Charles Norrie's Lockerbie theory

[Zep]

Um...it's not my definition, Charles...that is the English dictionary definition...

You boasted of your mastery of the English language in this very thread...surely you know the definition of this rather simple word?

He boasted his mastery in a post that was riddled with grammar and punctuation errors. That was a clue...

 

[CharlesNorrie]

Sabre,

One is not convicted of libel on a definition in a dictionary. You have to bring a case in the courts.

So, I won't talk to you until you get rid of your silly nit-picking attitude. I don't think you have the slightest idea of what constitutes a libel case in the English courts.

 

[Zep]

Ambrosia, where did the second, northerly debris trail come from. It comes not from simply disintegration. It must have been an explosion. Sabre, your worthless comments are noted, and rejected.

Total speculation based on unfounded supposition. This isn't going well for you, Charles.

 

[Zep]

Sabre,

One is not convicted of libel on a definition in a dictionary. You have to bring a case in the courts.

So, I won't talk to you until you get rid of your silly nit-picking attitude. I don't think you have the slightest idea of what constitutes a libel case in the English courts.

I do. Sabretooth is correct.

Carry on!

 

[CharlesNorrie]

Ambrosia,

You said about RARDE, what is hard to understand. I don't think you have followed the structural debacle of that organisation before the English appeal courts. Both Mr Fereday and Dr Hayes had cases thrown out by them on the evidence they had provided evidence at the primary trials.

Start with the MacGuire case for one.

 

[CharlesNorrie]

Do be sensible, Sabre. But you've proved yourself not worth engaging with.

 

[zooterkin]

You said about RARDE, what is hard to understand.

Royal Armament Research and Development Establishment. No, nothing too hard there. The second word would seem to be a clue...

I don't think you have followed the structural debacle of that organisation before the English appeal courts.

What is that sentence supposed to mean? What do you mean by "structural debacle"?

Both Mr Fereday and Dr Hayes had cases thrown out by them on the evidence they had provided evidence at the primary trials.

It's almost impossible to extract meaning from this sentence. Could you try again, this time following the rules of English grammar?

 

[Sabretooth]

Ambrosia, where did the second, northerly debris trail come from. It comes not from simply disintegration. It must have been an explosion. Sabre, your worthless comments are noted, and rejected.

AAIB says the second (northern) trail was primarily the debris from the tail structure.

The AAIB also says there was no evidence of a second IED. Where is your evidence that refutes this statment?

 

[Sabretooth]

Sabre,

One is not convicted of libel on a definition in a dictionary. You have to bring a case in the courts.

So, I won't talk to you until you get rid of your silly nit-picking attitude. I don't think you have the slightest idea of what constitutes a libel case in the English courts.

So, then, when you made this statement (directed to me) in your post #12:

You are a very silly and ignorant American nationalist.

I could, quite legally in an English court, sue you for libel, yes? After all, you have no proof that I am such.


ETA - Apologies for the derail everyone...

 

[Sabretooth]

Do be sensible, Sabre. But you've proved yourself not worth engaging with.

How so? You've completely ignored my questions. When I ask for a response, you've gone so far as to throw me some personal insults.

Are you upset that I don't buy your story?
Or do you not like people pointing out your lack of research?

Either way, I'll ask one of my questions again:

Why do you find it surprising that PA103 experienced explosive decompression from the IED?

 

[carlitos]

@CharlesNorrie

I'm just trying to follow the conversation, as this topic is not my forte.

However, please allow me to second or third or fourth the request for you to use the quote function. It's difficult and silly to have to scroll up and try to figure out what specific points you are addressing in your writing. If you are having trouble understanding it, please see the 'help' section or FAQ, or as suggested, even send a PM (private message) to a moderator.

Thanks.

 

[Rolfe]

Ambrosia, where did the second, northerly debris trail come from. It comes not from simply disintegration. It must have been an explosion. Sabre, your worthless comments are noted, and rejected.

Everybody else is perfectly content to accept that the two-trail pattern is a result of the way the aircraft disintegrated. The AAIB report is in the public domain for all to read.

Where are all the air accident investigators in other jurisdictions coming forward to point out that the official AAIB explanation is so horribly wrong?

Rolfe.

 

[CharlesNorrie]

Red between the lines, Sabre. And unlike you I haven't spent 20 years doing nothing.
I don't find it at all surprising that Pan Am 103 experienced decompression, which happened very quicly indeed when the first explosion took place.

