Democratic? No public enquiry on the 7/7 bombings.
- Thread starter mod
- Start date
Bernie Gunther
Fundamentalist Druid
I'm not touching that conspiracy stuff with a long stick. I do think though, that there are some fucking obvious reasons why the government would not want the media full of stories about a bunch of young British muslims blowing up their fellow citizens because they were pissed off about Iraq, to say nothing of what happened to the unfortunate Mr Menezes subsequently. They have every reason to want to bury this and hope that the public forgets all about it.
TAE said:
But this is exactly the point: what we think happened and what we actually saw may not be the same thing. And if you think you saw what happened, what are you going to think you saw?
If they were the same thing, magicians would be out of work for a start.
The kindest thing to say about Mark Whitby is that his version of events was a complete load of crap. I'm surprised people here aren't wondering if he wasn't making it all up to get attention.
But you seem to have a habit of only sticking up for people who fit into your pre-existing theory that the powers-that-be are running extensive 'black ops', 'false flag ops', and provocations in order to turn the world into a large prison planet or somesuch. You even "stuck up for" Ian Huntley because it fitted in with some fucked up idea you were spouting that American military personnel were responsible for the murders and that the UK courts helped brainwash and torture Huntley while in custody to make him confess.Jazzz said:
A long time ago? Yes - but you *still* use the same non-logic, made up shite and selective filtering for all your nonsense.
Oh lordy, not Huntley again. 
It's instructive to listen to Mark Whitby's audio interview account on the BBC page. He seemed very sure that the Asian guy with the warm coat bundled to the ground was the one that had five shots unloaded into him.
His perception filled in false detail which made sense at the time. He thought he had seen a suicide bomber.
It's instructive to listen to Mark Whitby's audio interview account on the BBC page. He seemed very sure that the Asian guy with the warm coat bundled to the ground was the one that had five shots unloaded into him.
His perception filled in false detail which made sense at the time. He thought he had seen a suicide bomber.
pk
drink flounce rinse repeat
Why do you bother with this shit Jazzz?
Every single time you've entered into this kind of row you have failed to produce anything other than second-hand conspiracy theory.
You are, without doubt, paranoid to the point of needing help, but aside from that, is there no other website that can provide a space for this crap???
Because you are as insistant and as irritating as some rabid Jehovah's Witness, or Scientologist, defiant and determined, such is your need to propagate your clearly powerful belief in something which is fundamentally bollocks.
I wouldn't mind but most of it is based on some anti-semitic shit encouraged by David Icke worshippers.
Seriously, why don't you find out what the Scientologists have to offer you?
I have a feeling you'd be much happier following a ridiculous fairytale if you were not so solitary in your crusade, and I can assure you, there are plenty of die-hard Scientology wackos to support you in your quest to push fake facts upon unsuspecting passers-by...
In the meantime - you've surely learned your lesson here, please stick to cricket threads and suchlike in the future, there doesn't seem to be any possibility that you will be able to provide any kind of proof for your various internet-gleamed yarns, and you should spare yourself further rudeness and ridicule, really.
And let's not be too complacent about Huntley.
In the midst of all that public sadness and ghoulish behaviour from the press and public over the pointless and cruel murder of two little girls in Soham, you decided to stick up a thread declaring in bold letters that "Huntley Is Innocent!!!!" in favour of your clearly wrong conspiranoid theory that a US serviceman killed the girls and that Huntley was being framed.
This of course suited your own belief, that perhaps the US serviceman was a lizard, or somesuch Ickeadelic nonsense, but it only served to frustrate what were high feelings at the time, and in the face of overwhelming evidence long after the facts were established, where you were desperate to pin some shred of oblique evidence away from Huntley and onto some random G.I.
One of your common tricks, I and certainly many many others have noticed, is to push the needle of doubt, no matter how insignificant the anecdotal occurence, widen the hole, invent the inane possibility to suit the hole, and challenge incessantly those who would sensibly rule it out without question.
Maybe you should apply such an acute negative judgement on the people providing you with these fabrications in the first place.
