Lockerbie Evidence Was Planted By The CIA

Originally posted by TheShroudOfMemphis
Why does a conspiracy forum, a place for discussion and research, always have people demanding direct and absolute proof of, for example CIA involvement

This is not a conspiracy advocacy forum, this is a discussion forum. Many topics focus on conspiracy. I hardly think it surprising that people request proof that the CIA planted evidence. This guy isn't claiming to be one of the planters, he's claiming to be an investigator with Scotland Yard who discovered that the evidence was planted, therefore, he came across some evidence that convinced him that they did this. It's preposterous to beleive this claim without the evidence.

Originally posted by Corinthas
No surprises there. Lybia was the scapegoat.. as we needed an excuse to bomb them in time for the 6 o'clock news (yes the bombing of lybia was timed for the 6 o'clock news in the US.. a first in history!).

A small issue…Libya was bombed by the US under Reagan in response to a West Berlin disco bombing injuring over 200 people including two US servicemen.

Libya was bombed by the US on April 14, 1986

Lockerbie crash was December 21, 1988

.

An ATSNN thread can be found here:

TERRORISM: Former Police Chief Claims CIA Planted Key Lockerbie Evidence (by kegs)

Originally posted by Nygdan

Originally posted by TheShroudOfMemphis
Why does a conspiracy forum, a place for discussion and research, always have people demanding direct and absolute proof of, for example CIA involvement

This is not a conspiracy advocacy forum, this is a discussion forum. Many topics focus on conspiracy. I hardly think it surprising that people request proof that the CIA planted evidence. This guy isn't claiming to be one of the planters, he's claiming to be an investigator with Scotland Yard who discovered that the evidence was planted, therefore, he came across some evidence that convinced him that they did this. It's preposterous to beleive this claim without the evidence.

So how is demanding absolute proof straight off the bat contributing to 'discussion'?

Discussion will either bring this topic to truth or not, let it happen. Why people see America, CIA, Bush etc and then all of a sudden demand levels of proof which go beyond most peoples capacities is beyond me.

We can have thread after thread about anoymous, random, internet postings on message boards from 'terrorists' which provokes outcries and calls for war support, yet when the opposite party is put in the spotlight, all of a sudden hard proof is demanded or else the topic is whitewashed as a falacy.

If there's no proof, this story will fade away but as it stands it was worthy to bring up and it's worthy of further investigation and discussion. What's pointless is doing the 'Prove It' tatic some posters here use like they have it waiting on their clipboard to be pasted in.

Originally posted by cjf
A small issue…Libya was bombed by the US under Reagan in response to a West Berlin disco bombing injuring over 200 people including two US servicemen.

Libya was bombed by the US on April 14, 1986

Lockerbie crash was December 21, 1988

Hmm ok, i stand corrected... but wsnt there suspicion that the dico bomb wasnt lybia as well?

Originally posted by TheShroudOfMemphis
So how is demanding absolute proof straight off the bat contributing to 'discussion'?

How is it contributing to the discussion? That is discussion, you make a claim, I say 'what supports that', you present it, see?

. What's pointless is doing the 'Prove It' tatic some posters here use like they have it waiting on their clipboard to be pasted in.

Whats pointless is saying that we should accept a claim as true without evidence. This guy made a claim, and a bunch of peopel agree with him, literally for no good reason.

Have you ever noticed how many lies are started by "anonymous" sources?

Originally posted by simtek 22
Have you ever noticed how many lies are started by "anonymous" sources?

This is not an "anonymous" source. Scotsman (a credible news source) said that it was a "former Scottish police chief, whose identity has not yet been revealed".

Why would he not reveal his identity, if he's telling the truth, there is no need to hide.

Originally posted by simtek 22
Why would he not reveal his identity, if he's telling the truth, there is no need to hide.

I assume that Scotsman know his identity. And the lawyers. And many others.

They aren't revealing his name for the same reason they don't reveal the names of any witnesses in high profile cases.


Not from a 'credible' source, but food for thought none the less. From March 2004, not long after Lybia was praised for ridding themselves of a WMD program they didn't have:

It's All About The Oil: Lybia Edition


Edit: the Washington Times reported on it also, if that makes anyone feel better.

Also, a re-trial looks likely with this and the credibility of one the key witnesses being called into question : news.bbc.co.uk...

The re-trial if and when it happens, will be worth watching.


[edit on 3-9-2005 by kegs]

Originally posted by Nygdan

Originally posted by TheShroudOfMemphis
So how is demanding absolute proof straight off the bat contributing to 'discussion'?

