Difference between revisions of "User talk:Patrick Haseldine/Suppressed Lockerbie evidence ignited 9-11 attacks"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(Attempt to focus this looong page) |
m (reply) |
||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
# Is your answer to the above clarified by inclusion of the timeline, or would it be better as a stand alone? | # Is your answer to the above clarified by inclusion of the timeline, or would it be better as a stand alone? | ||
-- [[User:Robin|Robin]] ([[User talk:Robin|talk]]) 12:29, 7 July 2015 (IST) | -- [[User:Robin|Robin]] ([[User talk:Robin|talk]]) 12:29, 7 July 2015 (IST) | ||
| + | |||
| + | :Well IMHO it violates more than the first tennet 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 whome 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 since the timeline is of historical interest? --[[User:Peter|Peter P]] ([[User talk:Peter|talk]]) 16:07, 7 July 2015 (IST) | ||
Revision as of 15:07, 7 July 2015
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:
- 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"?
- 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)
- Well IMHO it violates more than the first tennet 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 whome 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 since the timeline is of historical interest? --Peter P (talk) 16:07, 7 July 2015 (IST)