Remember - you tried for at least a year to get people to accept the word of Joe Vialls as an acceptable source of information - and there can be nobody who has looked into Vialls that honestly believes he was anything other than a crazy old anti-Jewish lunatic whose fervent belief in the healing power of cigarettes led to his early death.
Above all, you give new and startling definition to the word 'naive'.
I would have thought you'd learned by now, is all.
Have a good Xmas and NYE though, I don't think you're a bad guy, but I can only insult or patronise you, and I thought I'd go for the patronising appproach in the hope that it might elicit a fairly rational response.
Ever the optimist, that's me, Jazzz...
Every single time you've entered into this kind of row you have failed to produce anything other than second-hand conspiracy theory.
You are, without doubt, paranoid to the point of needing help, but aside from that, is there no other website that can provide a space for this crap???
Because you are as insistant and as irritating as some rabid Jehovah's Witness, or Scientologist, defiant and determined, such is your need to propagate your clearly powerful belief in something which is fundamentally bollocks.
I wouldn't mind but most of it is based on some anti-semitic shit encouraged by David Icke worshippers.
Seriously, why don't you find out what the Scientologists have to offer you?
I have a feeling you'd be much happier following a ridiculous fairytale if you were not so solitary in your crusade, and I can assure you, there are plenty of die-hard Scientology wackos to support you in your quest to push fake facts upon unsuspecting passers-by...
In the meantime - you've surely learned your lesson here, please stick to cricket threads and suchlike in the future, there doesn't seem to be any possibility that you will be able to provide any kind of proof for your various internet-gleamed yarns, and you should spare yourself further rudeness and ridicule, really.
And let's not be too complacent about Huntley.
In the midst of all that public sadness and ghoulish behaviour from the press and public over the pointless and cruel murder of two little girls in Soham, you decided to stick up a thread declaring in bold letters that "Huntley Is Innocent!!!!" in favour of your clearly wrong conspiranoid theory that a US serviceman killed the girls and that Huntley was being framed.
This of course suited your own belief, that perhaps the US serviceman was a lizard, or somesuch Ickeadelic nonsense, but it only served to frustrate what were high feelings at the time, and in the face of overwhelming evidence long after the facts were established, where you were desperate to pin some shred of oblique evidence away from Huntley and onto some random G.I.
One of your common tricks, I and certainly many many others have noticed, is to push the needle of doubt, no matter how insignificant the anecdotal occurence, widen the hole, invent the inane possibility to suit the hole, and challenge incessantly those who would sensibly rule it out without question.
Maybe you should apply such an acute negative judgement on the people providing you with these fabrications in the first place.
Remember - you tried for at least a year to get people to accept the word of Joe Vialls as an acceptable source of information - and there can be nobody who has looked into Vialls that honestly believes he was anything other than a crazy old anti-Jewish lunatic whose fervent belief in the healing power of cigarettes led to his early death.
Above all, you give new and startling definition to the word 'naive'.
I would have thought you'd learned by now, is all.
Have a good Xmas and NYE though, I don't think you're a bad guy, but I can only insult or patronise you, and I thought I'd go for the patronising appproach in the hope that it might elicit a fairly rational response.
Ever the optimist, that's me, Jazzz...
Badger Kitten
oof
Okay, I can see how this reads when taken out of context. Let me explain: People asked exactly what it felt, tasted, sounded like when the bomb went off. Up until the 7/7 documentary I had managed to avoid going into vivid concscious details, though I had horrific dreams. The film however triggered taste/sound/visual horror-flashbacks, which I am now having EMDR treatment for. I use 'flashbacks' here in the medical sense of the word as a PTSD symptom of overwhelming physical re-experiencing of the event in an inappropriate setting ( such as when writing at a desk having just seen a film) . Not in the film -maker'' use of the word as a narrative device, a way of adding in additional detail or generating false memory.
Recently I have been having CBT and specific trauma therapy, to deal with the after-effects of what I saw and have only just been able to bear to think about in detail.The reason I had been blocking the specific details of the explosion and just how horrific it was, was because the memories were, frankly, unbearable, as was the accompanying visual, rational memory of a desperately injured passenger - a dying man - whom I, a First Aider- couldn't save and in fact walked away from, when evacuating the train. The visceral, physical, adrenalised flashbacks of the taste of blood, smell of peroxide hair and meat and taste of choking smoke - brought this image back too, which is why I spent 4 month exhausting myself trying to block it out. Some things are too much to deal with all at once and take time, do you see? That's why we have the survivor group - people are in many cases just starting to come out of shock and start to process the grief, survivor guilt and fear.
