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

[Bernie Gunther]

I'm trying to find a nice diplomatic way of saying this, but I'm struggling a bit.

Whatever it is you're getting out of this whole conspiracy thing, and however important it is to you for whatever reasons, please try to have some fucking compassion. Put it in perspective. You're persistently bugging someone who was in the middle of a fatal bombing, to her obviously considerable distress. Whatever it is you are personally getting out of this, if you put it in a wider perspective, is it really important enough to justify the distress that you are so evidently causing?

There are plenty of places on the net where you can speculate to your heart's content about this stuff without actually getting on the case of someone who is still trying to recover from the horrible reality you're getting your rocks off fantasising about. Sure Blair is a warmongering cunt and the security services are a bunch of totally untrustworthy upper class slimes. That doesn't give you the automatic right to leech on the survivors for material to fuel your speculations, however thrilling they may be.

In my view, you are acting like a bunch of creepy selfish ghouls and I think you should consider giving it a rest.

 

[editor]

In my view, you are acting like a bunch of creepy selfish ghouls and I think you should consider giving it a rest.

Couldn't agree more. It rather brings to mind Jazzz posting up his disgusting conspiraloon fantasies about the Soham murders.

 

[Prole]

The official narrative of 7.7.05 was covered by a BBC2 Horizon programme that was broadcast on 27/10/05 and entitled "The 7/7 Bombers – A Psychological Investigation What makes someone want to blow themselves – and others - up?"

Horizon is the flagship science programme of the BBC and graphically reconstructed the journey of the alleged bombers on that day. It followed a forensic psychologist who boarded the Luton Thameslink train at 7.48 and who then alighted at 8.26 at Kings X Thameslink.

This journey was impossible as the train did not arrive at Kings X that morning at 8.26 but at 8.42 having left Luton at 7.56.

This would have been 7 minutes too late for 2 of the alleged bombers to have boarded the underground trains.

According to the British Transport Police the underground trains left Kings X at the following times
- the Eastbound Circle line train (204) left King's Cross at 08:35.
- the Westbound Circle line train (216) left King's Cross at 08:42
- the Piccadilly Line train south left King's Cross at 08:48

To find the truth requires that we can examine the facts.
complaint to the bbc

 

[Bob_the_lost]

I smell troll!

 

[editor]

This would have been 7 minutes too late for 2 of the alleged bombers to have boarded the underground trains.

So are:
(a) the police
(b) London Underground
(c) the tube drivers
(d) the BBC
(e) the evil secret services
(f) the government
(g) and Lord knows how many other people involved in the running, maintainance, supervising and monitoring of LT trains
...all in on it too then?

Could you tell us what they're all hiding please and explain what really happened?

PS I don't suppose you've considered that the BBC might have simply got a fact wrong? (if your claims are correct).
Or are the BBC totally infallible in your world?

 

[Prole]

Editor asked: I don't suppose you've considered that the BBC might have simply got a fact wrong? (if your claims are correct).
Or are the BBC totally infallible in your world?

In a FOI request to the Metropolitan Police, Detective inspector Neil Smith of the Anti-Terrorist Branch at New Scotland Yard informed me that:
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.

So yes the BBC may well have got it wrong, but my point is that this is the official narrative and I would expect it to stand up to close scrutiny.

 

[FridgeMagnet]

The official narrative of 7.7.05 was covered by a BBC2 Horizon programme that was broadcast on 27/10/05 and entitled "The 7/7 Bombers – A Psychological Investigation What makes someone want to blow themselves – and others - up?"

Horizon is the flagship science programme of the BBC and graphically reconstructed the journey of the alleged bombers on that day. It followed a forensic psychologist who boarded the Luton Thameslink train at 7.48 and who then alighted at 8.26 at Kings X Thameslink.

This journey was impossible as the train did not arrive at Kings X that morning at 8.26 but at 8.42 having left Luton at 7.56.

This would have been 7 minutes too late for 2 of the alleged bombers to have boarded the underground trains.

According to the British Transport Police the underground trains left Kings X at the following times
- the Eastbound Circle line train (204) left King's Cross at 08:35.
- the Westbound Circle line train (216) left King's Cross at 08:42
- the Piccadilly Line train south left King's Cross at 08:48

To find the truth requires that we can examine the facts.
complaint to the bbc

A complete and utter fucking waste of time.

Take a look at www.thetrainline.com to see what trains there are into Kings Cross. I know this may be a bit tricky, but there are two stations - Kings Cross St Pancras and Kings Cross Thameslink. Now if you can indicate to me that there are no trains that could have possibly taken the accused from Luton to London, which I know you can't because I looked it up myself, you might have some sort of relevant point.

But you can't. All you've got to say is "look, someone said it was at time X and it wasn't". Well - and even if it's true, the actual reports seem a bit scarce - whoopee shit, media in "getting details wrong" shock. What difference does it make? The answer is none. If you're not used to the police and media getting details wrong, and you're shocked by this, hello wake up have you seen the news for the past X decades?

Your nothing story might have helped promote your blog amongst conspiraloons but some hits are not worth having.

