IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi , Charles Norrie , Lockerbie bombing , Pan Am 103 , US-Iran relations

Reply
Old 2nd September 2010, 02:58 PM   #161
Rolfe
Adult human female
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 50,594
Good gracious, you learn something new every day. (No, not the "Flavor-aid" thing, I think I read that on another thread.) I saw Charles typed "bogging" a couple of times, and I wasn't sure if it was a typo. It's a pejorative term in slang colloquial Scots, and I wasn't sure whether his sojourn in the Ochils had included that in the local vocabulary.

So I looked it up. And found this. http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=bogging

Warning. You may need to scrub your brain out with a brillo pad if you follow that link. I was going for definition 3. But definition 2??

Rolfe.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.
Rolfe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd September 2010, 03:06 PM   #162
Rolfe
Adult human female
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 50,594
Originally Posted by CharlesNorrie View Post
Rolfe, I am not proposing an anti-American conspiracy theory.

Oh, I rather think you are.

Originally Posted by CharlesNorrie View Post
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.

But you don't mention that aspect at all in your article as far as I could see. Instead you speak only of "an eye for an eye" and imply that the CIA was merely helping Iran get exactly the revenge it believed was appropriate. Which is it?

Originally Posted by CharlesNorrie View Post
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.

Maybe they did. But where are the Middle East experts who support your theory that it had to be a hands-on exercise by someone closely affected by the original act? I have read elsewhere that paying a third party to do the deed would have been perfectly acceptable. You are the only person I have ever encountered who claims this would not have been adequate. Indeed, many commentators say openly that Iran simply paid Jibril to do the job - and point to the evidence of the actual payment. Where are the middle eastern experts who should be explaining that this can't be right?

Rolfe.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.
Rolfe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd September 2010, 03:42 PM   #163
Ambrosia
Good of the Fods
 
Ambrosia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 2,675
Charles, how do you get from:

Originally Posted by Ambrosia View Post
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

Originally Posted by CharlesNorrie View Post
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:

Originally Posted by Charles Norrie website
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:

Quote:
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:

Originally Posted by Charles Norrie website
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:

Originally Posted by AAIB report
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.

Originally Posted by Peter Claiden, Zeist Trial

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?
Ambrosia is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd September 2010, 03:52 PM   #164
Rolfe
Adult human female
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 50,594
Pwned.

Rolfe.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.
Rolfe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd September 2010, 04:20 PM   #165
realdon
Scholar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 59
Originally Posted by CharlesNorrie View Post
David, what is that package that traffic police carry to detect speeding cars? It's a radar set. Of course the CIA has more sophisticated jobs than that!


Ok Charles I kinda knew that you would throw police radar detectors back at me.

I have studied the history and development of radar and have a back ground in construction and operation of radio transmitters so have some insight on this

The handheld police devices are a very basic use of radar. they can only detect the speed of a moving object,line of sight to about 400m. To detect an aircraft that you cant see,at a height of 32,000 ft and a speed of + 400mph, Range 15-20 miles takes a whole lot more electrical, computing and man power. And even today is not available in a small package.

So this CIA operative would need the assistance of a military/special ops unit to carry this out. Was there a military maneuver within 200 miles of Lockerbie?

From Your blog

You have given the man who pushed the button the pseudonym Rupert Hautzauman.

QUOTE "19:02:59±1 Hantzauman sets off a pager, to detonate a “package” or “insurance” bomb.

and you also state

QUOTE "I found Hantzauman first. He has contributed widely to media debate around Lockerbie ever since leaving the CIA, and has, on more than one occasion, given rather too much away. It is clear that he wants to draw attention away from his own guilt by 'controversially' challenging the Libyan attribution himself and instead looking to place the blame elsewhere - something I find extraordinary for a man who more than one witness has observed as being on the ground at Lockerbie. So I began to research this man and I found that, four months before Lockerbie and after the downing of the Vincennes, he met with McKee. I started wondering – is *Hantzauman somehow involved in Lockerbie? Later I found him, once again, popping up throughout the Lockerbie story at some surprising junctures. "

So Hautzauman observed the radar then pushed the button but was later seen on the ground at Lockerbie?

Can you give some more details/clues about this person who you say was challenging Libyan involvement?

