Talk:9-11

Trending on Twitter

Was the #CIA complicit in #Lockerbie and #11September2001 attacks? Certainly looks like it!--Patrick Haseldine (talk) 21:10, 4 July 2015 (IST)

On a scale of 9—11, what's the likelihood it was deliberate?

Robin did not consider the link I perceived with Lockerbie to justify space in the lead of the main 9/11 article, so he moved the "majority of my material" to 9-11/Coincidences:

11 September 2001 - Front Page News

Was the CIA complicit in the Lockerbie and 9/11 attacks? It certainly looks like it!

On 11 September 2001, the Scottish Mirror broke a story that had been suppressed for over twelve years: a Pan Am luggage depot at Heathrow was broken into just hours before the Lockerbie disaster. The three Scots Judges who convicted Libyan Abdelbaset al-Megrahi on 31 January 2001 of the 1988 atrocity never heard the crucial evidence. The damning statement from security guard Ray Manly about a padlock having been snapped during the raid vanished before the trial even began and did not receive a mention in the Lockerbie Bombing/Official Narrative as presented by Colin Boyd on 28 August 2001 at a conference in Australia of the International Society for the Reform of Criminal Law (ISRCL). ("The Lockerbie Trial" by Rt Hon Colin Boyd QC, Lord Advocate, Scotland)

On Tuesday, 11 September 2001, BBC News carried the Scottish Mirror story at 08:42 GMT 09:42 UK:

New evidence has emerged which casts doubt over the Lockerbie bombing conviction, a national newspaper reported on Tuesday. The Mirror claims that the device which blew up Pan Am Flight 103 over the small Scottish town may not have been loaded at Frankfurt, an assertion made by the prosecution team. Its theory stems from an interview with Heathrow Airport security guard Ray Manly who said he told police that Pan Am's baggage area was broken into on 21 December 1988, some 17 hours before the plane set off for New York. Mr Manly was interviewed by anti-terrorist officers a month after the tragedy, but his evidence was "lost" and never used in court. ("Key Lockerbie 'evidence' not used" Tuesday, 11 September 2001, BBC News carried the Scottish Mirror story at 08:42 GMT 09:42 UK)

Unfortunately Robin omitted the crucial conclusion that publication on 11 September 2001 of the damning Heathrow break-in evidence was deliberate, rather than simply a coincidence:

Within a few hours of publication, the CIA effectively buried this Lockerbie bad news story as reports of the 9/11 attacks in America began to swamp the commercially-controlled media. Was the CIA complicit in the Lockerbie and 9/11 attacks? It certainly looks like it!

That burying the bad news was deliberate is reinforced because all primary sources save one relating to this Scottish Mirror story were removed from the Internet many years ago. As I mentioned below, it was the BBC News report of 11 September 2001 "Key Lockerbie 'evidence' not used" which allowed me to make the link between Pan Am Flight 103 and 9/11: a nice little WikiScoop!--Patrick Haseldine (talk) 16:39, 4 July 2015 (IST)

Sleuthing

Patrick, I encourage you to back up your assertion about the Scottish Mirror story - for example by carefully checking at the wayback machine. Which sites carried the story, and when were they removed? This could be suitable material for 9-11/Media_response, which I just started today. -- Robin (talk) 21:43, 4 July 2015 (IST)

When I said the articles were removed I meant that the original urls were no longer working. The text of the Scottish Mirror story is of course available here, here, here and here, and the Glasgow Daily Record text here and here. I have managed to retrieve The Independent's article of 11 September 2001 which carries the Scottish Mirror story under the headline "Lockerbie: Heathrow break-in revealed" and shall now use that as a primary source alongside the BBC News report.--Patrick Haseldine (talk) 17:26, 5 July 2015 (IST)

Having the text is a good start, and complete articles could be posted as documents - all valuable evidence to the unconvinced reader. So, now we know that The Independent article was working on 2011-04-03, and that it's not there now. That is already worth documenting. I wonder why they removed it - specifically, was it a random site redesign, or a deliberate removal of that one article? The 404 offers "If you think this article may be missing, please contact us here stating the URL of this page." Did you try an email there? Perhaps you had just casually surfed to here and clicked on reference #7 and now you're confused. I suggest a casual enquiry might be worth a go. Robin (talk)

