Democratic? No public enquiry on the 7/7 bombings.

[Prole]

Larry O'Hara: everybody who has ever relied on public transport, including trains, knows that the trains that run often bear only passing resemblance to officially admitted timetables. Therefore, making that the basis of any critique of official positions is rather weak.

Precisely, yet that is what we are being asked to believe is based on. The trains from Luton Thameslink were totally screwed up that morning and didn't run according to the timetable. The timetabled 7.40 was cancelled and the timetabled 7.48 left at 7.56. These are the only train times mentioned after the Metropolitan Police conference on 13/7/05.
If the first verifiable 'fact' of what happened that day doesn't stand up to scrutiny, how can the rest?

 

[Badger Kitten]

Show me what you have done to back up your assertion. Find me a witness to demonstrate your theory.

 

[Badger Kitten]

You assert one fact is wrong, from here you leap to asserting everything else is false. Why?


Why?

 

[Larry O'Hara]

Larry: I hope i don't reopen the slowly closing floodgates here, but could you elaborate on point 4 for me, i thought the only stuff on this was the isralli embassy stuff that was agreed on (by most) to be rubbish.

when I say the bombers, I wasn't referring to that operation on the day, but the fact that Mohammed Sidique Khan had been filmed by MI5 earlier (Mirror 3/11/05 & also Newsnight). And all four were apparently on an MI5 list as of interest (same source). I haven't most of my 7/7 files to hand--a colleague is using them!--so can't put my finger on the most recent stuff about another of the four.

 

[Prole]

Shall we start a new thread? Post your theories about what happened on 7th July here. And back them up with some sort of sense.

I don't mean ask questions, I mean, provide evidence and explain why you think what you think. And explain exactly why the version everyone else accepts is not good enough.

That's rich coming from someone who says they don't give a stuff about how the bombers got to Kings Cross.
If you claim that the version that everyone else accepts is good enough, why are you petitioning for a public inquiry? Quote: "Only this can provide us with the information we need as to what actually happened, how it happened and why it happened ".
What would be the point if you are saying we already know what actually happened that day?

 

[Larry O'Hara]

Precisely, yet that is what we are being asked to believe is based on. The trains from Luton Thameslink were totally screwed up that morning and didn't run according to the timetable. The timetabled 7.40 was cancelled and the timetabled 7.48 left at 7.56. These are the only train times mentioned after the Metropolitan Police conference on 13/7/05.
If the first verifiable 'fact' of what happened that day doesn't stand up to scrutiny, how can the rest?

Did you read my post? I stated that official train times, even ones 'verified' by the police (acting on info from the train operators) often bear little resemblance to what actually happens. Companies have a motive to falsify figures that is mundane--to avoid financial penalties. Also, since the national rail network BR was dismantled, the railways are semi-organised chaos. Therefore, I am saying that any critique impugning the secret state (who are undoubtedly murdering bastards when it suits) in this particular instance, has to rely on more than information about train times provided by a proven unreliable third party (train operator) whose word you seem to take as gospel.

Interesting your non-reply to the rest of my post--eat your burger & fries and 'have a nice day' now...

 

[Bob_the_lost]

when I say the bombers, I wasn't referring to that operation on the day, but the fact that Mohammed Sidique Khan had been filmed by MI5 earlier (Mirror 3/11/05 & also Newsnight). And all four were apparently on an MI5 list as of interest (same source). I haven't most of my 7/7 files to hand--a colleague is using them!--so can't put my finger on the most recent stuff about another of the four.

Ah, thanks.

 

[Badger Kitten]

Show me what you have done to back up your assertion. Find me a witness to demonstrate your theory.

You assert one fact is wrong, from here you leap to asserting everything else is false. Why?


Why?

etc, yawn

 

[editor]

Precisely, yet that is what we are being asked to believe is based on. The trains from Luton Thameslink were totally screwed up that morning and didn't run according to the timetable. The timetabled 7.40 was cancelled and the timetabled 7.48 left at 7.56. These are the only train times mentioned after the Metropolitan Police conference on 13/7/05.
If the first verifiable 'fact' of what happened that day doesn't stand up to scrutiny, how can the rest?

Exactly what 'scrutiny' have you personally put these 'facts' under?

Have you thought to wonder why all the passengers on the train haven't spotted this supposed glaring error?

How about the driver, the guard, the station staff, signalmen and all the other hundreds of people involved in running, maintaining and administering a train service? They'd be the first to know if something was up, but I'm not hearing a thing.