My memory of getting on the train, the bomb, the aftermath is all fine - it is just the brief minutes after the bomb itself exploded behind me and I fell to the floor in total darkness, then struggled to my feet - that I have blocked out the feelings for. An immensely violent, physical experience, it was not experienced rationally, like a documentary maker or a journalist, it was experienced through the senses and the body and is hard to put into words.
I have given you a lot of info here in good faith, and I hope that you will share it with other theorists if you will accept it as a refutation of your theories by a survivor who has access to more information than you, and is a credible witness.
It may be an exciting game to you but it is not a game for us, going through all this and I am not going to keep dragging it out in order to stop the conspiracies. I will however do it here because I hope that it makes you think twice and I know, depsite the editor's best attempts, there are people using the site who seriously subscribe to some of the wilder theories doing the rounds.
Easy. It is my understanding that '346A' is the name that the carriage has been given in the criminal investigation as an exhibit/murder scene and that is what the ruin of the carriage I was travelling in is known as these days.
See above. It's a total and utter non-issue.
Firstly - not an 'official narrative' at all but a witness account, posted shortly after the event by a traumatised witness who wasn't in the carriage with the bomb but much further down the train. Jacqui Head was in carriage 5, I know her, she's in my group. She and some of the others in carriage 5 thought at one time that they were being 'bumped ' by a train approaching behind, certainly they began to fear this after being trapped underground with no word from the driver for ages and no info and not knowing they had been bombed because it hadn't gone off in their carriage. The banging they heard from carriage 6 was the panicking passengers in the carriage thundering at the glass and the doors with all their might, with their hands, umbrella, swith as much force as they could muster.
Anymore tripe about the
iccadilly line suicide bombings you feel like throwing out? I can't say I enjoy this, but anything to stop the lies, which I find deeply insulting. To go through this is one thing, to be made out to be a liar by conspiracy theorists is almost unforgivable.BK
I find this deeply offensive as I am not calling anyone a liar, I don't doubt you were on the train, as were many others whose voices we no longer hear. When I searched for survivor stories on this site, it appears that yours is the voice that now speaks for everyone.
If I don't buy into George W Bush & Tony Blair's War On Terror then that is my right. If I believe that they are the real terrorists based on the evidence of the slaughter maiming and torture of sovereign peoples, then that is my right. If I don't buy into the official narrative of 7/7 based on the almost complete lack of evidence produced so far, then that is my right. It doesn't make me a conspiracy theorist that I search for the truth.
That citizen's like myself are interested in examining the facts does not mean we are denying the experiences of any person who was on a train that day. That we would want to get to the truth of how these events occurred, is in everyone's best interest. I don't doubt the complete horror that people experienced, it is in that spirit that I and many others search for the truth.
You have no idea whether I was affected by events that day, whether a member of my family was involved, but that would be my own personal story and would have no bearing on what actually happened. That would be just my own personal experience, along with many thousands of others.
In my short time on this forum I notice that anyone who seeks to question the official line gets buried under a stream of name-calling and vitriol. This can be construed as a tactic to silence dissenting voices.
I repeat that I can only ask questions, for which I attempt to get answers by using the Freedom of Information Act and the Press Complaints Commission.
My Blog
If I find it hard to understand why so few CCTV images are available, contrasted with 21/7 for which there will be a trial, and hard to believe that documents were found intact at all four sites, including return train tickets, that suicide bombers buy pay and display tickets for cars, that the train we are told they travelled on did not run that day, if I ask these questions is it wrong? Should I just accept that the state tells us the truth?
I would have thought that in your efforts to petition the state for a public inquiry it would be in the same spirit. I would prefer an independent people's inquiry, where we could hear the voices that are so woefully lacking from that day.
In The Line of Duty
"The London Fire Brigade would not facilitate access to its frontline staff for this article, and firefighters said they feared disciplinary action if they were identified in the press."
