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

[Prole]

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

I don't know, how can I?
All I can do is examine the facts and there are precious few of them in the public domain at present.
If I cannot at present 'join the dots' and come up with the picture that we are being presented with then I carry on asking questions until I find enough 'dots'.
If I don't trust what we are being told, then that is based partly on history but also on intuition.
My advice is: ask questions, only the truth can withstand rigorous investigation.

 

[TAE]

Ahh, so you are saying that the "irrelevant" little details which don't make sense point to the possibility that maybe the important facts are also incorrect?

In which case I would repeat that little inconsistencies suggest that no smoothing over has taken place and that we are dealing with a puzzle rather than a fabrication.

 

[Badger Kitten]

Let us assume for one second that the government decided to blow people up. What was that supposed to achieve? Has it succeeded in any of the aims one could assume were behind a psy-ops bombing by the state, of the British population.

We were already at war in Iraq, and it has not whetted the appetite for the continuation of the war. Support for the war, already low, has gone down since the July bombings.

Attempts to terrify the population and the Houses of Parliament into support of draconian civil-liberties-restricting new legislation have not worked, see the defeat of the 90 days internment clause in the Anti-Terrorism bill. Support for ID cards has not been forthcoming.

Tony Blair is not riding a wave of loyal support, in fact the Tories have overtaken him in the polls.

The population has failed to succumb to hysteria and has not taken to rioting in the street and torching mosques.

See? If this whole thing was meant to be a black-ops tool to heighten the war against terror it has utterly failed. If it was meant to create support for Blair’s war in Iraq, or for US and USA foreign policy it has failed. Even Blair himself made a crapper speech than Ken Livingstone ( from Singapore) - if he had orchestrated it he’s surely have got his lines rehearsed? He is also unlikely to have had it all happen at the moment of what was meant to be his great triumph – hosting the G8 and feeding the poor of Africa and sorting out fairer trade, hot from an Olympics triumph. It really cocked that up for him, probably to his lasting chagrin snce he clearly has a desire to be seen as an international statesman.

Meanwhile Muslims themselves have pointed out a dangerous and horrifying strain of hate filled ideology that targets Muslim youths, that exists in the UK as well as abroad. I need not stress how abhorrent it is, and how it is not representative of the teachings of the Qu’ran. It disgusts most people irrespective of faith, politics, ethinicity. But in this age of 24 hour news, the internet and instant information–swapping, it is easy for wild ideas to spread. (Conspiracy theorist sites are proof of that.) An ideology which whips up anger at British and US foreign policy to deadly ends. You can disapprove of US and UK foreign policy and many do, including me, and including many Muslims, but this anger is being exploited by hatemongers for sickening reasons. A deadly misinterpretation of ‘jihad’ rooted in a perversion of Islam exists , and it really does advocate violence and nihilism and suicide ‘martyrdom operations’. You can find it on websites. You can read interviews with those who were recruited and then left. If you spent half as much time researching that as the damn train times, I would have more respect for you. Rather than run with a theory which you don’t seem to have evaluated at all before charging in, so sure are you that this is ‘’another 9/11’’, why not examine both sides of the argument in your search for the truth? Why not start with the basic challenge of your hypotheses - is this really another 9/11? Why do you think that? What happened after 9/11 and what happened after 7th July? In what ways are they different?

They are completely different things, happened in different countries, at different stages in the history of ‘Al Quaida’ - which then was more like a movement with leaders and training camps and bases – but now is more like an idea or a brand. This conflation of the two different events is such a huge and glaring basic error I am really surprised about it, but the fact that you seem to have ignored this basic noddy starting point makes your claims to be a ‘’seeker of truth’’ pretty fucking laughable

 

[q_w_e_r_t_y]

Right. So who blew themselves up then?

Or were London Underground in on it too?

I dont know if anyone blew themselves up - that is my point

 

[Badger Kitten]

Can you please answer my question.

Why do you think this was a black-ops op or whatever? WTF do you think it has achieved and was meant to achieve? Who has gained from this?

