Posted: Sat Nov 25, 2006 11:00 am Post subject: Shayler & Lockerbie
Dear David Shayler,
I was wondering when you were going to start telling us the truth about what befell Lockerbie in 1988 because after doing some research all I can find is you peddling half truths or outright lies about the bombing of Pan-Am 103. I even went to the library t'other day to check your book Spies, Lies and Automobiles and all I found were more porkies accusing Libya. I know it took you four years to jump on the 9/11 bandwagon but you've had 18 years to tell the Scottish public the truth about the biggest mass murder to occur on their soil in modern times.
I've no choice but to come to the conclusion you've been severely misinformed and don't want to admit it or or you are intentionally lying to us.
Please correct me if I'm wrong, it's a very important subject I've been keeping tabs on all my life.
Thanx, Ally. _________________
Posted: Sat Nov 25, 2006 12:37 pm Post subject: Re: Shayler & Lockerbie
Ally wrote:
Please correct me if I'm wrong, it's a very important subject I've been keeping tabs on all my life.
Thanx, Ally.
All your life? You really are only 18? _________________ I completely challenge the official version of events - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC -I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC
I know it took you four years to jump on the 9/11 bandwagon
The 'real' investigation of 9/11 ie research not carried out by the 911 commission, has only began to surface in in the last couple of years - and yes, I am aware many researchers have been studying since day one and many, my self included have had doubts since the day they watched it on tv. So why do you feel it important make this point? Being ex-MI5 DS is certainly going to know state secrets, more than many. Because of the way MI5 is set up, fragmented and compartmentalised, like any organisation, it is just possible that he knows something about Lockerbie I would think. But what has it got to do with us trusting him?
If we are to get anywhere and fast, I would suggest he needs a little support not this type of attack. If you wrote you post coming from a neutral space I would have a different view, but clearly you are choosing to attack him instead of challenging fairly.
Quote:
I've no choice but to come to the conclusion you've been severely misinformed and don't want to admit it or or you are intentionally lying to us.
You have decided that there are only 2 possibilities - could it be that there are infact others?
Why don't you simply send David an email and ask him directly instead of this form of chaotic post?
Another way to look at this is that with a post like this, you will almost certainly attract in a negative reaction (as with TeleC above) and all this does is reflect back to you, winding you up even more. You will not get the answers you WANT, you will get what you NEED, which is a reflection of yourself. Yuo get back what you give out in this life, period. This form of communication is destuctive.
If David Shayler is so bad, why can he not make changes in his life for the better, like anyone else?
He will know better than most about the choice he made to go public on both his own life and the 911 truth movement. I say give the boy a break hes go enough on his plate without someone playing historical chess with him. I understand you have got you concerns but is it fair to assume so much and question his motivation like this.
To be honest Ally you are really lucky that I have even bothered to reply your post - think about that for a moment. You'll probably lay into me next.
Are we debating or masturbating?
Please take this reply in the spirit that it comes from - peace _________________ It's not about terror, its about illusion. It's not about war, it's about you
Stop worrying, take risks
Be brave
The revolution has been cancelled - its an evolution and everyone's included
Posted: Sat Nov 25, 2006 4:20 pm Post subject: Re: Shayler & Lockerbie
Ally wrote:
[The 1998 bombing of Pan-Am 103 over Lockerbie is] a very important subject I've been keeping tabs on all my life.
I'm interested. What information have you managed to uncover through the course of your long years of interest in this subject? _________________ Error in module creativity.dll : unable to create witty comment.
Abort / Retry / Ignore
Posted: Sat Nov 25, 2006 5:14 pm Post subject: Re: Shayler & Lockerbie
Ally wrote:
telecasterisation wrote:
Ally wrote:
Please correct me if I'm wrong, it's a very important subject I've been keeping tabs on all my life.
Thanx, Ally.
All your life? You really are only 18?
no, 32, you ignorant moron.
If you have been following Lockerbie all your life and it was only 18 years ago and you are 32, then how did you know about it before it happened? _________________ I completely challenge the official version of events - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC -I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC
It has been disclosed that there were survivors at Lockerbie but the local police were told to let them die of hypothermia
Can anybody add to this
Come on, you know by now how this works!
Such a claim demands a source???!!!!???? _________________ I completely challenge the official version of events - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC -I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC
Joined: 27 Mar 2006 Posts: 3187 Location: Here to help!