How is it contributing to the discussion? That is discussion, you make a claim, I say 'what supports that', you present it, see?

. What's pointless is doing the 'Prove It' tatic some posters here use like they have it waiting on their clipboard to be pasted in.

Whats pointless is saying that we should accept a claim as true without evidence. This guy made a claim, and a bunch of peopel agree with him, literally for no good reason.

Sigh, Hellmut posting a link to a story. You demand evidence, so that instantly dead-ends the story right there. POINTLESS.

If you can prove this guy wrong, prove it. If not, accept it, research it, find out more and add it to this thread. Keep a grain of salt handy for sure but to just demand proof without adding anything of your own is pointless.

I don't see why that's hard to understand? You don't accept the claim, fine, move on, ignore it, but to DEMAND proof is pointless if your not going to add a counter-arguement or counter-evidence. If you can't counter this claim with proof, then why demand proof to back it up?

What ever... it's not the first thread to be squashed by the 'prove it' crowd.

I just think you should let this thread evolve or die without trying to step on it. There's plenty of reasons why theres only a limited amount of evidence right now, mainly the fact that if you came out in public pointing the finger at the CIA without going the legal route first, you'd probably be swimming with the fishes before dinner.

Keg has provide more info, read those posts.

Originally posted by TheShroudOfMemphis

Sigh, Hellmut posting a link to a story. You demand evidence, so that instantly dead-ends the story right there. POINTLESS.

If you can prove this guy wrong, prove it. If not, accept it, research it, find out more and add it to this thread. Keep a grain of salt handy for sure but to just demand proof without adding anything of your own is pointless.

I don't see why that's hard to understand? You don't accept the claim, fine, move on, ignore it, but to DEMAND proof is pointless if your not going to add a counter-arguement or counter-evidence. If you can't counter this claim with proof, then why demand proof to back it up?

Whats wrong with taking the original story at face value, Libyan terrosts blowing up the jet to get even with the US Navy's downing of an Iranian jetliner. That infinetly more plausable than the CIA downing the jet for some nefarious reason.

Yes I am a doubter of stories that quote sources that won't come forward or allow themselves to be named. It is so easy to make wild claims, get it into a paper, and have it done without any proof. If this police chief had know the truth from the beginning, why wait all these years? Je's a servant of the public and we depend on people like him for the truth. If he actually helped cover something up, he's a liar of the worst kind.

This is someone just seeking some publicity and a book deal.

Originally posted by Tinkleflower

Originally posted by Rasputin13
What a joke! Show me some PROOF that the CIA was responsible for the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103, and I'll shut up.

Colour me wronglypurpled, but that's not the claim, is it?

The allegation is that the CIA planted evidence - not that they actually orchestrated and/or carried out the bombing itself, non?

Before this gets muddied any further, it'd probably be prudent to actually sort the wheat from the chaffe in terms of what is and isn't being alleged here.

Actually, if you read any of my posts, the claim I was referring to was made by America's #1 Fan, Souljah. His claim is that based on the Pan Am bombing, the CIA is a terrorist organization. Thus, he implied that the CIA was involved in the bombing itself, as planting evidence obviously doesn't make them terrorists.

Now I don't want to hear about CIA involvement in Nicaragua, Panama, etc. We're talking about the case at hand. Obviously there are countless events one could bring up to validate the claim that the CIA is a terrorist organization. But that wasn't what Souljah was basing it on. If it was, then he completely misspoke. So everyone please relax, stop attacking me, and let's allow Souljah to provide some sort of "evidence" that the CIA was responsible for the Pan Am 103 bombing. Obviously I'm not asking for absolute proof. I'm not asking for a signed confession. But I'm also not asking for "Tim's Geocities site" either. Just give us some good reasons, maybe some shreds of evidence thrown in there, that the CIA is a terrorist organization because they were responsible for the Pan Am 103 bombing.

Ya see boys and girls... Souljah presented his America-hating hypothesis that the CIA is a terrorist organization because of the Pan Am 103 incident. Now this is the part where he backs up his hypothesis with a little more than just "America sucks" rhetoric. Now I hope I've cleared up what it is that I was trying to say in my previous posts for all of you Rasputin13-bashers.

i agree with TheShroudOfMemphis, its sort of discouraging to look for things worth posting, if after 3 replies of praises, you start getting demanded for "proof", and "stop hating america", even get called a "troll" wtf that is i guess ill never know. i think the point of this forum is to find thing such as hellmut did, post it, and see what facts people can find about it. why would hellmut be required to give supporting evidence, if he had it i doubt he is going to share it with us, are you going to give him a million dollar exclusive. i agree with some of the early rants about jumping on the cia did it bs, it was out of line for someone that hasn't brought anything to the discussion, but as far as demanding evidence. do it yourself, what are you here for anyway, you wont believe anything until it shows on a major news station anyway.

