Charles Norrie's Lockerbie theory

[CharlesNorrie]

Rolfe, unnotable is not a word in any dictionary I use. And my theory is accurately referenced, though you are to lazy to check any such references.

 

[CharlesNorrie]

I don't think references your own comments in this blog/forum or whatever it is really counts, do you Rolfe.

 

[Sabretooth]

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.

No, your view is called "tunnel-vision". There are plenty of factors that can contribute to this structural failure. I mentioned one of them already:

http://en.wikipedia.com/Mach_stem

Quit pretending you are some professional investi-googler.

Next helpful criticism someone. Not you, Rolfe or sabretooth.

You know...I've been nothing but cordial with you, Charles...

So you want to pick and choose members? You'll only answer or acknowledge those that (somehow) back your theory? This isn't the forum for that. Go make your own forum so you all can hold hands and drink special Kool-Aid together.

In other words, go peddle your garbage somewhere else.

 

[Sabretooth]

I don't think references your own comments in this blog/forum or whatever it is really counts, do you Rolfe.

Do you not know what the word "irony" means??

Or, possibly, the word "hypocrite"?

 

[Rolfe]

Exactly Rolfe. Carping about trivialities is not work.Will you take yourself elsewhere.

Next helpful criticism someone. Not you, Rolfe or sabretooth.

Tough. You don't own the forum, Charles.

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. And by whatever route the bomb got onto the plane why did it get into a first-off container in the forehold. It is rather unlikely. The bag loaded at Luqa was nothing special, yet it went into AVE4041 PA, whivh either contained first class luggage (first class passengers to that most class ridden of all countries don't want to be delayed) or an interline container. Thank you. I'll put the point in my next revision.

Charles, it would almost definitely have been in that container if it got on the plane any way other than through the check-in desks at Heathrow.

As far as I can tell, all the interline luggage arriving at Heathrow during the afternoon went into that container. There would have been room for perhaps another 40 to 45 items of luggage after that. When PA103A landed, almost all the US-bound luggage from that plane was added to it. A few items were loose-loaded elsewhere.

There were 49 US-bound passengers on PA103A. It's arithmetically impossible for 49 passengers to generate around 40 to 45 items of first-class luggage and only a few items of pleb-class luggage. What went into AVE4041 from PA103A was either all pleb-class (with the first-class being the few bags over that were loose-loaded), or mostly pleb-class.

Karen Noonan's case was one of the first to go into the container, as it was on the bottom layer. She was a young woman returning from an extended vacational stay in Europe. She interlined into Frankfurt from Vienna, and joined PA103A there. Her holiday photographs were found at Lockerbie and returned to her family. Some were shown on TV recently. What makes you think she was travelling first-class?

At least, that is how I understand the evidence with regard to the baggage loading from the connecting flights. If I'm wrong I'd be glad to be put right. Charles, please provide the primary documentation you're using for your counter-intuitive assertion.

Ambrosia is right though. It's entirely possible the positioning of the bomb in such a bad place was coincidental. Random positioning, by definition, doesn't avoid the especially good or especially bad places.

ETA: What bag from Luqa, Charles? There was no bag from Luqa, we all know that.

Rolfe.

 

[CharlesNorrie]

I think I know the English language better than you, sabre. I am English and live in London.

You have attacked my views from the first and have not even demonstrated you've even read them.

Send me a 120 page thesis and I might talk to you.

I have considered over 20 theories of Lockerbie, and only the one I put forward begins to fit.

It necessarily contains gaps because the real perpetrators and progenitors, the US government, the Iranian one, their agencies the CIA and the Pasdaran (have you heard of it) will not ever reveal their real roles.

Why am I a hypocrite? Because I speak what I happen to believe is nearer the truth than anyone else has put forward.

I know about irony, and it is clear you do not. There is nothing in my thesis near to irony. Or your comments. Do you actually know how many types of irony there are. I thought not.

You have not been cordial sabre. You have bullied me from the start, because you don't believe the agencies of your precious country can be up to no good. Or that a presidential candidate would agree to an atrocity to save his candidacy. It almost makes me happy to live in a constitutional monarchy.

I don't know what "Kool-aid"ing together is. Again it is a bit of local American jargon that I am unfamiliar with.

The garbage, unfortunately for you will continue. In about three days it is four pages long, which is more than you've ever achieved, I suspect, in your whole bogging existence. Why don;t you go off and subscribe to the Frank Duggan memorial website.

Cheap sixth-form 16-17 jibes are an unworthy way of arguing.

Edited by Professor Yaffle: 

Edited for civility

 

[Rolfe]

Rolfe, unnotable is not a word in any dictionary I use. And my theory is accurately referenced, though you are to lazy to check any such references.