Y'know, the basic stuff one asks when conducting ''an investigation'' into the ''truth''.

 

[q_w_e_r_t_y]

Can you really not think of an answer to why they didnt just drop their rucksacks off and make a run for it

Seems like a more logical thing to do to me and the vast majority of terrorists outwith the very specific situation of the middle east

the comparison with the IRA is...Completely and totally 100% irrelevant.

Why's that? Muslims and Irish nationalists have both been the target of British terrorism, both have been murdered defending their nations. The difference is that the IRA was comprised of people who had first hand experience of this, while the London bombers appear to have at best secondhand experience.

Surely given that the majority of suicide bombing takes place in occupied countries by people who have personal experience of imperialist violence, the IRA is more likely to use suicide bombing as a tactic than an homegrown outpost of Al-Quaeda.

 

[TAE]

The members of the IRA were not looking forward to paradise for getting killed in the service of their god.

 

[editor]

I dont know if anyone blew themselves up - that is my point

Right. So LT, the incident investigators, the police, the underground maintenance workers, the fire service and a host of other people are all in on it too, then?

And your supporting evidence for this supposition would be what exactly?

 

[Pickman's model]

The members of the IRA were not looking forward to paradise for getting killed in the service of their god.

wtf are you on about?



actually, just - what are you on?

 

[aylee]

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

Well, it does. Even the conspiraloons on this thread don't seem to doubt that many people were killed and many more maimed in four explosions on July 7th.

The presence of the four suspected bombers at the seat of each of the explosions has been proved by forensic evidence, at least in relation to most of the explosions.

We also know that the four suspected bombers had shown significant alienation from British society in the months leading up to the bombings.

We know that 'Muslim' extremists have a habit of seeking 'martyrdom' by blowing themselves and others up. They do it because they have been deluded by bigoted fuckwits into believing that it will somehow get them to paradise. It happens every day in Iraq and far more frequently elsewhere in the Islamic world and in Israel.

Now, on the face of the three facts as set out above, it would seem to me to be a reasonable interim hypothesis to suggest that the bombings were caused by the four suspected bombers detonating backpack bombs on the three tube trains and the bus.

Apart from the 'facts' about Thameslink being as fucked up as it usually is on that morning, which proves nothing given the established presence of the bombers at the seat of the explosions, what 'facts' are relied upon by the conspiraloons on this thread - felafan and others - to disprove my interim hypothesis that the four suspected bombers were responsible?

I await a deafening silence.

You know, it seems to me that the sort of rubbish being spouted on this thread detracts attention from a far more worrying aspect of all this. I would find it hard to believe that these four men acted alone. Somebody organised them and paid for their activities, yet no-one has yet been identified as responsible. Perhaps the conspiraloons should expend their energies on trying to help us with who might have funded and provided the practical support for these attacks, rather than trying to suggest it was the Illuminati sending lasers to attack the trains or whatever daft nonsense they're really spouting (no wonder they're reluctant to tell us).

 

[Prole]

Perhaps those of us who heard on the day of 'power surges' and how the blasts (7 originally)
occurred (according to DAC Brian Paddick) Blasts Timeline

0851 Seven people die in a blast on a train 100 yards from Liverpool Street station
0856 21 people die in a blast on a train between Russell Square and King's Cross stations
0917 Seven people die in blast on a train at Edgware Road station
0947 Two people die in a blast on a number 30 bus at Tavistock Place
until the story changed to 'simultaneous explosions', can ask questions?

BK In your own Sunday Times article Rachel's Story you state you were on the 8.56 Piccadilly line train.

An ambulance dispatcher writes: The London Bombs
"At about 0920, I took a call from a rather flustered sounding policewoman from Paddington police station.
“There’s been an incident at Edgware Road station!” she said."

Given the original timeline of 9.17, this would fit the initial blast outline rather than the subsequent story of 'simultaneous explosions' all occurring around 8.50.

Just a couple of the inconsitencies and anomalies from the day itself that made me suspicious of the later version of events.