Or perhaps the train drivers? In a reply to my questions London Underground said:
"..all the evidence we had at the time (including the information from the drivers) and our experience pointed to a power surge, so that's what we said it was. This information was given in good faith."
When asked if drivers had radio contact to a control centre to inform them of what had happened the reply was:
"I'm sorry, but I find this question a little strange because it seems to assume that the drivers did not alert the control centre. I'm not sure what information you base this assumption on, but it isn't accurate. Our network control had been alerted to all the incidents within minutes of them happening."
A reply from London Underground
"Only the truth will stand the most rigorous questioning", and in that spirit I continue to ask questions.
Anymore tripe about the
I find this deeply offensive as I am not calling anyone a liar, I don't doubt you were on the train, as were many others whose voices we no longer hear. When I searched for survivor stories on this site, it appears that yours is the voice that now speaks for everyone.
If I don't buy into George W Bush & Tony Blair's War On Terror then that is my right. If I believe that they are the real terrorists based on the evidence of the slaughter maiming and torture of sovereign peoples, then that is my right. If I don't buy into the official narrative of 7/7 based on the almost complete lack of evidence produced so far, then that is my right. It doesn't make me a conspiracy theorist that I search for the truth.
That citizen's like myself are interested in examining the facts does not mean we are denying the experiences of any person who was on a train that day. That we would want to get to the truth of how these events occurred, is in everyone's best interest. I don't doubt the complete horror that people experienced, it is in that spirit that I and many others search for the truth.
You have no idea whether I was affected by events that day, whether a member of my family was involved, but that would be my own personal story and would have no bearing on what actually happened. That would be just my own personal experience, along with many thousands of others.
In my short time on this forum I notice that anyone who seeks to question the official line gets buried under a stream of name-calling and vitriol. This can be construed as a tactic to silence dissenting voices.
I repeat that I can only ask questions, for which I attempt to get answers by using the Freedom of Information Act and the Press Complaints Commission.
My Blog
If I find it hard to understand why so few CCTV images are available, contrasted with 21/7 for which there will be a trial, and hard to believe that documents were found intact at all four sites, including return train tickets, that suicide bombers buy pay and display tickets for cars, that the train we are told they travelled on did not run that day, if I ask these questions is it wrong? Should I just accept that the state tells us the truth?
I would have thought that in your efforts to petition the state for a public inquiry it would be in the same spirit. I would prefer an independent people's inquiry, where we could hear the voices that are so woefully lacking from that day.
In The Line of Duty
"The London Fire Brigade would not facilitate access to its frontline staff for this article, and firefighters said they feared disciplinary action if they were identified in the press."
Or perhaps the train drivers? In a reply to my questions London Underground said:
"..all the evidence we had at the time (including the information from the drivers) and our experience pointed to a power surge, so that's what we said it was. This information was given in good faith."
When asked if drivers had radio contact to a control centre to inform them of what had happened the reply was:
"I'm sorry, but I find this question a little strange because it seems to assume that the drivers did not alert the control centre. I'm not sure what information you base this assumption on, but it isn't accurate. Our network control had been alerted to all the incidents within minutes of them happening."
A reply from London Underground
"Only the truth will stand the most rigorous questioning", and in that spirit I continue to ask questions.
That's really rough. A friend of mine had a similar experience once (she was st.johns trained) and was deeply troubled by it, so I know a little bit about how traumatic that experience can be even on its own, nevermind everything else you had to deal with at that moment in time. My sympathies.Badger Kitten said:
Kid_Eternity
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
jæd said:
Thing is I think that he’s talking shite. It’s the typical play the victim angle that these conspiraloons love to play; this site without doubt has more anti-government/official versions of events types than most others on the web. I think you’d be hard pressed to find a board as successful and full of such a wide range of viewpoints and also generally be anti-authoritarian as this.
The idea that we’re all some mindless bunch of pro-government idiots and these fuckwits are the seers of light and truth is just plain bonkers.