Originally posted by Rasputin13
Actually, if you read any of my posts, the claim I was referring to was made by America's #1 Fan, Souljah. His claim is that based on the Pan Am bombing, the CIA is a terrorist organization. Thus, he implied that the CIA was involved in the bombing itself, as planting evidence obviously doesn't make them terrorists.

Yet oddly, I didn't get that from Souljah's post. I caught the implication that the CIA was a terrorist organisation, but not that they'd directly organised/carried out the Lockerbie attack.

Maybe that's just a difference in perception between us both.

Now I don't want to hear about CIA involvement in Nicaragua, Panama, etc. We're talking about the case at hand. Obviously there are countless events one could bring up to validate the claim that the CIA is a terrorist organization.

And I can see how the two separate issues can in fact be quite definitively linked. I'm not sure we can exclude the former if the latter is obvious?

But that wasn't what Souljah was basing it on. If it was, then he completely misspoke. So everyone please relax, stop attacking me, and let's allow Souljah to provide some sort of "evidence" that the CIA was responsible for the Pan Am 103 bombing.

I don't think everyone's attacking you dude. But, I second the call for evidence. Frankly, I've seen nothing to even vaguely "prove" that the CIA carried out the attack.

Now I hope I've cleared up what it is that I was trying to say in my previous posts for all of you Rasputin13-bashers.

Not being one of 'em, I can't comment. But you did clarify your position - and for that, thank you

Not being one of 'em, I can't comment. But you did clarify your position - and for that, thank you

And for that, I thank you! I guess there are two sides to a coin. I took Souljah's comments as if he was claiming the CIA was behind the bombing. I figured he wouldn't call the CIA a terrorist organization simply for planting evidence, so I felt (and still do until he asserts otherwise) that he was insinuating that the CIA was responsible for the attack.

As for the others posts ranting about people who ask for evidence and proof and so on... I hope you weren't referring to me. I have no gripe with the original poster, and never asked for any evidence from him. The source for the claim that the CIA planted evidence is currently anonymous, and will remain so indefinitely. Therefore, I wouldn't ask the original poster for any evidence which he would not be able to produce. He did what all good ATS members do- he found an interesting and relevant article, posted it in the appropriate forum, made a personal comment about the story, and opened the floor to discussion. I thank him for that.

I do, however, respect those who require evidence. I don't always agree with them, though. But I don't feel as though they should be attacked simply because they want more facts. If they're too lazy to look them up themselves, then that's an entirely different case. But if they choose not to believe something that someone else does believe, that is their choice. So long as they voice their dissenting opinions in a respectable manner, then they should be treated fairly and not criticized for requiring additional evidence.

With all that being said, believing or disbelieving this story will just come down to your gut feeling. At this point, it appears all we have is the word of this unnamed Police Chief. If you feel that a man of his position and his experience, who comes forward over a decade later has no reason to lie, then you can choose to believe him. If you feel he is not telling the truth, or is just opportunistic, then you can choose not to believe him. Or you can find yourself in the third group- the much criticized group in this thread whom are waiting out for additional evidence/proof. I think that is where I will remain for the time being.

Gaddafi's son says they lied and accepted the responsibility for Lockerbie, only to get sanctions lifted. He says they didn't do it...


Gaddafi's son: We lied about Lockerbie (by tezzajw)

Here are more indications of Libya taking the blame for Lockerbie.


Libyan Nuke Program Was CIA-MI6 Sting Op

"The concessions included allowing the USA and Britain to lay the blame on Libya for the downing of Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie which killed hundreds of people. To this day the real perpetrators of this crime have not been sought, with an innocent Libyan languishing in a Scottish jail," Mathaba.net wrote.

Although Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi had been granted a second extraordinary appeal last year, his defense lawyers are denied the right to access secret documents provided by an unknown third country and believed to be highly relevant to the case.

In the wake of Secretary of State Rice's visit to Libya, the name of Megrahi was removed from the State Department's Rewards for Justice Web site. No explanation has so far been provided. As a former CIA operative in the Middle East told me, this is rather strange…