Posted: Sat Nov 25, 2006 7:25 pm Post subject:
telecasterisation wrote:
THETRUTHWILLSETU3 wrote:
It has been disclosed that there were survivors at Lockerbie but the local police were told to let them die of hypothermia
Can anybody add to this
Come on, you know by now how this works!
Such a claim demands a source???!!!!????
Surely local Police would be the least likely to follow such an order? And to keep it stumm for years on end
If it could be shown the site was secured by some high up secret service types who kept the local authorities away from the scene, it might be more worth considering. But lets please see a source for this outside of the imagination, or a retraction, before this discussion slides into farce _________________ Free your Self and Free the World
It has been disclosed that there were survivors at Lockerbie but the local police were told to let them die of hypothermia
Can anybody add to this
Come on, you know by now how this works!
Such a claim demands a source???!!!!????
Surely local Police would be the least likely to follow such an order? And to keep it stumm for years on end
If it could be shown the site was secured by some high up secret service types who kept the local authorities away from the scene, it might be more worth considering. But lets please see a source for this outside of the imagination, or a retraction, before this discussion slides into farce
Just like the local police at the scene of David Kelly's murder were told tokeep their gobs shut
Joined: 27 Mar 2006 Posts: 3187 Location: Here to help!
Posted: Sat Nov 25, 2006 7:54 pm Post subject:
THETRUTHWILLSETU3 wrote:
John White wrote:
telecasterisation wrote:
THETRUTHWILLSETU3 wrote:
It has been disclosed that there were survivors at Lockerbie but the local police were told to let them die of hypothermia
Can anybody add to this
Come on, you know by now how this works!
Such a claim demands a source???!!!!????
Surely local Police would be the least likely to follow such an order? And to keep it stumm for years on end
If it could be shown the site was secured by some high up secret service types who kept the local authorities away from the scene, it might be more worth considering. But lets please see a source for this outside of the imagination, or a retraction, before this discussion slides into farce
Just like the local police at the scene of David Kelly's murder were told tokeep their gobs shut
But they didnt. The scene of Kelly's Death is well documented, the facts are all well known: the fix is in the interpetation of the facts re: the coroner and the verdict of the enquirey. The opinion of the local coppers is therefore irrelevant in affecting that: they are not the decision makers
Now youve dodged the issue:
Can you source your claim that police on the scene at Locerbie where ordered to let survivors die of hypothermia, or will you conceed it is simply your opinion that such a thing happened?
I dont mind either way _________________ Free your Self and Free the World
It has been disclosed that there were survivors at Lockerbie but the local police were told to let them die of hypothermia
Can anybody add to this
Come on, you know by now how this works!
Such a claim demands a source???!!!!????
Surely local Police would be the least likely to follow such an order? And to keep it stumm for years on end
If it could be shown the site was secured by some high up secret service types who kept the local authorities away from the scene, it might be more worth considering. But lets please see a source for this outside of the imagination, or a retraction, before this discussion slides into farce
Just like the local police at the scene of David Kelly's murder were told tokeep their gobs shut
But they didnt. The scene of Kelly's Death is well documented, the facts are all well known: the fix is in the interpetation of the facts re: the coroner and the verdict of the enquirey. The opinion of the local coppers is therefore irrelevant in affecting that: they are not the decision makers
Now youve dodged the issue:
Can you source your claim that police on the scene at Locerbie where ordered to let survivors die of hypothermia, or will you conceed it is simply your opinion that such a thing happened?
Joined: 27 Mar 2006 Posts: 3187 Location: Here to help!
Posted: Sat Nov 25, 2006 8:28 pm Post subject:
Quote:
Further indications have come to light that Dean Warwick, alternative energy pioneer and intelligence insider did not die of natural causes.
Dean Warwick collapsed and died whilst addressing a packed auditorium in Blackpool last weekend. Significantly however, he said he felt a “beam” or “burning” at the side of his head shortly before beginning his talk.
According to those who last spoke to him before he began his talk, Dean said: “I think I’m going to be bumped off”.
Originally from New Zealand but now resident in Scotland, Dean had promised to make some momentous announcements at the conference.
In the weeks prior to speaking at Probe International’s conference, Dean had given Dave Starbuck a foretaste of what was coming in an interview.
