that breaking the speed limit is something you might conceivably do.

Rolfe.

 

[Ambrosia]

It would help if you got your facts right. UT-772 happened nine months after Lockerbie not before

I got my choronolgy mixed up - apologies.

As I've said I believe any factual statement in the AAIB report but not the written padding,

Again I ask what qualifies you to seperate factual statement from written padding?

As for explosive decompressions. there was only one,

O Really? I am not contesting there was only one, there was only one pressurised container, of course there was only one.

when the pressure hull of Pan Am 103 was breached when the IED went off. The cab air was have blown out of the aircraft in rather less than half a second.

The second explosion went off 14 seconds later, but the aircraft was in the dark, or with emergency lighting only and diving at an angle of rather more than 45 degrees. It took place at 19000'

How do you know?

Your website claims that this is so because some of the wreckage from PA103 was never found, and that this was consumed by the brisant explosion caused by the 2nd bomb. Is that correct?

The mid air breakup of PA103 is documented by the AAIB report as follows.
(I'm paraphrasing, please do go and check the report to ensure I am not mistaken here)

21st December 1988 PA103 levels off at cruising altitude of 31000' at 19:56 at about 19:03 during radio transmission of oceanic clearance from ATC the last radar return is noted, very shortly after this the IED detonates.

The initial blast shockwave punches a small hole in the luggage container, and a larger hole approximately 20" by 10" in the outer skin of the aircraft. Pressurised hull integrity is still holding at this point, the cargo hold not being pressurised.

A fraction of a second later the blast wave(the actual hot gases of the explosion) blows a much larger hole in the side of the aircraft, the petalled starburst hole near the detonation point as well as probably causing other ruptures at other points in the aircraft, hull integrity is lost and the aircraft depressurises.

The combined explosive forces of the blast shockwaves break control cables and apply inputs to some control surfaces of the aircraft causing it to turn left and point downwards at approximately 45degrees.

2-3 seconds after the explosion with the aircraft pointed downwards and rolled to the left the forces of the explosion combined with the decompression are tearing the aircraft apart along it's weakest points (mostly where it is rivetted together) at cruising speed such an aircraft travels at about 500mph (434Knots) so there is the added force of a 500mph wind outside the aircraft to aid in the destruction. At about this point in time the flight deck and a portion of the front of the aircraft detaches, it strikes #3 engine, detaching it from the wing.

We know this must be the sequence of breakup because of analyisis of where seperate pieces of the aircraft fell.

The aircraft is now pitched nose down, it's accelerating as it falls, it is missing an engine and has no nose. 500mph+ winds are tearing through the aircraft as it falls and these forces break apart the airframe further. At about 19000' the aircraft is descending vertically, still accelerating and the tail, which was struck by debris from the initial blast, and from aircraft contents released by the initial blast, breaks free. No explosive residues are found in the tail structure, this completely rules out a 2nd explosion in the tail area.

Aside from the area around the first IED no explosion damage was detected anywhere else in the aircraft.

The AAIB are not entirely sure what caused the tail to break off, they do strongly suspect the large forces being applied to the airframe from air resistance as having a major part to play in it however (flutter).

As the aircraft continues to fall vertically it breaks up even more, once the tail is gone it begins to spin (presumably as a result of the stuck control surfaces on the wings that were initially responsible for the immediate roll to the left early on) this shears off the remaining engines. At about 9000' the aircraft is almost totally disintegrated.

It strikes the ground approximately 45 seconds after the initial blast.

 

[CharlesNorrie]

I wasn't boasting of an O-level, Rolfe. What I was saying was that this is the sort of scientific question a person with O-level should know the answer to.

 

[Ambrosia]

In Figure B-24 the initial hole is called out as "Incident shock shatters 20x20 hole." However, it looks more rectangular in that illustration, also.

Good spot - thanks.

I still can't find reference to Peter Claiden stating this in the trial transcripts of his evidence, I am hoping that Charles will be able to direct me to where this was said to support his claims, it's entirely possible I have overlooked this sentance in the 2 days worth of evidence given by Mr Claiden.

 

[CharlesNorrie]

Ambrosia,

All the passengers and luggage were inside the pressure hold. When a hole was blown in that all the air blew out.

Both explosions were caused by brisant explosives. To make sure that there was no difficulty in analysing the residues, Semtex was I suggest used in both explosions.

I calculated the 14 seconds from an aircraft travelling at 800 kph for 3.1 km. See Fig 4 AAIB report.

The cargo hold is pressurised, I'll think you'll find and the hole in the external skin is 20" by 20" from a hole on the side of the container of 8" by 8".

You go on about the explosion almost ricocheting through the aircraft, but what is propagating it. The aircraft was depressurised in about 1/10 second. And what cause the second trail?

No analysis has been presented of the tail (CRAF) section structure, which is rather different. RARDE did all the explosives work. AAIB refused to handle it, I conclude.

I disagree with you when you say there was no damage other than the IED explosion. What caused the second and northerly trail then. It's shorter (the aircraft was lower) and more densely populated. There's a diagram to show that.

Apart from that your summary is fairly accurate but not noteworthy.

 

[CharlesNorrie]

I think you should do a little work for once Ambrosia. You're making quit a lot of rather silly mistakes.

 

[zooterkin]

All the passengers and luggage were inside the pressure hold.

 

[CharlesNorrie]

Rolfe, I don't think my claim that the author of the AAIB report report buried away the not more than one IED claim is irrelevant.

 

[CharlesNorrie]

What's a PM Rolfe. You have my email at norriecb [at] gmail [dot] com, if you want to get in touch with me.

 

[Rolfe]

Rolfe, I don't think my claim that the author of the AAIB report report buried away the not more than one IED claim is irrelevant.

I didn't say it was isrrelevant, I said it was ridiculous.

Rolfe.