David
realdon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd September 2010, 04:28 PM   #166
Rolfe
Adult human female
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 50,594
In my opinion, the person Charles gives the name Hantzauman to is Robert Baer, a former CIA officer who has publicly stated that Lockerbie was a PFLP-GC operation carried out on behalf of Iran. ETA: And that wiki article says he met McKee four months before his death. It seems to be a no-brainer.

If I'm right, and it's as easy as that to figure out whom Charles is accusing of actually triggering the larger explosion he alleges the CIA engineered to "mak siccar", then I fear his libel lawyer may have misled him when he passed the article as safe.

Rolfe.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.

Last edited by Rolfe; 2nd September 2010 at 04:31 PM.
Rolfe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd September 2010, 04:45 PM   #167
Rolfe
Adult human female
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 50,594
Quote:
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.

Well, that kind of works if the bombers were the people who had downed the Brazaville plane. On the other hand, Jibril had had operations go off half-cock before, due to only punching a hole in the baggage compartment. The amount of Semtex was as you say limited by the radio, and they seemed to know that.

If you think using the radio disguise would have been completely unneccessary with a direct introduction into the container, then do you think the Bedford suitcase wasn't the bomb bag at all? Because the bomb was in a radio, and seems only to have been about 450g.

Kurt Maier x-rayed everything for PA103A, and was actively looking for radio-cassette platers. Sulkash Kamboj didn't seem to have a clue about this warning. Another reason for moving away from a Frankfurt introduction perhaps. Do you think Kamboj actually x-rayed the Bedford suitcase, or maybe the terrorists couldn't take the risk he wouldn't? Then they just tried to place it in the right position and hoped it would stay there, I think.

Rolfe.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.
Rolfe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd September 2010, 04:54 PM   #168
SpitfireIX
Philosopher
 
SpitfireIX's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Fort Wayne, Indiana, USA
Posts: 6,119
Originally Posted by Rolfe View Post
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?

In case there's any doubt in anyone's mind, she was traveling economy. Here is the seat map of PA103. Karen Noonan was in 20A, which was in the Economy section.
__________________
"My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right."
--Carl Schurz
SpitfireIX is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd September 2010, 04:58 PM   #169
carlitos
"más divertido"
 
carlitos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: USA! USA!
Posts: 24,384
Originally Posted by zooterkin View Post
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.
Yes, you are right. But for some reason, the expression used is "drinking the kool aid." Easier to say and more recognizable, I guess.

ETA - Rolfe, you are right about 'bogging.' Similar to minging.

Last edited by carlitos; 2nd September 2010 at 05:00 PM.
carlitos is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd September 2010, 05:05 PM   #170
realdon
Scholar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 59
Originally Posted by Rolfe View Post
In my opinion, the person Charles gives the name Hantzauman to is Robert Baer, a former CIA officer who has publicly stated that Lockerbie was a PFLP-GC operation carried out on behalf of Iran. ETA: And that wiki article says he met McKee four months before his death. It seems to be a no-brainer.

Rolfe.
Yeh Mr Baer had crossed my mind but I think Charles has been watching to many movies. May be it was George Clooney
David
realdon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd September 2010, 05:45 PM   #171
Ambrosia
Good of the Fods
 
Ambrosia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 2,675
Originally Posted by Rolfe View Post
Well, that kind of works if the bombers were the people who had downed the Brazaville plane.
I doubt that Libyans were responsible for that either for what it's worth, but that is a whole other set of threads.

Quote:
On the other hand, Jibril had had operations go off half-cock before, due to only punching a hole in the baggage compartment.
IIRC that was Feb 21st 1970. Swissair330 was downed by a barometrically triggered device that PFLP-GC claimed responsibility for. On the same day a SE210 Caravelle had a hole blown by a similar bomb in its luggage compartment, also attributed to PFLP-GC, that's the only time one of their devices failed to cause the loss of the plane I think.