Have you spoken to any of them?
No? Why not?

 

[editor]

A sixth reminder for Jazzz when he returns:

Please explain why a proper inquiry would "reveal 7/7 to be the black op that it was."

Exactly what would be "revealed" please, and how?

 

[Badger Kitten]

Twenty pages and we don't seem to have got past the assertion on page one. Hum.

 

[Bob_the_lost]

Twenty pages and we don't seem to have got past the assertion on page one. Hum.

20 pages and we're still on topic

 

[dormouse]

...Where are the images from the platforms or the trains?...

good question - after all, according to your theories, even if they didn't exist, they would have been easy enough for the authorities to fake, wouldn't they?... but then, if they had appeared, you wouldn't have believed them anyway, would you? You would have discounted them, because they would have been a

...grainy image of 4 men...which contrasts poorly to the image from the so-called rehearsal on the 28/6...

which didn't fit what you want to believe.

 

[TeeJay]

...Why no cctv images of them at Kings X...

What's this then?

edit: and for what its worth I do recall seeing a picture of the four with rucksacks at king's cross, although I can't track it down at the moment.

If I do get hold of a picture will you admit that these four are the most likely suspects and that there was no 'black ops'?

One reason for not publishing all and every picture you have is to prevent cross-contamination of witnesses.

Does anyone seriously think that people would be able to spend a lot of time in a house where explosives were being made, travel in a car with multiple large devices and carry one in a rucksack, without noticing anything?

Does anyone seriously think that these four men walked into Luton station and then mysterious teleported up to their mothership (or maybe the secret Thameslink black ops unit were ready to sprit them away somewhere?).

 

[Badger Kitten]

That's rich coming from someone who says they don't give a stuff about how the bombers got to Kings Cross.
If you claim that the version that everyone else accepts is good enough, why are you petitioning for a public inquiry? Quote: "Only this can provide us with the information we need as to what actually happened, how it happened and why it happened ".
What would be the point if you are saying we already know what actually happened that day?

Keep up

 

[Yossarian]

You assert one fact is wrong, from here you leap to asserting everything else is false. Why?


Why?

I'm guessing arrogance/idiocy/insanity, or some cocktail of the three.

 

[pk]

I'm thinking this is yet another pile of ill-considered conspiranoid "IT WAS THE JEWS WHAT DONE IT!" bullshit and should just be deleted, not even binned.

That's my opinion anyway.

"Huntley Is Innocent!"

"9/11 Here's How They Did It!"

Same fucking bollocks, different tragedy.

 

[sparticus]

everybody who has ever relied on public transport, including trains, knows that the trains that run often bear only passing resemblance to officially admitted timetables. Therefore, making that the basis of any critique of official positions is rather weak.

Incontrovertible facts seem to include

1) The govts foreign policy, which outrages many, including Muslims.

2) The fact that the bombers do seem to have been carrying bombs, no matter how they got to London, they did eventually get there.

3) The bombers cannot have imagined they were doing anything else that makes sense (eg transporting copies of the Koran?), inasmuch as you cannot 'forget' you have a rucksack, can you?

4) Spook foreknowledge of at least two bombers as of interest.

Now, there is legitimate scope for questioning aspects of the official account, including whether the bombers did (or did not) know an MI6 asset. But to leap from that to imply these people were just patsies is not just untrue, but insultingly patronising--for these people believed in something enough to face certain death for it, a fact that cannot be gainsaid. I find it rather interesting that those who get so worked up about this episode have never shown the slightest interest in MI5/SB complicity in the 1999 Soho nail-bombing for example, a still open case as far as I'm concerned. Also, interestingly enough, those agitated about 7/7 do not seem to have anything useful to contribute concerning spook dirty tricks in Ulster either. It would be tempting to see these types as more interested in the X Files, but even that wouldn't be true--as the real life British X Files case (involving Tim Hepple/Matthews) or indeed the more recent fitting up of Ufologist Max Burns that includes a cameo role from two Fortean Times regulars doesn't interest them either.

In the end, perhaps many into 7/7 so much are so exercised by it because it is yet another example of UK subordination to the US culturally & politically. In other words if the US has its 9/11 conspiracy (a matter I'm still looking into) their Brit junior partner conspiracy theorists must needs produce their own equivalent (7/7). How very tedious, & sad.