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/unnotable
http://thesaurus.com/browse/unnotable

I told you, I'm not going on an Easter-egg hunt trawling through large texts trying to spot the typo or irrational inference you think supports your fantasy. You need to provide your support source up-front for the points people are disputing in your thesis. That's how you support your theory.

You could start by giving us your source for your assertion that the luggage in AVE103 was first class.

Rolfe.

 

[Rolfe]

I don't think references your own comments in this blog/forum or whatever it is really counts, do you Rolfe.

Counts for what? I told you, I don't blog. The only things I have written on Lockerbie are forum posts. You said you hadn't read any of these that were referenced. I gave you a link to some that were.

Notice I was proposing a pretty anti-American Lockerbie conspiracy theory. I didn't get any serious opposing argument at all. Because it was all properly referenced, and if asked, I could have provided further references for any point that was still in doubt.

Rolfe.

 

[CharlesNorrie]

Oh good Rolfe. A claim at last. What bag from Malta.

Now, why was there any bag at all.

The CIA were at Lockerbie.

The CIA found McKee's suitcase and interfered with it. (Read Johnston, which you've never bothered to do.)

The CIA replaced McKee's suitcase at Lockerbie, with a hole cut in its side. (Read Johnston again.)

A fragment of Toshiba chip appeared in a face plate of AVE4041.

If the claim is that a suitcase exploded in AVE4041 it could not have got stuck in the face plate, on the outside of the container.

In the trade, we know it as the non-Newtonian chip.

The AAIB handed it to the RARDE, as they did not want to handle an obvious plant like that.

So why should I believe any evidence claimed to be found on the ground at Lockerbie from suitcase to clothing to Newcastleton fragments.

Your theory says that you believe certain findings at Lockerbie are true, and some are not. But you never ever tell us what you believe and what you don't.

I threw all the evidence out, and started again. You could too, rather than using you usual abuse.

 

[carlitos]

I know about irony, and it is clear you do not.

<snip>

Cheap sixth-form 16-17 jibes are an unworthy way of arguing.

Edited by LashL: 

Removed quote of moderated content.

I don't know what "Kool-aid"ing together is. Again it is a bit of local American jargon that I am unfamiliar with.

Jonestown Massacre

Drinking the Kool-Aid refers to the Jonestown Massacre; the phrase suggests that one has mindlessly adopted the dogma of a group or leader without fully understanding the ramifications or implications

 

[CharlesNorrie]

Rolfe, I am not proposing an anti-American conspiracy theory. I am trying to solve Lockerbie. I have argued that compared with what the Iranians proposed/threatened to do (between 5 and 12 aircraft (1500-3000 people) the Americans got a good bargain losing only 270 to 290 on IR-655.

You should thank Richard Lawless (who he - he's only got a name/"Pan Am 103" count of 114, so you could look that up) for that astute bit of bargaining. But the Iranians want their revenge.

 

[CharlesNorrie]

Since bogging/writing i this forum my hit rate of

"Charles Norrie" "Pan Am 103"

has gone up from a mere 58 to over 1300. Wow!

 

[CharlesNorrie]

Dear Carlitos,

I cannot be mouthing a group leader as I am alone, it seems producing my theory. It really is mine alone, whether you like it or not. The is no leader of the Charles Norrie faction.

 

[carlitos]

You're welcome for the explanation for the American cultural reference of which you were previously unaware.

ETA - for context:

So you want to pick and choose members? You'll only answer or acknowledge those that (somehow) back your theory? This isn't the forum for that. Go make your own forum so you all can hold hands and drink special Kool-Aid together.

 

[CharlesNorrie]

Mr Carlitos,

I really don't know what you are talking about, if anything. I respond here to people who sensibly engage with my stuff not South Park foul-mouths and dimmos

 

[Rolfe]

Oh good Rolfe. A claim at last. What bag from Malta.

Now, why was there any bag at all.

The CIA were at Lockerbie.

The CIA found McKee's suitcase and interfered with it. (Read Johnston, which you've never bothered to do.)

The CIA replaced McKee's suitcase at Lockerbie, with a hole cut in its side. (Read Johnston again.)

None of that is evidence that anything at all was planted at Lockerbie.

A fragment of Toshiba chip appeared in a face plate of AVE4041.

If the claim is that a suitcase exploded in AVE4041 it could not have got stuck in the face plate, on the outside of the container.

In the trade, we know it as the non-Newtonian chip.

In this trade, we know all about Newtonian physics. Indeed, homoeopaths have occassionally described me as being "stuck in a Newtonian paradigm". You still haven't shown your working to support your claim that a fragment from close to the explosion couldn't have got stuck in a plate on the outside of the baggage container.

Ever watched a snooker match, Charles?