Quote:
If you think using the radio disguise would have been completely unneccessary with a direct introduction into the container, then do you think the Bedford suitcase wasn't the bomb bag at all? Because the bomb was in a radio, and seems only to have been about 450g.
I am fairly convinced that the suitcase Bedford testifies to having seen added to the container he was loading, while he was on a break, is the bomb case. We do not know how it got there or who put it there, only that Bedford didn't load it, he assumed a colleague did. I am fairly sure that the Bedford case completely circumvented security and was never X-rayed, that it got into the loading area via the Heathrow breakin and it was placed there by the real bomber. I think the radio disguise was to avoid detection were the bag to have been looked at by anyone prior to even getting to Heathrow. Perhaps the bombers stumbled across a new way of getting the bomb aboard 103 late in the day, who knows.
Ambrosia is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd September 2010, 06:15 PM   #172
SpitfireIX
Philosopher
 
SpitfireIX's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Fort Wayne, Indiana, USA
Posts: 6,119
Originally Posted by Ambrosia View Post
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".

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.
__________________
"My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right."
--Carl Schurz
SpitfireIX is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd September 2010, 10:55 PM   #173
CharlesNorrie
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 101
Rolfe, the Iranians were apparently satisfied when they got their revenge when Pan Am 103 was blown up. Various groups in Iran had called for 5-12 aircraft (1500-3000) deaths is reply. The astute soldier diplomat Richard Lawless bargained with 5 Iranians 4 times at Glion.

The cover story was that the negotiations were about Lebanese hostage release, but the hostages hand been in their Lebanese cells sometimes for years at the time. Why then the urgency. Because a much more important even has happened the downing of IR-655.

The CIA has bought up most of the tame commentators of the world like Seymour Hersh. No more nice access to retired spooks if he goes seriously off message


I would be willing to propose Lawless for the Nobel prize for peace for the saving of all those others lives the Iranians were calling for.

I am not anti-American. The things I like about America jazz, Frank Lloyd Wright, the Catskills in the autumn don't happen to include the star-spangled banner, the creed of American exceptionalism, and the realpolitik brutality of the CIA.

Rolfe, may I remind you that it is no defence to libel under English law that your are only repeating it. The lawyer I saw is one of the best working for people like Hugh Tomlinson, so I rather think he knows what he's talking about, don't you. I have his written opinion and in the draft I gave him I slipped in a genuine libel. He spotted it immediately, and out it came. It was of an English academic writer on the security services, and reference to it was not important to my argument in any way.
CharlesNorrie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd September 2010, 11:06 PM   #174
CharlesNorrie
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 101
Ambrosia,

It would help if you got your facts right. UT-772 happened nine months after Lockerbie not before, but come back and try again.

As I've said I believe any factual statement in the AAIB report but not the written padding, by Protheroe, an exceptionally talented civil service writer, you may have drafted the Paul Channon "bomb was among baggage from the Frankfurt flight" reply. Some of my friends are civil servants who write such answers to PQs for Ministers.

As for explosive decompressions. 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'

No great knowledge of engineering is needed to place an explosive, and the Iranian operative who placed the IED probably had none. But told where to place it it would be child's play, if he were instructed where.
CharlesNorrie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd September 2010, 11:11 PM   #175
CharlesNorrie
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 101
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.
CharlesNorrie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd September 2010, 11:17 PM   #176
CharlesNorrie
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 101
As you know, Rolfe, I think the Bedford story is nonsense, but thank you for confirming the fact he was a witness at the FAI.

My belief is that the Bedford bags may have been part of an MI5 disinformation operation, but I have no proof of that. They certainly liked the Libyan attribution for it did not amount to a breach Heathrow security.

I remember all that stuff about check baggage reconciliation versus X-ray scans at the FAI. I nearly laughed when I realise how irrelevant the discussion in court had been.
CharlesNorrie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd September 2010, 11:20 PM   #177
CharlesNorrie
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 101
If Ambrosia, the Bedford suitcase ever existed. Bedford's reconstruction of what he saw definitely took place, but he gave evidence on what he saw 12 years later. Quite enough for the momory to dim and possibly become contaminated.
CharlesNorrie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd September 2010, 11:25 PM   #178
CharlesNorrie
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 101
May I warn everyone here about libel. Not mine, yours. I have pointed out it is no defence to libel that you are only repeating it. Consider the case of the acquitted alleged murderer John Bodkin Adams. The newspapers had declared him guilty of murder before his trial and when he was acquitted he had a fine old time touring newspapers' offices collecting damages. and also that Malta won a libel case against Granada TV for libel over the security of baggage operations at Luqa Airport.
CharlesNorrie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd September 2010, 11:40 PM   #179
zooterkin
Nitpicking dilettante
Administrator
 