FWIW, I randomly found this article list which suggests that their first 9-11 article was the next one published after that Lockerbie one. -- Robin (talk) 19:12, 5 July 2015 (IST)

Lockerbie link to 9-11

9/11 is a topic which until very recently I have studiously avoided. On 30 June 2015, I finally uncovered the Scottish Mirror article of 11 September 2001 that I remembered reading with incredulity fourteen long years ago. A friend had sent me the link but it was lost somehow over the years. Googling the press on that date only turned up secondary sources or links to 9/11 articles. Then Eureka! On 30 June 2015, I stumbled across the BBC News report of 11 September 2001 "Key Lockerbie 'evidence' not used" and there was the long lost Scottish Mirror front page. Straightaway I wrote a second letter to Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe referring to the Heathrow break-in and the Scottish Mirror revelations. I also mounted email, Facebook and Twitter campaigns that have all been well received.

On 2 July 2015, my first edit to the 9/11 page which introduced this missing Lockerbie link was deleted and relegated to one of the mere 9-11/Coincidences‎. My second edit on 3 July, again deleted, introduced the idea of George H W Bush and the CIA's complicity in both attacks:

Lockerbie led by South Africa's Civil Cooperation Bureau; and,

9/11 led by Mossad.

I would urge Robin to reconsider, unprotect the 9/11 page and link it as I have suggested to its terrorist predecessor Pan Am Flight 103.--Patrick Haseldine (talk) 19:19, 3 July 2015 (IST)

Patrick, welcome to the talk page. A record of our discussions will help readers more than simple reversion and re-reversion of edits. Please do not assume that the 9-11/Coincidences‎ page is for 'mere' coincidences (perhaps it would be better entitled 9-11/'Coincidences‎'). On its own, the connection you suggest could be regarded as a 'mere' coincidence, so I placed it alongside other similar material in order to present a more compelling case - since multiple such 'coincidences' become that much more implausible. I'm glad you have decided to explore the connections between these deep events - I do not believe the Lockerbie bombing was an isolated incident, but part of a larger pattern. You may wish to work on that page, or perhaps make a Scottish Mirror article, and/or post that cover story as a Document and explore its implications. As a relative newcomer to 9/11, you may be interested to listen to a broadcast I made on its 10th anniversary. For further study of 9-11 I can also recommend the material on this page. Since you have until very recently "studiously avoided" the topic, remember that you may still have a lot to learn about it. Robin (talk) 20:26, 3 July 2015 (IST)

Scrupulous curtesy and reason from Robin as usual. I understand Patrick's single-minded concentration on Lockerbie and have the greatest respect for his encyclopedaic knowledge of the affair. The fruits of his research remain very welcome on Wikispooks. All that said, his tendency to place Lockerbie-related information in the lede sections of pages where its relevance to the page subject is at best marginal, I consider confusing and counter-productive. I could easily cite similar linkages between a whole raft of other deep events, but the ledes of their respective pages is rarely - if ever - the place to do so. --Peter P (talk) 08:08, 4 July 2015 (IST)

SMWDocs Issue?

I wonder why the Related Documents section of this page doesn't reflect the Property:Display docType of the documents listed... Robin (talk) 15:40, 10 February 2014 (GMT)

I've noticed that before and often. If you refresh one of the listed pages, then return here and refresh it, it will display the correct type. I originally thought it was a job queue issue, but I don't think it is now since the incorrect displays have survived several hard cache clears and data rebuilds. I've just confirmed the behaviour again on the top item it the list --Peter P (talk) 16:08, 10 February 2014 (GMT)

Modifying 9/11 docs' subjects

There are a lot of these - too many in my opinion. They were assigned subjects before we created the 9-11 subpages, so it would be worth modifying them so that the sub-event specific documents appeared only on the correct subpages. On the top page, I would like to see only the most general, i.e. those that address 9-11 as a whole. This would help readers navigate to the specific material they are seeking. -- Robin (talk) 03:19, 21 September 2015 (IST)