 

[editor]

So yes the BBC may well have got it wrong, but my point is that this is the official narrative and I would expect it to stand up to close scrutiny.

So if they've got this one tiny detail wrong - like the media often does - your entire conspiracy theory has just collapsed in a flapping, useless heap on the floor, yes?

Or have you got any actual hard evidence that overrides the extreme improbabilty of a murderous conspiracy that would involve vast amounts of people being party to the callous slaughter of their innocent fellow citizens?

What is your theory about what really happened, by the way?

 

[laptop]

All the journalists I've asked - and there are many - acknowledge that when they read any story concerning a subject they're close to, they can expect to find find two mistakes.

Usually, perhaps, mere mistakes of emphasis; often of nomenclature; sometimes typos that didn't get caught - which is annoying to a person who's mis-named, but fatal in numbers.

That's why it's worth reading several stories in detail and working out what's both consistent and independently sourced, to try to work out what we can tell from them about the world.

Which is the opposite of what conspiranoids do with their nit-picking.

 

[jæd]

Whatever it is you're getting out of this whole conspiracy thing, and however important it is to you for whatever reasons, please try to have some fucking compassion. Put it in perspective. You're persistently bugging someone who was in the middle of a fatal bombing, to her obviously considerable distress. Whatever it is you are personally getting out of this, if you put it in a wider perspective, is it really important enough to justify the distress that you are so evidently causing?

...

In my view, you are acting like a bunch of creepy selfish ghouls and I think you should consider giving it a rest.

I think the problem is that conspiraloons want to believe that the authorities, and the news services/media are flawless and are always 100%. Newsflash: They aren't. Everyone screws up occasionally. Learn to deal with the idea of a world full of humans who might accidentally make mistakes rather subjecting everyone, including the victims of terrorism, to your pathetic drivel.

 

[Prole]

Sorry if I had thought that a thread which asked "Democratic? No public inquiry on the 7/7 bombings" might be interested to hear why I believe the state may run scared of holding a public inquiry and why any terms of reference of any inquiry should ask how these explosions happened that day rather than just asking how could it have been prevented and examining the response to it.

Laptop: That's why it's worth reading several stories in detail and working out what's both consistent and independently sourced, to try to work out what we can tell from them about the world.
Which is the opposite of what conspiranoids do with their nit-picking

Every single media source that I have accessed states the 7.40 (cancelled) or the 7.48 (arrived too late) after the Metropolitan Police press conference of 13/7.

Fridgemagnet: A complete and utter fucking waste of time.

Times of trains are not irrelevant detail, surely, a thorough investigation, which is what you'd expect and demand after such horrendous events and is the very least the victims deserve, would require this detail in an effort to find witnesses. Surely 4 young men travelling together might be remembered on a journey that takes over half an hour.

We have yet to see any CCTV images on platforms or on trains in the same way that we have been shown images of the 21/7 and the 'dummy dummy' run of 28/6. Why?

editor: So if they've got this one tiny detail wrong - like the media often does - your entire conspiracy theory has just collapsed in a flapping, useless heap on the floor, yes?

Hardly a tiny detail methinks but on the other hand the states entire conspiracy theory has just collapsed in a flapping useless heap on the floor yes?
I don't have any conspiracy theory, I am just examinig the evidence and the facts that we have been told of what happened that day. I assume that we still have enough freedoms left to do that?

editor: Could you tell us what they're all hiding please and explain what really happened?

I don't know, how can I, that is why we need a people's inquiry into the events of 7/7/05 and why I am posting on a thread entitled Democratic? No public inquiry into the 7/7 bombings.

Fridgemagnet: Your nothing story might have helped promote your blog amongst conspiraloons but some hits are not worth having,

Just as some comments which ignore the research are not worth making.

 

[Techno303]

This statement has already been questioned by a few posters above:

however I find great difficulty believing that four young British men with young families would blow themselves and others up deliberately.

q_w_e_r_t_y, why, exactly, do you find this hard to believe?

 

[Kid_Eternity]

Couldn't agree more. It rather brings to mind Jazzz posting up his disgusting conspiraloon fantasies about the Soham murders.

I still think a FAQ ammendment is what's needed to curtail these lunatics.

 

[bristol_citizen]

however I find great difficulty believing that four young British men with young families would blow themselves and others up deliberately.

however I find great difficulty believing that the state, MI6, Mossad - whoever - would blow others up deliberately.

 

[fela fan]

This thread has thrown up a clash between emotions and facts. The first of course can get in the way of the second.

To say that blair doesn't want a public enquiry because he doesn't want to be blamed for his illegal war in iraq is no less or more true than stating that one doesn't believe four young british people with family and friends could blow themselves up.

Both are expressed beliefs, nothing to do with facts as we know them. Unless blair has said that himself we cannot know it's a fact.

Unless we could ask those who blew themselves up why they did it, we can't know.

btw bernie, anyone contributing to this forum should understand that it is a debating forum where things can get tough. By contributing they must accept being challenged. If it's too emotionally draining then don't post up on here.