The AAIB handed it to the RARDE, as they did not want to handle an obvious plant like that.

The AAIB passed it on to RARDE for forensic examination and identification. Because that was RARDE's job, not the job of the AAIB investigators. Unless you have a signed statement from Mr. Claiden that says, take this obvious plant away, Thomas, fabrication of evidence is your line!

So why should I believe any evidence claimed to be found on the ground at Lockerbie from suitcase to clothing to Newcastleton fragments.

No, if you want to claim that any evidence presented in the case was fabricated and/or planted, you have to explain how this happened. We do have rules of evidence and corroboration in Scotland you know, and bent investigators have to put in a bit of effort to circumvent them.

Your theory says that you believe certain findings at Lockerbie are true, and some are not. But you never ever tell us what you believe and what you don't.

I threw all the evidence out, and started again. You could too, rather than using you usual abuse.

My approach is to examine whether any claim that a particular piece of evidence has been fabricated has any foundation to it. In a couple of cases, the answer appears to be yes.

If your approach is to assume a priori that none of the physical evidence is genuine, then I do hope you're never called up for jury service, that's all.

If I were to start abusing you, I think you'd notice. I haven't started, and as unlike you I'm not keen on collecting yellow cards, I'll refrain.

Rolfe.

 

[carlitos]

Mr Carlitos,

I really don't know what you are talking about, if anything. I respond here to people who sensibly engage with my stuff not South Park foul-mouths and dimmos

Dude, you stated that you weren't familiar with the "Kool Aid" reference, which is well known in America. I provided it, linked to a wiki article that explained it further, and cited the original quote in context so you would understand its relevance. Most people would just say "thanks," and leave it at that. Good luck with your Lockerbie theory.

Rolfe - sorry for the partial derail

 

[Sabretooth]

I think I know the English language better than you, sabre. I am English and live in London...

Then maybe you can explain your lack of comprehension. I've asked a number of different and legitimate questions that you have completely ignored. You obviously haven't understood any of the posts I've made, either. So, for your convenience, here is my history of posting with direction toward you:

Post #2:
I asked if my comprehension was correct of your blog; in that you believe the U.S. voluntarily assisted the bombing of PA103 to allow Iran it’s revenge for IR655.

Post #10:
I summarized your article and asked that you show proof of your claims, as you do not adequately do so on your blog.

Post #32:
I am again asking for clarity. You show a bias toward an Iranian news source. Then you claim I’m the one being ignorant.

Post #42:
I am still awaiting clarity and facts. I point out a glaring contradiction in your blog that requires an answer.

Post #43:
I ask that you provide proof of your theory that the U.S. fears Iran of “what it might do”.

Post #45:
You claim your blog is “impregnable”. I disagree with you and I state as to why.

Post #84:
I, again, make a plea for you to clarify yourself. Your claims are nothing more than speculation.

Post #105
I simplify my question and ask for a specific detail. You say the bomb evidence was planted. I ask that you show proof that this statement can be considered valid.

Post #110:
I ask another simple question. I asked why you felt the CIA was aware of the plot but still killed 4 or 5 of its agents anyway.

Post #111:
I ask another simple question. Why do you feel it was such a surprise that a small bomb caused total destruction? I provided facts as to why you shouldn’t be “surprised”.

Post #123:
I asked if you were going to answer my questions.

Post #127:
I posted more evidence of my claims in post #111.

Post #128:
I explained to you why my questions we valid and why “hand-waving” them away just not change facts.

Post #133:
I explained, albeit coarsely, as to why your Wiki article was rejected.

Post #143:
I explained that your view is very narrow-minded. If you truly seek answers, you cannot cherry-pick your arguments and sources.

Post #144:
You complained that Wiki would not accept your own published blog as a source, but then ridiculed Rolfe for the same thing. That is a clear definition of hypocrisy.

Never...in ANY of my posts...have I made the comment that I feel the CIA or the U.S. gov't are a group of angels or free of ridicule...yet you accuse me of the same.

Again, I will state: The Burden of Proof Always Falls On the Accuser, not the other way around.

If you want me, or anyone else for that matter, to take your hypothesis seriously, then you will need to support your stories with facts and evidence...not guesswork and assumptions.

 

[Sabretooth]

Since bogging/writing i this forum my hit rate of

"Charles Norrie" "Pan Am 103"

has gone up from a mere 58 to over 1300. Wow!

I see. So this project is nothing more than a popularity contest? That explains a lot.

 

[zooterkin]

You're welcome for the explanation for the American cultural reference of which you were previously unaware.

I would just point out, not that anyone cares, that it wasn't Kool-Aid that was used at Jonestown, but Flavor-aid. I think the confusion may have arisen from the Tom Wolfe book, The Electric Kool-Aid Acid Test.