Careful Larry. We are dangerously close to agreement. Namely that the POSSIBILITY of spooky types from HMG being involved further up the food chain and the benefit of a public inquiry to test such suspicions. If you are interested I would like to receive any bookmarks or documents related to 7/7 you consider relevent by PM or email. Ta

http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=3972496#post3972496

http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=3972660#post3972660

http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=3972845#post3972845

 

[editor]

Careful Larry. We are dangerously close to agreement.

Aw. Sparticus thinks he's found a new friend!

I predict disappointment.

What do you think really happened, sparticus?

 

[sparticus]

Aw. Sparticus thinks he's found a new friend!

I predict disappointment.

What do you think really happened, sparticus?

Hardly ed, since in the past Larry has been fairly dismissive of the need to re-investigate 9/11 (largely based as far as I can tell on his mistrust of David Shayler). I'm certainly not holding my breathe.

As for what really happened, I don't know (as I have already said). What I have said is that past precedent leads me to suspect just about anything UK intelligence and Blair tells me. If he told me it was raining I would need to feel it dripping off my nose.

I guess that when it comes to my government (and just about everyone else's) I'm very suspecting just as you are very trusting (or so it appears)

 

[laptop]

I'm very suspecting just as you are very trusting

You just don't get this "reality" thing, do you?

Scepticism: doubt everything, but do some work to work out what's going on.

Your "suspecting" - "I don't believe it because of who says it and that's the end of it, in my little world it's not true" - rather close to paranoid delusion.

 

[editor]

I guess that when it comes to my government (and just about everyone else's) I'm very suspecting just as you are very trusting (or so it appears)

Don't play the deceitful bullshit game with me pal.

Just because I'm not taken in by the ridiculous, fact-free, DVD-flogging conspiracy bollocks that you swallow up so enthusiastically doesn't mean that I believe every word that the government says.

 

[Jazzz]

Did you read my post? I stated that official train times, even ones 'verified' by the police (acting on info from the train operators) often bear little resemblance to what actually happens. Companies have a motive to falsify figures that is mundane--to avoid financial penalties. Also, since the national rail network BR was dismantled, the railways are semi-organised chaos. Therefore, I am saying that any critique impugning the secret state (who are undoubtedly murdering bastards when it suits) in this particular instance, has to rely on more than information about train times provided by a proven unreliable third party (train operator) whose word you seem to take as gospel.

Interesting your non-reply to the rest of my post--eat your burger & fries and 'have a nice day' now...

But you miss the whole point of prole's position Larry, which is that she simply wants to get a straight story. In the case of the 7.40, are you suggested they would pretend it had been cancelled? This seems implausible. In fact the records kept for the actual departure times and arrival times by Thameslink seem to be accurate to the minute. No-one here has said 'they couldn't make it to King's Cross'. It's more 'what confidence can we have in any of this, when they can't even get the train right?'

But I like your comment that 9-11 is a matter you are 'still looking into'. We await your report with baited breath!

 

[Jazzz]

What's this then?

Forgive me, but I can only see one of the four in that picture

 

[Larry O'Hara]

But you miss the whole point of prole's position Larry, which is that she simply wants to get a straight story. In the case of the 7.40, are you suggested they would pretend it had been cancelled? This seems implausible. In fact the records kept for the actual departure times and arrival times by Thameslink seem to be accurate to the minute. No-one here has said 'they couldn't make it to King's Cross'. It's more 'what confidence can we have in any of this, when they can't even get the train right?'

But I like your comment that 9-11 is a matter you are 'still looking into'. We await your report with baited breath!

1) I am saying that train operators cannot be trusted to either know, or tell, the truth about train running times, yes. Do you not know this from your own experience? Let me give a concrete example. When I lived in East London, & spent many minutes waiting for DLR trains that didn't turn up, the anticipated arrival times constantly shifted as shown on the indicators. Whatever info the DLR may have given to a third party if asked re trian times would have been intrinsically untrustworthy, so too train operators here. A point neither you nor prole etc have taken on board.

2) re 9/11, given I and others are determined to push our own research agendas in NFb, we will not allow any one topic to swamp us. Therefore 9/11 will be approached in stages. The first (to feature in issue 7) is an in depth study of the origins/nature of Al Qaeda--then 9/11 specific stuff comes later. For it seems to me that those who see 9/11 as an inside job rely on the premise that Al Qaeda lacks autonomy or even reality--and that issue has to be tackled first. And will be--but I have to juggle such things around life/work/domestic pressures etc.

3) Interesting that none of my points about unexplored UK scandals & political/cultural subordination to the US have been taken up...

Edited to add...

Can I draw your attention to post 490??