Among other things, Dean promised that he would name who was behind the murder of Bobby Kennedy.
However, he said, that would only be the beginning. For he told Dave Starbuck that he would also name the “Anti-Christ” and blow the whistle on underground bases and missing children.
In the taped interview with Dave Starbuck, he also revealed how and why seven survivors at Lockerbie were allowed to die from hypothermia. The reason, he said, was that the survivors knew that a terrorist bombing did not bring down Pam Am Flight 103, which went down in 1988 killing 270 passengers and crew.
They were allowed to die, said Dean, because they knew that a missile not a bomb brought down the Jumbo jet and had they lived, would have been able to testify to this.
Such knowledge however, made Dean Warwick a very dangerous man to those with things to hide. Which is why questions are being asked about his sudden demise.
Thanks, appreciated. Dean Warwick huh? Well that is interesting _________________ Free your Self and Free the World
I realise that there was a sergeant who leaped from a burning bomber in WWII with no parachute from many thousands of feet up and lived. He fell on pine trees and into deep snow. However, to accept that a passenger jet flying some 25,000ft + high, is hit by a missile or a bomb explodes and the plane is blasted to pieces and people fall that distance at @ 400 mph and live (albeit and then die), is really difficult to accept.
Having been a serving police officer, I am genuinely unable to comprehend how (if they knew), that police officers would stand around while people died regardless of any orders or directions. What possible justification could they have been given that they accepted?? Having done so, to expect any of them to stay quiet about it, given what rode on their potentially breaking silence is again, pushing the boundaries.
This is one of the major things I struggle with regarding 9/11 - the amount of 'ordinary' people we so easily shoehorn into complicity. The other thread currently running about 'the media' being in on it by having info that they deliberately squashed - too many people that we simply never hear from? NO way.
If the supplied link comes to fruition, then it opens a whole new can of worms. Although at first glance, it appears to be an extension of the type of stuff that appears on rense.com, that never sees the light of day. _________________ I completely challenge the official version of events - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC -I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC
I realise that there was a sergeant who leaped from a burning bomber in WWII with no parachute from many thousands of feet up and lived. He fell on pine trees and into deep snow. However, to accept that a passenger jet flying some 25,000ft + high, is hit by a missile or a bomb explodes and the plane is blasted to pieces and people fall that distance at @ 400 mph and live (albeit and then die), is really difficult to accept.
Having been a serving police officer, I am genuinely unable to comprehend how (if they knew), that police officers would stand around while people died regardless of any orders or directions. What possible justification could they have been given that they accepted?? Having done so, to expect any of them to stay quiet about it, given what rode on their potentially breaking silence is again, pushing the boundaries.
This is one of the major things I struggle with regarding 9/11 - the amount of 'ordinary' people we so easily shoehorn into complicity. The other thread currently running about 'the media' being in on it by having info that they deliberately squashed - too many people that we simply never hear from? NO way.
If the supplied link comes to fruition, then it opens a whole new can of worms. Although at first glance, it appears to be an extension of the type of stuff that appears on rense.com, that never sees the light of day.
But you don't know the manner in which the plane came down. A missile may have hit it and the plane came down intact and broke up on the ground.
I used to live in Stockport and witnessed a plane crash in 1967, the flight path came right over my house - 72 were killed but remarkably there were 12 survivors - see link below
But you don't know the manner in which the plane came down. A missile may have hit it and the plane came down intact and broke up on the ground.
Not true, we certainly do know the manner in which the plane came down, it is well documented. The plane shattered at a high altitude - here is an extract from reports at the time;
The Pan Am Boeing 747 had arrived at Heathrow from Frankfurt and was flying over Scotland to cross the Atlantic on its way to New York. It was 38 minutes into the journey at 31,000 feet. First there was one blip on the radar screen. Three more blips appeared, then five. They were not separate aircraft, but the shattered parts of the exploding airliner plunging to the ground above Lockerbie.
Not to mention the distance apart that large sections of the aircraft were apart on the ground. _________________ I completely challenge the official version of events - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC -I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC
But you don't know the manner in which the plane came down. A missile may have hit it and the plane came down intact and broke up on the ground.
