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

New and improved

Abdelbaset al-Megrahi's appeal against his Pan Am Flight 103 conviction was scheduled to be heard at Camp Zeist in the Netherlands in January 2002. Armed with Ray Manly's Heathrow break-in evidence, the Libyan's conviction would undoubtedly be overturned. More importantly, Libya would be exonerated from the crime of Lockerbie and the UN sanctions imposed a decade earlier would have to be lifted. Faced with this dreadful prospect, the UK/US authorities had to do something dramatic, even world-shaking, to ensure the innocent "Lockerbie bomber" remained convicted. The eventual 9/11 highly coordinated and meticulously planned act of aggression would have been hatched in March or April 2001 soon after Ray Manly told the Scottish authorities he intended to testify on Megrahi's behalf.

Suddenly, on 11 September 2001, the Heathrow break-in evidence made front page news in a Scottish Mirror exclusive ("Lockerbie: The Lost Evidence"). Other newspapers also carried the story on 11 September 2001 including The Independent. A BBC News report "Key Lockerbie 'evidence' not used" published at 08:42 a.m. (GMT) on Tuesday 11 September 2001 was broadcast worldwide. According to former British diplomat Patrick Haseldine, it was this BBC News report about the suppressed Lockerbie evidence that ignited the 9/11 attacks – see 9/11 timeline 05:00 a.m. (below).

I vote to Keep this new and improved version.--Patrick Haseldine (talk) 11:13, 10 July 2015 (IST)

Finessed and honed

Lede of "Suppressed Lockerbie evidence ignited 9/11 attacks" has been finessed and honed, as follows.

9/11, in addition to being a unique, highly coordinated and meticulously planned act of aggression, constituted a media event on a scale not seen since the advent of civilian global satellite links, round-the-clock television news organisations and the instant worldwide reaction and debate made possible by the Internet. As a result, most of the events listed in the 9/11 timeline below were known by a large portion of the planet's population as they occurred.

Until Tuesday 11 September 2001, the world had recognised the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 at Lockerbie in Scotland on 21 December 1988 as the worst terrorist attack against the USA: of its 270 fatalities, 189 were American. On 11 September 2001, important Lockerbie evidence that had been suppressed for over twelve years, finally entered the public domain. That evidence by security guard Ray Manly concerned a break-in at Heathrow airport hours before Pan Am Flight 103 took off and exploded over Lockerbie:

"A terrorist who wanted to put a bomb on that plane would have gained access to the perfect place. The luggage would not be checked again before being loaded on the plane. Although police took a statement, I never heard from anyone afterwards."

Ray Manly, who died in 2010, was described by the Lockerbie Divide website as the epic whistleblower whose actions dredged up perhaps the key piece to the puzzle of the 1988 Lockerbie bombing:

"The same clue had been erased from the record early on by authorities, and kept from the world for over a decade. That long silence ended for good with his clue’s first publication in the news, nearly eight months after Abdelbaset al-Megrahi’s conviction for his plot on Malta.

"This came on Tuesday, 11 September 2001, and it was obviously superseded by events overseas. A new record was set that day - by a landslide - for American civilians killed in a terrorist attack (2,977). But the explosive power of Manly’s revelation to understanding the previous record-holder, also involving an airliner, was not diminished.

"Patrolling Heathrow’s terminal three shortly after midnight on 21 December 1988, he had discovered a padlock that had been cut on a certain door called T3/2A. This had left open the way to the usually-secured airside area, where luggage is loaded onto airliners. He dutifully reported this to his superiors, but apparently nothing further was done, and about 17 hours later, Pan Am 103 was loaded with a bomb at terminal three.

"Somehow the fact of this breach never emerged during the investigation, as attention turned first to Germany, and then to Malta. For years it remained unknown, up to and even at the Lockerbie bombing trial in 2000. There, Megrahi’s defence tried to argue for a bomb introduction at Heathrow, based on other compelling evidence. But they were as clueless as anyone that there was also a reported break-in at the airport, almost a smoking gun in that context.

"Manly says the memory remained with and 'weighed' on him over the years, and when it still hadn’t come up as of the wrongful verdict at the end of January 2001, he contacted al-Megrahi’s defence team and, later, the media."

Abdelbaset al-Megrahi's appeal against his Pan Am Flight 103 conviction was scheduled to be heard at Camp Zeist in the Netherlands in January 2002. Armed with Ray Manly's Heathrow break-in evidence, the Libyan's conviction would undoubtedly be overturned. More importantly, Libya would be exonerated from the crime of Lockerbie. Faced with this dreadful prospect, the UK/US authorities had to do something dramatic, even world-shaking.

Suddenly, on 11 September 2001, the Heathrow break-in evidence made front page news in a Scottish Mirror exclusive ("Lockerbie: The Lost Evidence"). Other newspapers also carried the story on 11 September 2001 including The Independent. A BBC News report "Key Lockerbie 'evidence' not used" published at 08:42 a.m. (GMT) on Tuesday 11 September 2001 was broadcast worldwide. According to former British diplomat Patrick Haseldine, it was this BBC News report about the suppressed Lockerbie evidence that ignited the 9/11 attacks – see 9/11 timeline 05:00 a.m. (below).

Which raises the question: "Was the CIA complicit in both the Lockerbie and 9/11 attacks?"

I vote to Keep this finessed and honed version!--Patrick Haseldine (talk) 15:57, 9 July 2015 (IST)

Frankly, I'm utterly bemused by all this. I've used the word 'absurd' twice before in this discussion and I repeat it now. You say "Which raises the question 'Was the CIA complicit in both the Lockerbie and 9/11 attacks?' ". I say bollocks; it does no such thing. The evidence for CIA complicity in both is already vast and this evidence-free, blind-faith 'belief' of yours does not add to it one iota. There are still just 2 items of new information provide in this article - See my earlier reply in #Knocked into shape. The remaining several thousand characters are pure repitition which add nothing to either topic and provide neither evidence nor reasoning in support of the assertion in the page title.

--Peter P (talk) 06:50, 10 July 2015 (IST)

Patrick, this is not Facebook, not a personal website, where writing whatever you feel like is fine and having other people edit or remove bits is not fine. It is a wiki. We are working together to create an encyclopaedia. If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here. You may consider the article "Finessed and honed", but I see neither evidence nor an explanation. I see a page that begins with a paragraph copied and pasted straight from Wikipedia, throws in an incorrect Event template and closes with a long and misleading official narrative, all for the apparent purpose of bulking out what still seems to me to be one unsubstantiated claim and a co-incidence of timings. It lacks an explanation of why you believe why what you believe, and does not even attempt to address the mounds of evidence that the date was set long in advance. I vote Move to Userspace. -- Robin (talk) 08:32, 10 July 2015 (IST)

I vote Move to Userspace too. --Peter P (talk) 08:41, 10 July 2015 (IST)

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)

I concur with Peter on the shortcomings of this page. 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 Project: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)