zooterkin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Berkshire, mostly
Posts: 57,667
Originally Posted by CharlesNorrie View Post
No great knowledge of engineering is needed to place an explosive, and the Iranian operative who placed the IED probably had none. But told where to place it it would be child's play, if he were instructed where.
Really? How would they know which container it should be put in?
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.Bertrand Russell
Zooterkin is correct Darat
Nerd! Hokulele
Join the JREF Folders ! Team 13232
Ezekiel 23:20
zooterkin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd September 2010, 01:14 AM   #180
CharlesNorrie
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 101
There is a loading plan. All airlines and flights have them. 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. (Some critics say this is impossible, and baggage containers are selected at random, but I reject that criticism. Airlines work in a rational well ordered world). The loading plan (which was probably obtained by the CIA at Heathrow from Pan Am) would have been furnished to the Iranians (a member of the Pasdaran, with which the CIA had worked over the US hostage and Iran-contra affairs).

They may have even supplied him with the device, as qesas makes no demands on the revenging party to use his own weapon. (A man using qesas the avenge the murder of one of his kin, could well pick up a knife belonging to the man he is accusing of murder and stab him).

The planting must be done by an Iranian. Actually there was a bit of a muddle. The container AVE4041 PA was meant to have been loaded not at position 14L but at 13R but, Ambrosia, bear this in mind this was near enough to destroy the power and control harness running along the aircraft from nose to the body. A degree in aviation engineering is not needed to plant a bomb!
CharlesNorrie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd September 2010, 01:39 AM   #181
CharlesNorrie
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 101
SpitfireIX,

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.

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.
CharlesNorrie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd September 2010, 01:57 AM   #182
Rolfe
Adult human female
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 50,594
Originally Posted by Ambrosia View Post
I doubt that Libyans were responsible for that either for what it's worth, but that is a whole other set of threads.

As you say, a topic for another day. It's difficult for us amateurs to know just how much evil crap really was down to Libya at that time, what with Libya being the handy scapegoat for just about anything that happened and Cannistraro being only too happy to pin it on them.

As for arming the IRA - who is more culpable? Libya, which actually supplied the munitions, or the US Irish-American community, including some high-placed politicians, who funded it?

Originally Posted by Ambrosia View Post
IIRC that was Feb 21st 1970. Swissair330 was downed by a barometrically triggered device that PFLP-GC claimed responsibility for. On the same day a SE210 Caravelle had a hole blown by a similar bomb in its luggage compartment, also attributed to PFLP-GC, that's the only time one of their devices failed to cause the loss of the plane I think.

Thanks for the details. That was 18 years previously. He'd been getting it right ever since, the evil vicious bastard. You could be right he was just lucky this time, but I'm not wholly convinced. While it's impossible to be certain of the placing of a particular case unless you're the loaders on the tarmac, I think you could force a good chance of a desirable position by placing luggage as described by Bedford, with the bomb suitcase flat, on the left.

If in addition the bombers had realised that the container in question was going to end up at position 41, the very place where the weakness that caused the break-up of the Air India flight was located, perhaps they realised that a big Semtex load probably wouldn't be necessary.

Originally Posted by Ambrosia View Post
I am fairly convinced that the suitcase Bedford testifies to having seen added to the container he was loading, while he was on a break, is the bomb case. We do not know how it got there or who put it there, only that Bedford didn't load it, he assumed a colleague did. I am fairly sure that the Bedford case completely circumvented security and was never X-rayed, that it got into the loading area via the Heathrow breakin and it was placed there by the real bomber. I think the radio disguise was to avoid detection were the bag to have been looked at by anyone prior to even getting to Heathrow. Perhaps the bombers stumbled across a new way of getting the bomb aboard 103 late in the day, who knows.

That's as good a scenario as any, though there are other possibilities. However, there was always the possibility the case would be moved to the right, inboard side of the container. Why take the risk of using such a small amount of Semtex, if it wasn't really necessary? I bear in mind that Kamboj and his rinky-dinky radiography equipment were right there, as far as I know. Even if the plan involved circumventing Kamboj, would there not always have been the chance that someone would decide to x-ray these strange cases anyway? (But then they might so easily have been replaced in a non-optimum configuration.)

This is really something for the Heathrow introduction thread though. I don't think any of it implies that a "dark-suited Iranian gent" sabotaged AVE4041 at midnight on the instructions of the CIA!