 

[editor]

Perhaps the conspiraloons should expend their energies on trying to help us with who might have funded and provided the practical support for these attacks, rather than trying to suggest it was the Illuminati sending lasers to attack the trains or whatever daft nonsense they're really spouting (no wonder they're reluctant to tell us).

Now there's a sensible idea.

Trouble is, methodical research just doesn't appeal to conspiraloons: they prefer to make wild, exciting claims of evil conspiracies based on miniscule (and generally irrelevant) 'inconsistencies' while completely ignoring the overwhelming evidence available.

 

[editor]

Just a couple of the inconsitencies and anomalies from the day itself that made me suspicious of the later version of events.

FFS: you clearly haven't the slightest clue how news gathering works.

It was a breaking news story. There was confusion, rumours, counter-rumours and (no doubt) some panic and the news agenices were attempting to make sense of the zillions of calls and reports coming in. So, under pressure to provide constant live updates, the news agencies reported the information as it came in.

It was only later on that the facts became clearer and some sort of timeline established.

You seem to think the news agencies have some sort of magic instant news analyser that is always 100% accurate even as the news is breaking. That's very naive.

 

[TAE]

wtf are you on about?



actually, just - what are you on?

I don't understand your confusion.



I was responding to q_w_e_r_t_y who said:

"Surely given that the majority of suicide bombing takes place in occupied countries by people who have personal experience of imperialist violence, the IRA is more likely to use suicide bombing as a tactic than an homegrown outpost of Al-Quaeda."

 

[Pickman's model]

they weren't simultaneous explosions; they were spread over quite a while, because for some time the official line that there was a power surge on the tube at liverpool st was believed.

 

[Pickman's model]

I don't understand your confusion.



I was responding to q_w_e_r_t_y who said:

"Surely given that the majority of suicide bombing takes place in occupied countries by people who have personal experience of imperialist violence, the IRA is more likely to use suicide bombing as a tactic than an homegrown outpost of Al-Quaeda."

what ever gave you the impression that the provies were wandering out blowing people up to create some sort of theocratick state?

you seem easily confused when it comes to groups like the ira of whom you clearly know nothing.

 

[aylee]

Perhaps those of us who heard on the day of 'power surges' and how the blasts (7 originally)
occurred (according to DAC Brian Paddick) Blasts Timeline

0851 Seven people die in a blast on a train 100 yards from Liverpool Street station
0856 21 people die in a blast on a train between Russell Square and King's Cross stations
0917 Seven people die in blast on a train at Edgware Road station
0947 Two people die in a blast on a number 30 bus at Tavistock Place
until the story changed to 'simultaneous explosions', can ask questions?

BK In your own Sunday Times article Rachel's Story you state you were on the 8.56 Piccadilly line train.

An ambulance dispatcher writes: The London Bombs
"At about 0920, I took a call from a rather flustered sounding policewoman from Paddington police station.
“There’s been an incident at Edgware Road station!” she said."

Given the original timeline of 9.17, this would fit the initial blast outline rather than the subsequent story of 'simultaneous explosions' all occurring around 8.50.

Just a couple of the inconsitencies and anomalies from the day itself that made me suspicious of the later version of events.

Hmmm. There are millions of people in London, all of whom were thrown into utter shock and confusion about what was going on (just refer back to the original U75 thread from that day to see the anger and distress of us all ).

The emergency services spent the whole day scurrying around like ants ripped out of a hill trying to treat the wounded and to respond to the numerous other scares that occurred.

In those circumstances, are you really surprised that there were "inconsistencies and anomalies" in the accounts that emerged on the day itself? If you are, then you're living in cloud cuckoo land.

 

[TAE]

Perhaps those of us who heard on the day of 'power surges' and how the blasts (7 originally)
occurred (according to DAC Brian Paddick) Blasts Timeline

As far as I know, the automatic monitoring system reported the catastrophic events as "power surges".
Also, there was one bus and three tracks involved, each track is connected to two stations, hence an initial seven incidents were reported.

 

[TAE]

what ever gave you the impression that the provies were wandering out blowing people up to create some sort of theocratick state?

