Charles Norrie's Lockerbie theory

[CharlesNorrie]

Ambrosia, if We were to ask yourslef the question as to why RARDE was used, given the failures of its two Lockerbie investigators, you might come to the conclusion that they were chosen because they were broken reeds.

Please the read again my reasons for saying that there was more than one explosion. Consider the work of Mr John Parks for instance.

I have never met Mr Parks

I can distinguish between the plain facts and what appears to be mere opinion.

 

[CharlesNorrie]

And I spent wearisme times with you Rolfe on Black's blogspot and now here? Why do you show so much reluctance to understand? I've told you the factual limits of my knowledge. Professional qualifications are worth nothing as compared with the necessity of trying to think.

 

[Sabretooth]

This befuddled me for years – how could such a small device completely obliterate Flight 103? The plane's fuel tanks couldn't have contributed to the blast because they exploded on the ground at Lockerbie. I was not alone in my confusion.

To offer yet another source:

[...] Any break of substantial size in the highly pressurized hull, for reasons such as a bomb explosion, a mid air collision, or an inadvertently opened cargo door, would be sufficient to cause an explosive decompression and subsequent partial or full inflight breakup.

Source: http://www.ntsb.org/Wiringcargodoor/home_files/SmithAAR103fffallpartapA-N_1.pdf

 

[Sabretooth]

Then Sabre, show your understanding is worthy of your training.

I believe I have been doing so all along. Shall I ask my fellow forum members if I am incorrect in that statement?

 

[CharlesNorrie]

Whatever your associates claim about you Sabre, is essentially your claim, but your understanding of my story does not impress me, but for some reason seems to bother you. If you don't like what I'm saying, I could direct you to any number of sites on model railways and the like.

 

[realdon]

Realdon,

You don't convince me. Of course I do not have any knowledge of helicopter missions at around 7pm on 21 December 1988. It is the sort of fact the CIA would not let out.

You clearly know little about radar, and in principle radar waves travel to infinity unless they meet the ground or another object. I know that from my physics "O" level, now 45 years ago.

Just look at some of BB's television interviews.

Charles, I did not say anything about how far electromagnetic waves travel. Yes they travel for ever at the speed of light but they appear to weaken further away from their source and are overcome by noise/static and become undetectable. So to have a greater range a higher power output at the transmitter is required with more sensitive receivers.

David

 

[SpitfireIX]

The answer in the AAIB report, Sabre, is inadequate. No explanation is given as to why the break-up happened. I don't know why, but I can see dissimulation when I see it. It will cause me great sorrow when the AAIB (a very decent organisation) is challenged in their findings all to support the wrongdoings of a US state terrorist organisation.

Section 2.12.2.1

Whilst it has not been possible to find a specific mechanism to explain the regions of localised skin separation and peel-back (i.e. the 'pressure blow' regions referred to in para 2.12.2), they were almost certainly the result of high intensity shock overpressures produced locally in those regions as a result of the additive recombination of shock waves transmitted through the lower hull cavities. It is considered that the relatively close proximity of the left side region of damage just below floor level at station 500, [Appendix B, Figure B-19, region D] to the forward end of the cargo hold may be significant insofar as the reflections back from the forward end of the hold would have produced a local enhancement of the shock overpressure. Similarly, 'endblockage effects' produced by the cargo door frame might have been responsible for local enhancements in the area of the belly skin separation and curl-back at station 560 [Appendix B, Figure B-19 and B-20, region E].

The separation of the large section of upper fuselage skin [Appendix B, Figure B-19 and B-20, detail B] was almost certainly associated with a local overpressure in the side cavities between the main deck window line and the upper deck floor, where the cavity is effectively closed off. It is considered that the most probable mechanism producing this region of impulse overpressure was a reflection from the closed end of the cavity, possibly combined with further secondary reflections from the window assembly, the whole being driven by reflective overpressures at the forward end of the longitudinal manifold cavity caused by the forward end of the cargo hold. The local overpressure inside the sidewall cavity would have been backed up by a general cabin overpressure resulting from the floor breakthrough, giving rise to an increased pressure acting on the inner face of the cabin side liner panels.This would have provided pseudo mass to the panels, effectively preventing them from moving inwards and allowing them to react [to] the impulse pressure within the cavity, producing the region of local high pressure evidenced by the region of quilting on the skin panels [Appendix B, Figure B-19, region C]. [typos due to text scanning corrected]

Please explain how the above discussion is not an explanation, and exactly what you feel constitutes "dissimulation" in the passage.

ETA: I see Charles has just earned 7 more days on "the naughty step."

 

[Rolfe]

Whatever your associates claim about you Sabre, is essentially your claim, but your understanding of my story does not impress me, but for some reason seems to bother you. If you don't like what I'm saying, I could direct you to any number of sites on model railways and the like.

Charles, all this bickering and personalisation of the discussion advances your cause not an inch. You have failed to persuade anyone that there was a second explosion. You have failed to persuade anyone that baggage container AVE4041 was either present at Heathrow airport at midnight the night before, or identifiable as the container Bedford was required to select for the PA103 interline baggage during the afternoon. You have failed to persuade anyone that it was essential for any Iranian revenge for IA655 to be directly carried out by someone closely connected to that disaster.