 

[pk]

Forgive me, but I can only see one of the four in that picture

Oh you really are a mug.

And don't pretend you don't know the consequences of this kind of wilful bullshit - on people reading your shit who were actually there and who perhaps have friends or relatives dead or injured.

You and Sparticus against the world, eh?

Good luck.

 

[editor]

We await your report with baited breath!

Not sure who the "we" is here, but I do know that I've been waiting a very, very long time for you to explain why a "proper inquiry" would "reveal 7/7 to be the black op that it was."

Exactly what would be "revealed" please, and how?

You made this claim over twenty pages ago and I've politely asked you to substantiate it something like seven times now.

Please do so now. Thanks.

 

[TeeJay]

Just come across the following which is from a letter from Neil Smith, Detective Inspector Anti-Terrorist Branch replying to requests from one Ms Bridget Dunne [why does this name sound familiar?] about "Why Police Web site does not give times that trains involved with Bombings left Kings Cross Station"...

I can see from your communications that you seek access to the precise details concerning the times which the various trains / tube-trains left the stations on the morning of the 7th July, and the times that the explosions occurred. You emphasis that you feel that you should be entitled to these details under the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

The information you are looking for is essentially already in the public domain. It was widely published in the media in July, and released in police appeals, including those which Ms Simeone brought to your attention. I would strongly recommend the BBC website, which not only gives the broad information you seek, but also gives written and pictorial accounts of the events of that morning and the days that followed. That may provide the material you seek. An enormous amount of information, accurate and otherwise, is already published on the internet.

I must however explain that the Freedom of Information Act does not generally open access to information held by the police related to ongoing investigations. An exemption exists under the Act (s30) which essentially states that information related to investigations shouldn't be released unless there is a compelling public interest. In fact there was a compelling public interest in making public information related to the London Bombings, including the details of the journey's concerned, and it was made public. You however are asking for a level of preciseness which we judge to take the 'public interest' no further. Whilst the precise times are known, and will be relevant to future Court hearings, whether a train departed at 0840 or 0845 would not in our judgement advance current public knowledge.

I need also to explain that the events you refer to are subject to both Criminal and Coroner's investigations. The Coroner in due dourse will hear the sort of details which you refer to as it is inportant evidence to the Coroner's inquest process. Coroner's Court hearings are normally held in Open when journalists and the public can be present. Subject to any directions made by the Coroner, he/she may authorise more detailed publication. The Freedom of information Act does not generally provide open access to evidence in advance of Court proceedings.

You refer to the witness appeal process being aided by precise times. In fact were we to follow that process, we would potentially lose witnesses who might for example think they had nothing to contribute as they caught the 0841, not the 0843. Similarly we could be said to be 'influencing' witnesses by providing details which could then be incorporated into their accounts. The witness evidence gathering process is intended to be as neutral and uninfluenced as possible. For example, if a police appeal said 'we are looking for a blue car' when later events showed it to be green, 'preciseness' would have been extremely unhelpful and 'not in the public interest'. If you have information to provide in respect of the bombings, then we would welcome your information.

All the times I have shown in this response are purely illustruative.

see here: (last item on page - although some of the other stuff is hilariously and unintentionally stupid as well) http://www.declarepeace.org.uk/captain/murder_inc/site/CCTV.html

 

[Jazzz]

Not sure who the "we" is here, but I do know that I've been waiting a very, very long time for you to explain why a "proper inquiry" would "reveal 7/7 to be the black op that it was."

Exactly what would be "revealed" please, and how?

You made this claim over twenty pages ago and I've politely asked you to substantiate it something like seven times now.

Please do so now. Thanks.

I've been waiting an even longer time for you to admit that you know of no evidence to suggest that anything *** ******** said in her postings on urban75 was at all untruthful. Your moderators made a public declaration about her based on nothing more than rumour which has been shown to be erroneous and she was allowed no chance to defend herself against it. This caused her great distress.

That is something I feel you have an moral obligation to do.

However, I do not have an obligation to restrict myself to stating opinions which I can prove, and I'm sure you do not either (you certainly don't seem to when it involves casting doubt on the reputation of posters on your own board). It is my opinion that 7/7 was a black op. I may give my list of reasons, but you would just moan, and frankly due to the above I don't have much goodwill towards you right now.

 

[TeeJay]

Sounds like you don't actually *have* any reasons for thinking this. There are plenty of other people who are reading this thread and want to know exactly the same thing, so being annoyed with editor isn't any kind of reason not to give you reasons for thinking that 7/7 was a so-called "black op".