Did you miss the rather crucial word not in my post?

The members of the IRA were >>> not <<< looking forward to paradise for getting killed in the service of their god.

 

[Prole]

editor: You seem to think the news agencies have some sort of magic instant news analyser that is always 100% accurate even as the news is breaking. That's very naive.

So the BBC Blasts Outline which has the time stamp of:

Last Updated: Thursday, 7 July, 2005, 20:50 GMT 21:50 UK

hadn't got time to check the facts?

And the call to the London Ambulance at 9.20?

 

[laptop]

So the BBC Blasts Outline which has the time stamp of:

Last Updated: Thursday, 7 July, 2005, 20:50 GMT 21:50 UK ...

Oh, for fuck's sake.

Confused and contradictory accounts were still rife that evening.

If the BBC changed stories after they were published, you'd be the first fucker to yell.

 

[Pickman's model]

Did you miss the rather crucial word not in my post?

i did.

 

[q_w_e_r_t_y]

Can you please answer my question.

Why do you think this was a black-ops op or whatever? WTF do you think it has achieved and was meant to achieve? Who has gained from this?

Y'know, the basic stuff one asks when conducting ''an investigation'' into the ''truth''.

I never said that this was a black-ops. I have no idea if it was or not. I think that there are a number of possibilities.

1. The men were suicide bombers influenced by an organisation which encouraged and supported their actions. There are discrepancies in the official narrative which was hastily contructed in the aftermath but which can be explained away in a full and open investigation which would investigate the networks behind them and the support that they gave them

2. The men were double-crossed by their own organisation. They intended to transport a bomb somewhere or perhaps to bomb somewhere, but were assured that they would be protected. The official narrative jumped too quickly to a "suicide bomber" conclusion, ignoring the potential threat that they posed elsewhere. There may have been other teams who pulled out in the light of events (as indeed perhaps the bus bomber intended to do). This possibility should be investigated as this method of operation may make recruitment easier than to recruit suicide bombers. The organisation behind it is far more dangerous and organised than is the case in a lone suicide bomber

3. The men were duped. They had no idea that they were carrying bombs. They were carrying something for someone, but did not intend to bomb anything. If this is the case, four innocent young men and their families have been wrongly accused of a terrible crime, when actually they were the victims of murder themselves. The organisation who duped these men must be found and destroyed as quickly as possible for this is the most worrying senario of all.

Truth is that we dont know which of these it is. There were bombers and there was an organisation - what the relationship between them was we simply dont know. There is no more evidence for it being a suicide bombing than for the other two - yes the men were there, yes bombs went off in their rucksacks, but nothing suggests that they would do this. The bombmaking factory in Leeds, the bombs found in their car could all have been planted by the same organisation.

I think it has
1. Heightened fear in the population
2. Made people more tolerant of deportations, dententions and internment
3. Made people more suspicious of Muslims
4. Made people question our involvement with the US in its geo-political adventures
5. Obscured the police handling of the G8

It was clearly meant to kill people, beyond that the intentions are far from clear.

The gains from the bombing include
1. The G8, who had an excuse for not solving world poverty and achieving world peace, which everyone knows if the bombs hadnt gone off they would have had sorted by now.
2. The government, who have more leaway for deportations, detentions and internment both through public tolerance and through legislation.
3. The anti-war movement which has had a resurgence since the bombings
4. The muslim clergy who have been courted as never before
5. The police, who have increased powers and increased tolerence from a frightened population, although they squandered that with the murder of De Menez.

Alas am having trouble keeping up with the rate of posts, but I noticed that earlier someone accused me of ghoulishness. I appreciate that you were caught up directly in the bombings, and that you were lucky to escape alive, let alone intact, and I am not questioning your experiences.

What I am questioning is whether there are alternative explainations of what happened and whether any of them are as probable or more probable than the official one. They may well have been suicide bombers and I am willing to believe that on the basis of a full public inquiry, but not on the "narrative" of a government appointed official.