This amounts to a fail. You are trying to persuade people in general of all these points, and you are simply not succeeding. You need to address the deficiencies in your argument, not snipe and belittle those who are trying to understand you.

Rolfe.

 

[Rolfe]

Professional qualifications are worth nothing as compared with the necessity of trying to think.

Not necessarily so. It is usually necessary to think to achieve these qualifications. And a layman may think until kingdom come about a subject he knows little about, and achieve nothing because of basic lack of knowledge and understanding.

Rolfe.

 

[Sabretooth]

Whatever your associates claim about you Sabre, is essentially your claim, but your understanding of my story does not impress me, but for some reason seems to bother you. If you don't like what I'm saying, I could direct you to any number of sites on model railways and the like.

Charles - it has nothing to do with whether or not I "don't like what [your] saying". I am asking you for clarity. However, I'm not impressed with your constant dodging of my questions.

And I understand your story quite well...but at this point, a story is exactly what you are trying to pass off as fact.

I am asking you to prove your position. What evidence did you find that supports your story?

I've provided you with facts and sources to justify my disbelief. Now I ask that you return the gesture and provide some facts of your own to justify your position. This is how a civil debate is carried. But I'm sure you know this already.

Don't misconstrue my disbelief as "not understanding".

 

[realdon]

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.

Jings now this. Please explain.

Are you suggesting "Hantzauman" had a device that was receiving and displaying a radar signal that was transmitted by the NATS radar ?

David

 

[Sabretooth]

ETA: I see Charles has just earned 7 more days on "the naughty step."

 

[Ambrosia]

Please the read again my reasons for saying that there was more than one explosion.

I can't find any reasons other than.

i) there was more than 1 debris trail
ii) some of the wreckage was missing and not recovered

I was asking you to state them again so that perhaps I could understand them a little better. I hope that if/when you return to this forum after your suspension has elapsed you would indulge me and state them plainly once more for the record.

On your website you also claim as source material for John Parks[sic],

(it's actually John H Parkes. One wonders if your method to avoid libel is to intentionally misspell peoples names. It does make finding the source of your material awkward.)
"Notes of a video made by me from a video interview with John Parks. Notes made 6/10/09"

I would very much like to watch this interview, if such a thing is possible.

 

[Rolfe]

ETA: I see Charles has just earned 7 more days on "the naughty step."

Damn. Repeated incivility and ignoring mod warnings.

I certainly didn't report anything he posted today. I tried my best to show him how to use the quote function, including sending him a PM about it. I really, really didn't want him suspended again. And to go from 24 hours to 7 days in one leap suggests the mods weren't too happy with the way he was going.

What is it about twoofers? Doesn't seem to matter which aeroplane they're hung up about, they all seem to follow the same pattern.

Rolfe.

 

[GlennB]

You clearly know little about radar, and in principle radar waves travel to infinity unless they meet the ground or another object. I know that from my physics "O" level, now 45 years ago.

My physics 'O' level was 44 years ago. We learned about the inverse square law. The strength varies inversely with square of distance. Double the distance, 1/4 strength. 10x distance, 1/100th strength etc.

eta: too late.

 

[Rolfe]

My physics O grade (the Scottish equivalent) was only 41 years ago - is that a win or a lose? I got over 95% in it, too! Got an A grade in Higher physics 39 years ago. Got a distinction in pre-med physics at Glasgow University 38 years ago.

I still think that's all fairly irrelevant to the discussion. Higher degrees in engineering would be more impressive.

Rolfe.

 

[Rolfe]

I suppose this thread will just die for a week now. Damn.

Still, while we're waiting, could I expand on one point that got a bit lost earlier?

I propose that the containers that arrived from NY mid afternoon of 20 December 1988 were trundled round the the baggage shed when empty and lined up.

Er, you'll have to explain this. Which flight did these containers arrive on, mid afternoon on 20th December? What was the flight number, and which actual aeroplane was involved?

I have answered all sensible questions put to me.

No Charles, you missed that one, and indeed all my questions about your imaginary baggage container system. This particular point suggests to me that you're labouring under a rather elementary misapprehension.

Charles has never described his container allocation system in detail, but it seems to involve every aircraft having a number of different sets of containers which are specific to that aircraft. Possibly three. So that at any time one set is in use and the other two are on the ground.

Right away we can see the flaw here. Three times as many containers as are needed in the air at any time. This is expensive and wasteful of resources. An efficient system would seek to minimise investment in equipment that would just be lying around, and to have containers in the air for as high a proportion of the time as possible. It would also incur extra expense as regards provision of sufficient storage facilities on the ground to take all this stuff. Another consideration is the man-hours lost rooting around for the right set of containers in the context of large numbers of the things being stored on the ground for varying lengths of time.

However, there's another reason this system is a nonsense, at least as Charles seems to be imagining it. He seems to think every airliner only ever shuttles between two airports, like a cable-car or a yo-yo. I think he's imagining three sets of containers, with one in the air and one at each of the two airports.