Rolfe.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.

Last edited by Rolfe; 3rd September 2010 at 01:59 AM.
Rolfe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd September 2010, 02:03 AM   #183
Caustic Logic
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 4,494
Originally Posted by Ambrosia
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.
Ambrosia, welcome back!
Actually, and thanks for the reference, it was referring to the neighboring container AVN 7511, which had a hole in it.

Quote:
"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" --
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/...-location.html

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.
Caustic Logic is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd September 2010, 02:12 AM   #184
Rolfe
Adult human female
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 50,594
Originally Posted by CharlesNorrie View Post
Rolfe, the Iranians were apparently satisfied when they got their revenge when Pan Am 103 was blown up. Various groups in Iran had called for 5-12 aircraft (1500-3000) deaths is reply. The astute soldier diplomat Richard Lawless bargained with 5 Iranians 4 times at Glion.

The cover story was that the negotiations were about Lebanese hostage release, but the hostages hand been in their Lebanese cells sometimes for years at the time. Why then the urgency. Because a much more important even has happened the downing of IR-655.

The CIA has bought up most of the tame commentators of the world like Seymour Hersh. No more nice access to retired spooks if he goes seriously off message

I would be willing to propose Lawless for the Nobel prize for peace for the saving of all those others lives the Iranians were calling for.

And the moon is made of green cheese. You see how easy it is to type anything at all that comes into your mind? I could make up a tale where it was the IRA wot done it, or maybe an it was an early Al Qaida mission. Without any evidence, your assertions are worth no more than that.

Originally Posted by CharlesNorrie View Post
I am not anti-American. The things I like about America jazz, Frank Lloyd Wright, the Catskills in the autumn don't happen to include the star-spangled banner, the creed of American exceptionalism, and the realpolitik brutality of the CIA.

You're certainly spewing a lot of anti-American bile in this thread, I have to say.

Originally Posted by CharlesNorrie View Post
Rolfe, may I remind you that it is no defence to libel under English law that your are only repeating it. The lawyer I saw is one of the best working for people like Hugh Tomlinson, so I rather think he knows what he's talking about, don't you. I have his written opinion and in the draft I gave him I slipped in a genuine libel. He spotted it immediately, and out it came. It was of an English academic writer on the security services, and reference to it was not important to my argument in any way.

I repeated nothing. I expressed my opinion that your "Hantzauman" is an extremely transparent alias for Robert Baer. Just as "Tomas Cattermole" seems obviously to be Vincent Cannistraro as far as I can see. If it's that easy, then the use of these pseudonyms may well not be enough to deflect possible libel charges.

Still, it's probably unlikely Baer would dignify this nonsense by suing the author.

Rolfe.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.
Rolfe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd September 2010, 02:15 AM   #185
CharlesNorrie
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 101
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.
CharlesNorrie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd September 2010, 02:16 AM   #186
CharlesNorrie
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 101
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.
CharlesNorrie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd September 2010, 02:17 AM   #187
Rolfe
Adult human female
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 50,594
Originally Posted by realdon View Post
I have studied the history and development of radar and have a back ground in construction and operation of radio transmitters
Originally Posted by CharlesNorrie View Post
Realdon,

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.



Rolfe.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.
Rolfe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd September 2010, 02:20 AM   #188
CharlesNorrie
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 101
Caustic,

I'm not doing this to be anti-American. The CIA is not, thank the God I don't believe in, the be all and end all of America. Nor is HW Bush. I am not doing this to entertain myself but hoping that someone out there better placed than I will strat asking real questions about Pan Am 103 and not the sort of drossy foruming that passes for debate here.

As I've point out my Pan Am 103 score on Google has now improved from 58 to 1300
CharlesNorrie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd September 2010, 02:24 AM   #189
Rolfe
Adult human female
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 50,594
Originally Posted by CharlesNorrie View Post
As I've said I believe any factual statement in the AAIB report but not the written padding, by Protheroe, an exceptionally talented civil service writer, you may have drafted the Paul Channon "bomb was among baggage from the Frankfurt flight" reply. Some of my friends are civil servants who write such answers to PQs for Ministers.

