User talk:Patrick Haseldine/Suppressed Lockerbie evidence ignited 9-11 attacks

Knocked into shape

I've spent the whole day revising "Suppressed Lockerbie evidence ignited 9/11 attacks", removing discredited official narrative 9/11 material and generally knocking the article into shape. The diffs are here, here and here. In my view, it is now a good, even very good, WS standalone article. I do not think it deserves to be relegated to a 9-11 subpage or a subpage of User:Patrick Haseldine.--Patrick Haseldine (talk) 19:26, 8 July 2015 (IST)

• A sub page is not a relegation. Sub-pages are simply a method of structuring complex subjects.
• There are just two new/original pieces of information in the page, so far as I can see:

1. The fact that importatnt 10-year-old information about the Lockerbie disaster was first made public in the early morning of 9-11.
2. Patrick's expressed 'belief' that this was a pre-arranged signal for the 9-11 attacks to proceed.

There is no logical connection made and no deductive reasoning from new or additional evidence presented. The leap of faith required to take it seriously will thus render it absurd to most rational and informed readers - IMHO. Everything else in the page is simply a re-presentation of information already in the public domain - most of it already on the WS 9-11 pages and none of which is rendered any more intelligible by Patrick's belief.

The timeline itself is potentially useful as a basis for a graphical presentation similar to John F. Kennedy/Assassination/Timeline, but that is a big job requiring a separate page for each event.

In its present form, I would therefore be happy for it to be moved to Patrick Haseldine/Suppressed Lockerbie evidence ignited 9-11 attacks; but I do not think it warrants either stand-alone or 9-11 sub-page status. --Peter P (talk) 08:19, 9 July 2015 (IST)

Just to clarify, I was not suggesting a move to Patrick Haseldine/Suppressed Lockerbie evidence ignited 9-11 attacks, but to User:Patrick Haseldine/Suppressed Lockerbie evidence ignited 9-11 attacks. Readers may understand that Userpage material is the responsibility of the individual user concerned, and draw their own conclusions. To suggest it is a reflection of the Wikispooks community is misleading. Any 4th or 5th opinions on this? -- Robin (talk) 09:01, 9 July 2015 (IST)

Focus

Patrick, my first thought on this page is that it violates the first tenet of policy, since it appears to be a repetition of the (discredited) official narrative of 9-11. Since a lot of evidence exists that that narrative is a fiction designed to hide the truth, such a lengthy repetition would seem at cross purposes with our efforts to expose the truth. So:

1. What evidence do you have for your belief that the BBC story was a "prearranged signal for the hijackers to proceed with the 9/11 attacks"?
2. Is your answer to the above clarified by inclusion of the timeline, or would it be better as a stand alone?

-- Robin (talk) 12:29, 7 July 2015 (IST)

In essence, Robin, it's all a question of timing on the day of 9/11. For many years, BBC News used to offer free-of-charge a daily email service timed to arrive at say 09:00 a.m. GMT and customised to reflect the recipient's subjects of interest. On 29 July 2010 I complained to the BBC that, since 16 July 2010, my daily emails had stopped coming. This was their reply:

Thank you for your email. I'm afraid the daily news email has been turned off for now, due to technical problems with updating it. We don't know at this stage when the service will be resumed - please accept our apologies for any inconvenience caused. Regards, BBC News Website.

In fact, there weren't any technical problems: BBC News had been leant upon by David Cameron's press secretary Andy Coulson to turn off the free daily news email permanently (Rupert Murdoch desperately wanted to introduce News International's online news subscription service)!

On 11 September 2001, the BBC News daily email 09:00 a.m. GMT edition would have arrived in America at 05:00 a.m. Eastern Daylight Time (EDT). That edition would have included an article of particular interest to the 9/11 hijackers - "Key Lockerbie 'evidence' not used" - that was published on Tuesday, 11 September 2001, 08:42 a.m. GMT 09:42 a.m. BST (04:42 a.m. EDT).

The inclusion of a timeline in "Suppressed Lockerbie evidence ignited 9/11 attacks" is definitely required to support my premise. But to meet policy considerations, I think the timeline could be pruned to avoid much of the official narrative repetition.--Patrick Haseldine (talk) 16:43, 7 July 2015 (IST)

Well IMHO it violates more than the first tenet of policy; it violates several and in addition is absurd on its face - an article in an obscure foreign provincial paper about a decade + old event to be 'the signal' - Really???. In addition, as with many other pages here (and in another violation of policy to which a blind eye has been turned as quid-pro-quo for expertise on a major subject) it is being used for personal promotion. And another - the style and nature of the article is of the 'sensational-breaking-news' variety which, while producing a surge of visitors (most of whom will probably not be returning) hardly accords with that of an encyclopedia article.

Frankly, I am becoming weary with this co-opting of the Wikispooks project to the headlining of the Lockerbie disaster. Lockerbie and its continuing aftermath was and remains a stain on Scotland, the UK the US + others with a hand in it; absolutely no question about that. Various SIS's - as with practically all Deep Events - were undoubtedly implicated in diverse ways which they will henceforth move heaven and earth to keep hidden. I have no doubt at all that there are connections, most likely through people with some pre-knowledge and/or planning and cover-up responsibility for both, but the suggestion that an obscure report (no matter how revelatory) about one was trigger for the other, I find risible. How best to deal with this page is now the issue? --Peter P (talk) 16:07, 7 July 2015 (IST)

I personally find the co-incidence of timings quite remarkable, but I do not see cause and effect at work here. There is a lot of evidence (such as the insider trading or the unprecedented number of drills scheduled for that day) to suggest the date was fixed well in advance. I think it much more likely that the timing of the news announcement was taken to bury the story (as suggested by the 9-11/Coincidences).

As for what to do with this page. How about making it a subpage of User:Patrick Haseldine - where (and policy could make this clear, but doesn't yet) he can post articles without having to follow the normal guidelines. Does that seem fair? -- Robin (talk) 19:40, 7 July 2015 (IST)

Peter P's decision on "how best to deal with this page" does not need to be taken today (the 10th anniversary of the 7 July 2005 London bombings). Might I suggest we revisit the matter one week hence on 14 July 2015?.--Patrick Haseldine (talk) 20:35, 7 July 2015 (IST)

Logically, this should be a subpage of the 9-11 page, but don't move it yet, since it contrasts heavily with the other 9-11 pages, since I don't think it deserves a place amongst them. The 9-11 pages have been carefully compiled in line with the Wikispooks:Editorial Policy - to which I have just added a section on the Importance of Evidence. Patrick, let me ask you again - over and above the fact that the timings of these 2 events coincide, have you any more evidence and/or logic to present? As I said earlier, there is a mound of evidence which tends to suggest that the date of 9-11 was picked long in advance. -- Robin (talk) 18:34, 8 July 2015 (IST)