Not true, we certainly do know the manner in which the plane came down, it is well documented. The plane shattered at a high altitude - here is an extract from reports at the time;
The Pan Am Boeing 747 had arrived at Heathrow from Frankfurt and was flying over Scotland to cross the Atlantic on its way to New York. It was 38 minutes into the journey at 31,000 feet. First there was one blip on the radar screen. Three more blips appeared, then five. They were not separate aircraft, but the shattered parts of the exploding airliner plunging to the ground above Lockerbie.
Not to mention the distance apart that large sections of the aircraft were apart on the ground.
You have no proof or film footage of the bomb or missile impact
This is interesting you raise this point.
At the time I was a serving police officer in London. Although I didn't go myself, the Met sent 30 officers to assist in search and clean up operations, 4 went from my station. The area they covered was really considerable and this was because the aircraft broke apart in the air and not hit the ground relatively intact. The pieces were only spread apart so widely because the plane of this fact.
But no, I have no prooof of what caused the plane to fall apart, but I am certain it did regardless of cause. Structural integrity was compromised at a high altitude, hence the wide debris field. _________________ I completely challenge the official version of events - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC -I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC
You have no proof or film footage of the bomb or missile impact
This is interesting you raise this point.
At the time I was a serving police officer in London. Although I didn't go myself, the Met sent 30 officers to assist in search and clean up operations, 4 went from my station. The area they covered was really considerable and this was because the aircraft broke apart in the air and not hit the ground relatively intact. The pieces were only spread apart so widely because the plane of this fact.
But no, I have no prooof of what caused the plane to fall apart, but I am certain it did regardless of cause. Structural integrity was compromised at a high altitude, hence the wide debris field.
Not true, we certainly do know the manner in which the plane came down, it is well documented. The plane shattered at a high altitude - here is an extract from reports at the time;
The Pan Am Boeing 747 had arrived at Heathrow from Frankfurt and was flying over Scotland to cross the Atlantic on its way to New York. It was 38 minutes into the journey at 31,000 feet. First there was one blip on the radar screen. Three more blips appeared, then five. They were not separate aircraft, but the shattered parts of the exploding airliner plunging to the ground above Lockerbie.
Not to mention the distance apart that large sections of the aircraft were apart on the ground.
Ally, even when I broadly agree with you, I find your attitude quite objectionable.
I have put virtually the same question to David Shayler twice and both times received the same dismissive answer, that the government's account is the one he believes. I had to ask because when I saw him giving evidence at The Trial of Tony Blair in Manchester in March 2004 - see second youtube below - it contradicted the extensive material I had read by the late Paul Foot who investigated Lockerbie tirelessly, the documentary, 'The Maltese Double Cross' and a formidable stack of contrary evidence which convinced me that the man serving life in Greenock Prison, Abdelbaset ali Mohmed al-Megrahi, is innocent.
The reason David Shayler ought to know something about Lockerbie (if Libya was really involved), Light Infantree, is that he was the Desk Officer resposible for Libya when he worked in MI5. Even though he didn't join until six years after Lockerbie - knowledge of it was surely in his remit.
Has anybody listened to the two audio files linked in this thread?
Whenever I find myself assessing material like this, my phase one analysis is to look at the most verifiable information.
Dean Warwick claimed that Michael Meacher was sacked because he had 'publicised the fact that he had read word for word what was going to happen to the twin towers three years before the event'. Is there any record of this? I assume he wasn't talking about Wembley Stadium!
He also claimed that photographs could not be taken on the Moon because there is no light on the Moon. What we see is the Sun's electromagnetic radiation reflected off the Moon. By that token there is no light on the Earth and we should not be able to take photographs here!
I regret that when I read or hear things like this I find the more extreme claims very hard to believe.
Although, I cannot give any credence to this without some reliable evidence, I have to point out to those who question whether passengers could survive such a descent, there were 11 victims on the ground from the town of Lockerbie. However, it does sound like the sort of unverifiable disinformation which would lead away from the money, drugs, CIA etc. down a blind alley.
Ally, even when I broadly agree with you, I find your attitude quite objectionable.
I have put virtually the same question to David Shayler twice and both times received the same dismissive answer, that the government's account is the one he believes. I had to ask because when I saw him giving evidence at The Trial of Tony Blair in Manchester in March 2004 - see second youtube below - it contradicted the extensive material I had read by the late Paul Foot who investigated Lockerbie tirelessly, the documentary, 'The Maltese Double Cross' and a formidable stack of contrary evidence which convinced me that the man serving life in Greenock Prison, Abdelbaset ali Mohmed al-Megrahi, is innocent.