I don't know about this quote function, Carlitos.

Rolfe, just because because everybody else is happy to accept a two trail pattern, doesn't mean I am. Please read my analysis again and again, if necessary until you are physically sick. NO OTHER AAIB with run with this potato, but it sill exists, to uote a more famous physicist than me.

 

[Sabretooth]

Red between the lines, Sabre. And unlike you I haven't spent 20 years doing nothing.
I don't find it at all surprising that Pan Am 103 experienced decompression, which happened very quicly indeed when the first explosion took place.

You made the following observation in your blog article:

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. This was, however, small compared to the size of the plane and experts were puzzled about how such a small explosion could have caused so much damage.

Then you made the following statement:

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.

So I ask again...why was this surprising to you? The AAIB report was very clear as to why this relatively small IED caused the destruction of PA103.

 

[CharlesNorrie]

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.

 

[Sabretooth]

Red between the lines, Sabre. And unlike you I haven't spent 20 years doing nothing.

For the sake of disclosure, I want you to be aware of my qualifications with aircraft. I spent 6 years in school studying airframe and powerplant mechanics. I also spent 4 years working with small aircraft at a local airfield. I've also spent time working with several investigators that are employed by the NTSB...as well as with a gentleman that worked with the TSB in Canada.

I'm not pointing this out to be boastful, but merely so you stop treating me like some little kid who doesn't know what they're talking about.

 

[Ambrosia]

You said about RARDE, what is hard to understand. I don't think you have followed the structural debacle of that organisation before the English appeal courts.

Read back through the threads posted here on this topic and you will see that that is not so. I am very well aware of RARDE's track record in previous cases.

That is beside the point though.

AAIB do air accident investigations, they don't do forensic research on explosives and are not best qualified to work out what type of explosive is what. They also had a lot of work on at the time!

Why RARDE was used and not a n other explosives lab is a good question, but it is not one that you have asked.

I have asked two questons of you in particular that I would very much like you to answer.

i) How do you know there were two bombs aboard PA103? Surely your theory cannot rest on "there were two debris trails therefore it follows that there must, and can only have been, two explosive devices"

ii) What qualifies you to decide which parts of the AAIB report are fact and which are 'written padding'?

I have a whole raft of questions I would like to debate with you about John Parkes, I've only ready his report, you've spoken to him in person.

Unless you can answer these two basic starter questions though it's pointless going further.

 

[Rolfe]

Red between the lines, Sabre. And unlike you I haven't spent 20 years doing nothing.

This isn't very polite Charles. You have no idea what Sabretooth has been doing for the past 20 years. And you yourself have ridiculed others for spending what seems to you to be an excessive amount of time considering the Lockerbie affair.

This continual injunction to "read between the lines" is irritating and will get you nowhere. If you want people to understand your thesis, you have to explain it in plain, understandable terms.

I don't find it at all surprising that Pan Am 103 experienced decompression, which happened very quicly indeed when the first explosion took place.

Then why are you so hung up on this fictional seciond explosion then?

I don't know about this quote function, Carlitos.

I explained one way to use it in an early post. Just click on the button labelled "quote" in the bottom right area of the post you want to quote. And be careful to close the quote tag and open it again if you want to make comments in the middle of a quoted passage.

I PMed you with information about an easy way to get pasted quotes to show up as quotes - just highlight the quoted passage you pasted in, and click on the little speech-bubble icon above the reply form.

It's not difficult. What's wrong with you Charles, a child could understand this.

Rolfe, just because because everybody else is happy to accept a two trail pattern, doesn't mean I am. Please read my analysis again and again, if necessary until you are physically sick. NO OTHER AAIB with run with this potato, but it sill exists, to uote a more famous physicist than me.

Charles, I've read your fantasy quite enough to see it for a fantasy. You have to realise by now that you have not succeeded in making a convincing case with that document. You need to ask yourself where you have failed in this, and try harder to explain yourself. Not throw temper tantrums and tell people to "read between the lines".

Rolfe.

 

[CharlesNorrie]

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

 

[Rolfe]

Charles, why do assume that to "show understanding" it is necessary for Sabretooth to agree with your interpretation? What are your formal qualifications and professional experience that are relevant to this analysis? Do you not consider any possibility that it is you who are mistaken?

Rolfe.