 

[Prole]

however I find great difficulty believing that the state, MI6, Mossad - whoever - would blow others up deliberately.

Try telling that to the mother of an Iraqi child who has been killed or maimed by this country's support for George W Bush and Tony Blair's so-called War On Terror.
Is it just short-term memory loss or have people forgotten that great conspiracy theory that has led to so much death, destruction and torture?
The one about the 45 minutes and WMD?

 

[editor]

Every single media source that I have accessed states the 7.40 (cancelled) or the 7.48 (arrived too late) after the Metropolitan Police press conference of 13/7.

So - again - what do you think really happened then?

 

[shoddysolutions]

however I find great difficulty believing that the state, MI6, Mossad - whoever - would blow others up deliberately.

Please don't say things like that - it's playing right into the hands of the conspiracy theorists. Of course the secret service blow people up/ shoot them/ arrange 'accidents' deliberately - but they do it in secret. The clue's in the name, really.

Famous Mossad Operations: Assassination of those responsible for the Munich massacre at the 1972 Olympic Games and the Lillehammer affair, The assassination of Gerald Bull

 

[fela fan]

So - again - what do you think really happened then?

Yeah well, i've no idea what happened, but i still remain suspicious of actions of the state.

Not believing one version while not having an alternative version doesn't have to be mutually inclusive.

 

[fela fan]

Try telling that to the mother of an Iraqi child who has been killed or maimed by this country's support for George W Bush and Tony Blair's so-called War On Terror.
Is it just short-term memory loss or have people forgotten that great conspiracy theory that has led to so much death, destruction and torture?
The one about the 45 minutes and WMD?

Prole, as i'm sure you already know, governments around the world have always conspired against and killed innocent people in order to then say 'look at all these dangerous people causing all you citizens such harm, we have to fight them for you'. There are countless acts of agent provocateur throughout history. Interestingly we use a french word to talk about such action. Maybe that's why american and british governments are incapable of killing their own people, coz we don't have the language!!

Oh, and we're the good people who love to give others our own freedoms, so how could we kill our own?

Again, the belief that our leaders would never kill their own citizens is no less or more grounded in truth than the disbelief that ordinary british people with familes would blow themselves up.

 

[editor]

Not believing one version while not having an alternative version doesn't have to be mutually inclusive.

No, but having a remotely credible alternative - and the odd fact or two - rather helps the poster's case when they're making suggestions about state-sponsored mass murder of innocent citizens.

Otherwise they look like another conspiracy nut, ready to leap to wild conclusions without a shred of evidence.

 

[editor]

Again, the belief that our leaders would never kill their own citizens is no less or more grounded in truth than the disbelief that ordinary british people with familes would blow themselves up.

So you've got some recent, relevant examples from Britain, then?

 

[TAE]

I find great difficulty believing that four young British men with young families would blow themselves and others up deliberately.

Try telling that to the mother of an Iraqi child who has been killed or maimed by this country's support for George W Bush and Tony Blair's so-called War On Terror.

There's another very basic flaw in this 'conspiracy' theory:

If the authorities had concocted a false story about the events of that day, they would have gotten their basic facts right.

The fact remains that the men were at Luton at one specifc point in time and that they were on the tube later on. So they must have made their journey somehow.

So you've got some recent, relevant examples from the UK, then?

Well to be fair, the government did send a bunch of lads off to an unnecessary war which they knew some would not return from.

Also I think the links between RUC and loyalist groups is fairly well established now.

 

[editor]

The fact remains that the men were at Luton at one specifc point in time and that they were on the tube later on. So they must have made their journey somehow.

Maybe they were flown down in invisible pods?

 

[jæd]

Try telling that to the mother of an Iraqi child who has been killed or maimed by this country's support for George W Bush and Tony Blair's so-called War On Terror.
Is it just short-term memory loss or have people forgotten that great conspiracy theory that has led to so much death, destruction and torture?
The one about the 45 minutes and WMD?

And whats that got to do with having a public inquiry on 7/7...?

As I said before... All a public inquiry will do is provide a conclusive version of events. It won't suddenly expose Blair as being a rodent eating space lizard...!

 

[TAE]

Maybe they were flown down in invisible pods?

Those are still in beta testing and won't be deployed until Q2 next year.

 

[fela fan]

No, but having a remotely credible alternative - and the odd fact or two - rather helps the poster's case when they're making suggestions about state-sponsored mass murder of innocent citizens.

Otherwise they look like another conspiracy nut, ready to leap to wild conclusions without a shred of evidence.

Difficult to argue with that. But like i said, not having an alternative answer doesn't contribute towards proof of anything.

 

[fela fan]

So you've got some recent, relevant examples from Britain, then?

What you've quoted of me stands alone in its context, so that's fine and i can answer.

But what isn't fine is that you're asking me for facts while i was stating that one belief is no more or less true than the other belief.

 

[fela fan]

As I said before... All a public inquiry will do is provide a conclusive version of events.

Well, why is blair not going to have one then? Don't tell me he's suddenly concerned with taxpayers' money.

 

[TAE]

Because there are other, more mundane, things which they really don't want to talk about in public?