The reason David Shayler ought to know something about Lockerbie (if Libya was really involved), Light Infantree, is that he was the Desk Officer resposible for Libya when he worked in MI5. Even though he didn't join until six years after Lockerbie - knowledge of it was surely in his remit.
Has anybody listened to the two audio files linked in this thread?
Whenever I find myself assessing material like this, my phase one analysis is to look at the most verifiable information.
Dean Warwick claimed that Michael Meacher was sacked because he had 'publicised the fact that he had read word for word what was going to happen to the twin towers three years before the event'. Is there any record of this? I assume he wasn't talking about Wembley Stadium!
He also claimed that photographs could not be taken on the Moon because there is no light on the Moon. What we see is the Sun's electromagnetic radiation reflected off the Moon. By that token there is no light on the Earth and we should not be able to take photographs here!
I regret that when I read or hear things like this I find the more extreme claims very hard to believe.
Although, I cannot give any credence to this without some reliable evidence, I have to point out to those who question whether passengers could survive such a descent, there were 11 victims on the ground from the town of Lockerbie. However, it does sound like the sort of unverifiable disinformation which would lead away from the money, drugs, CIA etc. down a blind alley.
I don't give a monkeys what you think about my attitude Alf, I've long since stopped caring. I refuse to trust anyone who's spent 10 years in the army and your underhand backstabbing actions illustrate that nicely.
Shayler was lying about Lockerbie recently according to my sources, if he's continuing to lie about this then please ask yourselves why people.
I notice he hasn't bothered to refute things here which speaks volumes, instead I get these people questioning the veracityof me to ask these things.
BTW Woodie, incase you ain't noticed telecastrion is a professional mocker, nothing to add except ridicule constantly so excuse my short rag with the person.
Your silence speaks volumes Shayler.
Quote:
See your lockerbie thread. I went to a local [my last!] 9/11 event and shayler again added the lockerbie thing in. I've heard shay;ler's set talk for the last 2 months and he's just started adding it again and making a prize prick of himself.
_________________
Last edited by Ally on Sun Nov 26, 2006 10:30 am; edited 6 times in total
Upon return, the Met officers that were sent talked about the incident in some detail as they were split up and each had different stories to tell. The area they covered being substantial.
The above link will also show you;
All 259 people on board were killed and 11 died on the ground. More than four million pieces of wreckage were spread over an area spanning 845 square miles of northern England and southern Scotland.
However the best link for an overall and in detail account would be the official report;
1.12.1 General distribution of wreckage in the field
The complete wing primary structure, incorporating the centre section, impacted at the southern edge of Lockerbie. Major portions of the aircraft, including the engines, also landed in the town. Large portions of the aircraft fell in the countryside to the east of the town and lighter debris was strewn to the east as far as the North Sea. The wreckage was distributed in two trails which became known as the northern and southern trails respectively and these are shown in Appendix B, Figure B-4. A computer database of approximately 1200 significant items of wreckage was compiled and included a brief description of each item and the location where it was found.
I would also like to add that the link supplied about Dean Warwick states;
They were allowed to die, said Dean, because they knew that a missile not a bomb brought down the Jumbo jet and had they lived, would have been able to testify to this.
How could he possibly know what the dying passengers 'knew'? This is pure guesswork on his part. The fact that they all saw the missile steak up and into the plane, the only way by looking out the window, is nonsense.
As for him being killed by a 'beam weapon' as it states in the Truthseekers article, I am more inclined to believe it was done in a more controlled way, such as by thermite poisoning.
Last edited by telecasterisation on Sun Nov 26, 2006 10:44 am; edited 2 times in total
I don't give a monkeys what you think about my attitude Alf, I've long since stopped caring. I refuse to trust anyone who's spent 10 years in the army and your underhand backstabbing actions illustrate that nicely.
You are so clued up, Ally! Despite the fact that I have told you about half a dozen times that I was in the Fleet Air Arm, you repeatedly demonstrate an inability to retain information!
As for your allegation of backstabbing, you seem to have been going on about this since this forum started and you are yet to substantiate it - so I don't know what you are on about.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You can download files in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
