I have no doubt last week's reports incorrectly saying...

I have no doubt last week's reports incorrectly saying production would be delayed 1 to 2 years were deliberate attempts to smash the share price.
>wake up holders, the market doesnt like it, who cares what we as individuals like or believe to be incorrect, the market is king

2004,
I'll take your statement as a market observation and respect it that way. Traders often comment with the Gartman rule (or something similar): "The market is a reflection of the total combined wisdom and stupidity of the traders and investors. In other words the market is telling us something when the price drops on high volume." This is a good example of this IMO. If I understand it, your point is the market believes there is a delay and therefore it matters.
Botfodder says there is a three month delay and the marketplace will realize this was bogus manipulation and correct to the upside soon.

I have to agree with botfodder. The claimed source of the delay was originally a Malaysian government official quote. The Malaysian government has already denied this claim publicly. The 1-2 year claims were then followed up by copies of the same denied statement from other newspapers and Moly holding analysts that failed to add any new basis or additional details supporting the delay claim.
Note the IAEA never suggested a delay would be necessary either. My law background leads me to believe that if time is of the essence, beyond the need for total safety, an extra three months of allotted time is reasonable to address the IAEA's pre-operation conditions.
Note also the bogus reports and analyst comments wrongly state the 11 suggestions must be completed before production. This is not what the IAEA said (they put before production language in Tech 1 & 2 and nowhere else. A Standard reading of legal construction says 1& 2 before production and the rest do not require a before production condition.
I say a minimal delay is important here for Lynas' development but also for the Malaysian government with their clearly stated desire to attack international business to their shores.
Next I consider in Lynas' announcement that not only denied the 1-2 year delay, they added detail to their timeline. And thereafter, a post here by jaybird stated: Lynas BDM - LT Waste Mgmt Plan Cap cost impact $10-15m. And to paraphrase he said Lynas had been working on the waste plan since May. That makes sense to me since that's when the issue started up and the end of the month is when the IAEA arrived.
So putting all of this together I see a single repeated comment on one side denied and refuted in several ways by multiple actors directly involved. I therefore agree with botfodder. The market should soon correct to the upside.