So you believe Protheroe and the entire AAIB team knew there was a second, larger explosion, but concealed this. But rather than simply omit any hint of such a thing from the report, Protheroe was employed to play with words in such a way that an alert conspiracy theorist would be able to crack the code and realise the report really presented evidence of the second explosion?



Originally Posted by CharlesNorrie View Post
As for explosive decompressions. 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'

Evidence?TM

Originally Posted by CharlesNorrie View Post
No great knowledge of engineering is needed to place an explosive, and the Iranian operative who placed the IED probably had none. But told where to place it it would be child's play, if he were instructed where.

And how could he be instructed where? When Bedford simply wheeled out the container of the right specification that was closest to hand that afternoon! You don't even seem clear about whether it was AVE4041 itself that was sabotaged, in the interline shed, or AVN-whatever, in the baggage build-up area. If they were even there, at midnight.

Rolfe.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.
Rolfe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd September 2010, 02:34 AM   #190
CharlesNorrie
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 101
\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.
CharlesNorrie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd September 2010, 02:40 AM   #191
Rolfe
Adult human female
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 50,594
Originally Posted by CharlesNorrie View Post
As you know, Rolfe, I think the Bedford story is nonsense, but thank you for confirming the fact he was a witness at the FAI.

My belief is that the Bedford bags may have been part of an MI5 disinformation operation, but I have no proof of that. They certainly liked the Libyan attribution for it did not amount to a breach Heathrow security.

I remember all that stuff about check baggage reconciliation versus X-ray scans at the FAI. I nearly laughed when I realise how irrelevant the discussion in court had been.

Charles, if you want to get rid of the Bedford story, you'd be far better off simply hand-waving it away as a coincidence, as the Zeist judges did.

You don't simply have no proof this was an MI5 disinfo operation, the very idea makes precisely zero sense, as has been explained by several posters in this thread.

Rolfe.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.
Rolfe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd September 2010, 02:42 AM   #192
Rolfe
Adult human female
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 50,594
Originally Posted by CharlesNorrie View Post
May I warn everyone here about libel. Not mine, yours. I have pointed out it is no defence to libel that you are only repeating it. Consider the case of the acquitted alleged murderer John Bodkin Adams. The newspapers had declared him guilty of murder before his trial and when he was acquitted he had a fine old time touring newspapers' offices collecting damages. and also that Malta won a libel case against Granada TV for libel over the security of baggage operations at Luqa Airport.

Perhaps you would like to point out any statements here by other posters that you think are libellous? You could even report the posts to the moderators, as it's against forum policy to allow libellous statements in the forum, I believe.

Rolfe.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.
Rolfe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd September 2010, 02:48 AM   #193
CharlesNorrie
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 101
You can do that for yourself, Rolfe. Libel is a very forum based thing and US laws are different to English. I had my stuff checked by an English libel lawyer of known reputation and his professional standing rests upon advising his clients correctly.
CharlesNorrie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd September 2010, 02:54 AM   #194
Zep
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 26,704
Originally Posted by CharlesNorrie View Post
You can do that for yourself, Rolfe. Libel is a very forum based thing and US laws are different to English. I had my stuff checked by an English libel lawyer of known reputation and his professional standing rests upon advising his clients correctly.
...and collecting his fee.

Wasn't Rumpole, by name, was it?
Zep is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd September 2010, 02:56 AM   #195
Rolfe
Adult human female
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 50,594
Originally Posted by CharlesNorrie View Post
There is a loading plan. All airlines and flights have them.

And you have a copy of the plan for PA103 on that day? And you can show that Bedford was required to retrieve AVE4041 and no other, from where it had been stored since the previous day?

Thought not.

Originally Posted by CharlesNorrie View Post
I propose

Now you see that's your problem there. You're just making it up as you go along.

Originally Posted by CharlesNorrie View Post
that the containers that arrived from NY mid afternoon of 20 December 1988

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?


Originally Posted by CharlesNorrie View Post
were trundled round the the baggage shed when empty and lined up.

Which baggage shed? There were two sheds for departing baggage - the build-up shed and the interline shed. They were separate. Only one container from the interline shed went on PA103, and it was AVE4041. That's hardly "lined up".

Originally Posted by CharlesNorrie View Post
(Some critics say this is impossible, and baggage containers are selected at random, but I reject that criticism. Airlines work in a rational well ordered world).

Airline baggage seems to work one step ahead of total chaos as far as I can see. And sometimes not even that one step.