Kid_Eternity
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
TAE said:
Good point. I've always thought that if I was deluded enough to buy into the shit they come up with logically I'd think they were all on the government books because of the good job they do at undermining genuine dissent/critical viewpoints of state/corporate power.
shoddysolutions
back by dope demand
All this speculation of government goons
Only helps those with something to hide
Be especially wary of conspiraloons
Whose hypotheses cannot be falsified
Only helps those with something to hide
Be especially wary of conspiraloons
Whose hypotheses cannot be falsified
dylanredefined
Not a house elf a tiger
Why would the government want to blow up its own trains ? conspriloon ?.It got its war without any attack here .Surely letting the secruity services foil the attack at last moment would be better press .(natrually the bombers dont survive ) .The majority of consprices are madness why dont you go back to chasing crop circles .And stop upsetting people who have suffred enough .A bunch of nutters blew themselves and others up .Mi 5 made a mistake in not spotting them .
Badger Kitten
oof
TAE said:
Quite. Which is why we started the demands for the enquiry. As for you, Prole, saying ''I'm the voice that speaks for everyone'' , what utter, utter crap. Go on the BBC, there you will find dozens of witness reports. Go on my blog, read my articles, you will find contributions from many survivors. I've kept a blog since the day, and people like the way I write, well, good. I repeatedly, endlessly point out that I speak only for myself. That other survivirs contact me thanking me for putting into words what we all say to each other is very satisfying, but if you spent even a cursory 2 minutes lookign at anything I have written since July 7th you would find that I say I am just one of the voices from the train and have always taken pains to say so.
What is the petition there for if not to get to the truth? I and other survivors have co-operated to write the piece in the Sunday Times why we think there should be an enquiry, my blog has dozens more reasons, including the practical solutions and learnings from that day and the aftermath that could be implemented. (As well as our desire to get conspiracy theorists out of our hair.) You may not have directly accused me and others of lying, but this shrill insistence that you speak ''the truth'' and you know ''what really went on'' when you were not there, and you haven't worked with the police and spoken to the driver and the first responders, makes all of our truthful and painful testimonies out to be false - an insult. And I, we have enough crap to deal with, without being accused of lies.
I have even seen my original report of the day, from U75, on a conspiracy site used to explain why there was no bomb on the train - just a power surge! As if a power surge caused the blood to drip from the ceiling, the bodies broken and torn, the screams that no-one who weas there will ever forget.
Possibly this last is why I am ''emotive'' when I take the time to answer these conspiracy people.
*And - breathe*
Anyway, thanks to everyone who signed the petition and is passing it about. I will, and have tried my best to answer any genuine questions that I can as a witness, but in order to do so I would require that the person asking the questions is willing to accept my testimony with an open mind rather than prefer to twist everything I say to support a pre-existing theory of their own, and to ignore, belittle or lie about the rest of what I and others say.
http://www.petitiononline.com/July7th/petition.html
Badger Kitten
oof
Prole said:
Dur. I am the only regular-ish urbanite who was on the train, as far as I know though others passengers then tracked me back here and joined the site to get in touch, because my the original account ran on here (and then moved to the BBC, where I directed people back here as the place where the sory first appeared) . There are plenty of survivors out there but not all of them use urban 75. That is why you find my story here, but not others. Dur again. Sheesh.
Kid_Eternity
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Prole said:
How many "independent forensics" tests are normally done in cases like this. What's wrong with the tests the, going by your language, non independent teams did?
Badger Kitten
oof
Prole said:
The train is being/has been forensically investigated and the carriage has not been scrapped, no. How utterly mad. Of course not.
I have no intention of descending to this level of debate, I have never said the points in your quotes. I can only ask questions in a search for the truth, which I have every right to do.
As for scrapping the trains, I just picked this up from an independent media site, and asked if you could confirm or deny this, and thanks for doing so.
Kid_Eternity
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
You have an answer for the second question?
editor
hiraethified
Have you actually contacted LU or any of the relevant authorities to find out?Prole said:
Or do you prefer to repeat and spread unverified, fact-unsupported, unresearched conspiracy stories posted up by God-knows-who just because they happen to suit your theory?
Have you asked indymedia where they "heard" that the bombed coaches had supposedly been scrapped? have you done anything to verify this claim with a credible source before slapping it up here?
Similar threads
- Locked