Of course planes don't fly like that. Even on a normal schedule, planes frequently don't go back to the airport they came from. Never mind when schedules are disrupted for some reason! If every plane was using only its own containers, it would mean it had to have a set at every airport in the world, plus one! Who's going to pay for all that, and the storage?

Why do I think Charles believes that? I think that was the explanation he partly gave on Robert Black's blog. And also, that comment about the containers having "arrived from NY mid afternoon of 20 December 1988". Huh? As he seems to think that the container sets are tied to the actual planes, I can only imagine that he thinks that Maid of the Seas flew in from NY, mid-afternoon on 20th December.

Where does he get that idea from? Again, I can only imagine he's working on this yo-yo idea, and also thinks the plane flew in to Heathrow from NY mid-afternoon on 21st December.

(7) That the aircraft involved arrived at Heathrow at about 1210 hours on 21 December 1988 from San Francisco and was under constant guard until it left Heathrow as Flight 103 that evening.

Not mid-afteroon - and not New York actually. Maid of the Seas flew in from San Fransisco about noon on 21st December.

This was why I was asking Charles what flight and what plane he was imagining these containers flew in on, mid-afternoon on 20th December from NY. I think he imagines it was Maid of the Seas, and it simply can't have been, if that plane only landed from SF (an 11-hour flight or something like that) at noon on the 21st. It would have taken off from SF about 1am GMT on the 21st. It's physically impossible for it to have landed at Heathrow less than 12 hours before that!

If Charles runs to form on this, I suspect he'll decide that flights are paired to keep to his plan, it's just that it isn't the same actual plane each time. This might be a bit more sensible, but in that case, why on earth would any such system hold a set of luggage containers on the ground for over 24 hours (mid-afternoon on the 20th to 6pm on the 21st), when flights were landing and taking off several times a day?

This is what I mean when I say Charles hasn't done his reading, doesn't have a command of the essential facts, and is simply making stuff up rather than thinking his thesis through.

Rolfe.

 

[Rolfe]

To offer yet another source:

Source: http://www.ntsb.org/Wiringcargodoor/home_files/SmithAAR103fffallpartapA-N_1.pdf

I never saw that before, Sabretooth. Thanks for that.

Rolfe.

ETA: Ooooh, it's another CT! Way different from Charles's, and it seems to be in the class of "it was really an accident", similar to the Parkes story. This guy seems to think it was an accidental explosive decompression due to a faulty cargo door, and the apparent evidence of the IED due to "a rather large shotgun" being present in the luggage container, loaded, which went off as a result of the accident. That's new!

 

[Soapy Sam]

I suppose this thread will just die for a week now. Damn.

I generally stay out of CT and reading this convinces me I'm wise. A week or a year from now, this guy will still be spouting nonsense and ignoring or being rude to anyone who disagrees with him. Why bother?

This is what I mean when I say Charles hasn't done his reading, doesn't have a command of the essential facts, and is simply making stuff up rather than thinking his thesis through.

Rolfe.

Furthermore, he can't tell a web board from a blog, he can't or won't learn how to use the quote function, he writes incomprehensibly and he doesn't think too clearly. He is pretty obviously headed for a ban in fairly short order, as he will continue to be abusive and to ignore mod instruction. He will ascribe this to CIA influence. (I'm fairly sure Darat is MI6 myself. I mean, English and gay- stands to reason. And Randi is a perfidious Yank as well- case closed!)
So what makes him worth the trouble?

 

[SpitfireIX]

I generally stay out of CT and reading this convinces me I'm wise. A week or a year from now, this guy will still be spouting nonsense and ignoring or being rude to anyone who disagrees with him. Why bother?

Furthermore, he can't tell a web board from a blog, he can't or won't learn how to use the quote function, he writes incomprehensibly and he doesn't think too clearly. He is pretty obviously headed for a ban in fairly short order, as he will continue to be abusive and to ignore mod instruction. He will ascribe this to CIA influence. (I'm fairly sure Darat is MI6 myself. I mean, English and gay- stands to reason. And Randi is a perfidious Yank as well- case closed!)
So what makes him worth the trouble?

I and others have addressed this question here and elsewhere, both online and in the real world. For most of us, the answer is, we don't expect to convince the true believers of the error of their ways; we know that's virtually impossible. Rather, we do it for the benefit of the uninformed who might be exposed to conspiracist garbage and wonder whether there's any truth to it. We are quite confident that as long as we make an effort to present the truth, it will win out eventually.

Also, for me personally, I see conspiracists as [Rule 10]ing on the graves of, variously, the Americans (and Japanese) killed at Pearl Harbor; JFK and Patrolman J.D. Tippit; all of the astronauts who have given their lives in pursuit of the exploration of space; and all of the victims of the various terrorist attacks that have become fodder for conspiracy theories. This angers me, and I feel an obligation to attempt to call attention to this behavior.

ETA: I don't consider Holocaust denial to be a form of conspiracism, even though the two phenomena appear superficially similar, and there is certainly a significant amount of crossover. Deniers are in a special category of particular loathing and contempt.