Your proposed system of rigid pre-planned baggage container circulation is simply unworkable, and anyone with any experience in airport baggage handling will tell you so. I believe they have told you so, too.

Tell us again the number of the flight you believe these containers arrived on the previous day? And which aircraft it was?

Have you worked out how many containers would be sitting idle at every airport at any one time, if they were routinely required to sit on the ground for 30 hours or so between flights? How much storage space would be required for this? How difficult it would be to secure the correct containers every time, from this enormous mass of superfluous kit?

Originally Posted by CharlesNorrie View Post
The loading plan (which was probably obtained by the CIA at Heathrow from Pan Am) would have been furnished to the Iranians (a member of the Pasdaran, with which the CIA had worked over the US hostage and Iran-contra affairs).

Ah yes, you were going to show proof that this loading plan existed prior to midnight, and that it specified the use of particular containers that the baggage handlers were obliged to go and find, irrespective of where they were located.

Originally Posted by CharlesNorrie View Post
They may have even supplied him with the device, as qesas makes no demands on the revenging party to use his own weapon. (A man using qesas the avenge the murder of one of his kin, could well pick up a knife belonging to the man he is accusing of murder and stab him).

The planting must be done by an Iranian.

Oh yes, and you were going to show us the Middle East experts who have confirmed this to be the case, and who have explained this to the mainstream Lockerbie opinion which believes Iran simply paid Jibril to do the job.

Originally Posted by CharlesNorrie View Post
Actually there was a bit of a muddle. The container AVE4041 PA was meant to have been loaded not at position 14L but at 13R but, Ambrosia, bear this in mind this was near enough to destroy the power and control harness running along the aircraft from nose to the body. A degree in aviation engineering is not needed to plant a bomb!

No, but actually knowing that Bedford was required to find AVE4041 for that job, and that AVE4041 was already in the interline shed before midnight, is essential for your theory. You have proved neither.

Rolfe.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.

Last edited by Rolfe; 3rd September 2010 at 04:07 AM.
Rolfe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd September 2010, 02:57 AM   #196
Rolfe
Adult human female
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 50,594
Originally Posted by Zep View Post
...and collecting his fee.

Wasn't Rumpole, by name, was it?

Doubt it. Rumpole specialised in criminal defence.

Rolfe.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.
Rolfe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd September 2010, 02:59 AM   #197
Zep
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 26,704
Rolfe, I think when it gets to the stage that dear Charles threatens legal action against you, you invite him to proceed and show him how to start, and he then expects you to prosecute yourself on his behalf...the game is over. Sanity has not prevailed with your interlocutor.
Zep is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd September 2010, 03:01 AM   #198
Zep
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 26,704
Originally Posted by Rolfe View Post
Doubt it. Rumpole specialised in criminal defence.

Rolfe.
And bloodspots.

But a little bit of civil action would have kept "she who must be obeyed" happy about the bills.

Zep is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd September 2010, 03:08 AM   #199
CharlesNorrie
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 101
Rolfe,

You know I haven't the plan. I've told you where the holes in my theory are, and the inferences I've mad to explain them.

You don't think that the CIA will help in demonstrating their criminality do you?

Inference is a perfectly good way of crossing a gap. Sometimes you get a clue from what data is available.

I had worked out the IED was a stick on (I thought about A4 sized at first) and then blow me Peter Claiden is banging on about a hole 8" by 8". A4 is about 10" by 8".

I have thought about this in very great detail and have refined my views to their Occam's razor minimalism.

Zep, I am not the one going to be proceeding against Rolfe. I'm just telling her to be careful.
CharlesNorrie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd September 2010, 03:13 AM   #200
CharlesNorrie
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 101
Originally Posted by Rolfe View Post
Which baggage shed? There were two sheds for departing baggage - the build-up shed and the interline shed. They were separate. Only one container from the interline shed went on PA103, and it was AVE4041. That's hardly "lined up".
That actually makes my theory simpler. Tanks for that. I'm always will to learn.

Mod WarningSpeaking of things being simpler...using the Quote tag makes it much simpler for members to follow 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.
Responding to this modbox in thread will be off topic Posted By:Locknar

Last edited by Locknar; 3rd September 2010 at 09:27 AM. Reason: corrected typo in mod-box
CharlesNorrie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:04 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.