 

[Prole]

laptop: If the BBC changed stories after they were published, you'd be the first fucker to yell.

The story was updated at 21.50 on 7/7/05, the timeline of the blasts remained unchanged.
That the story changed days later to 'simultaneous explosions' made me, and others, suspicious.
We have yet to be told what the explosives were or how they were detonated.
I am looking at the facts only and asking questions. Is that OK with you, or does it make me a 'fucker' or a 'conspiraloon'?

 

[Badger Kitten]

BK In your own Sunday Times article Rachel's Story you state you were on the 8.56 Piccadilly line train

I have already answered you about this when you commented on my blog and am disappointed that you don't seem to have read what I wrote. Here we go again.

8.56 was what the train became immediately known as and that is the name that stuck. I boarded it at 8.42am, boarding was slow because many people exited and more heaved on. By 9.16am there is a text message from me to my partner saying I have made it to Russell Square platform, 457 m away ( for some reason you could text from the platform, though not make calls - there was faint reception) . From the bomb exploding, to us at the front of the carriage starting exiting the carriage via the driver's cab seemed to us to take at least ten minutes ( in fact it felt like hours) and may have been longer. Walking the 500 yards to Russell Square in single file between narrow rails whilst trying not to be electrocuted was very slow. In my opinion, it took at least ten minutes to walk it. I therefore have no problem accepting a bomb blast at 8.50am, since that gives enough time for the packed train to leave Finsbury Park at about 8.43, stop at Arsenal, Caledonian and Holloway Rds, letting more passengers squeeze on and off each time, arrive at Kings X at 8.49am, pull out, bomb explodes when we are 261m from the platform at KX, we get to our feet and start to evacuate after ten minutes of confusion in the dark - bear in mind that we were all shocked by the blast and it was dark and full of smoke so time passing may not be accurately guaged to the minute - then straggle down the tracks evaculating one at a time in single file, me getting lifted onto Russell square platform and sending a text at 9.16 to say I was alive ( actually I said the traion had derailed as I did not want my partner to panic and that was what I was telling the other survivors to stop them panicking) . There were about 20 people in front of me and about 7-10 behind me exited via driover's cab front of carriage one which involved stepping down a ladder and walking carefully between narrow tracks, as I said before..

'Losing' the 6 minutes (Ie: if the bomb went off at 8.56am not 8.50am) means that it is unlikely that I would have been able to make it to the platform by 9.16am especially at that speed with other people in front of me.

''8.56 ''however has become the name by which our train is known so that's what we call it. Apologies if that has confused people who care about these things.

 

[Techno303]

does it make me a 'fucker' or a 'conspiraloon'?

Both I think.

 

[q_w_e_r_t_y]

The members of the IRA were not looking forward to paradise for getting killed in the service of their god.

FFS! 72 virgins yadda yadda yadda.
What is this, my heaven is better than your heaven?

Christianity has its concept of martyrdom too you know.

 

[Badger Kitten]

In my original BBC account I thought the bomb went off at about 8.55am, but then I also thought it was ''twenty to thirty minutes'' before we got off. It seemed ages, in fact, my text proves I was at the platform at 9.16am

 

[Badger Kitten]

FFS! 72 virgins yadda yadda yadda.
What is this, my heaven is better than your heaven?

Christianity has its concept of martyrdom too you know.

Yes, but the IRA associate themselves with catholicism not islam and , and in RC doctrine suicide is a mortal sin, there is no cultural concept of suicide martyrdom attacks whereas in the particular misrepresentation of Islam that is cited by those who call suicide attacks ''martyrdom operations'', it is seen as acceptable. This is not about th eIRA or any other terrorist movement, this is about a particular type of ideology and the IRA are no more relevant than the Angry Brigade to the discussion

 

[Prole]

..and in RC doctrine suicide is a mortal sin

As is murder methinks.

This is not about the IRA or any other terrorist movement, this is about a particular type of ideology and the IRA are no more relevant than the Angry Brigade to the discussion

and the recent revelation that a leading member of the IRA has been an agent for the British Secret Services for the last 20 years?