Former MI5 Agent Says 9/11 An Inside Job

[Bob_the_lost]

I love the way that straight off you accuse me of making a claim 'David Copeland was working at the behest of the government' I have never made, then ask me to 'support' it. Priceless!

Personally, I prefer to analyse/critique secret state operations that don't get the glare of media publicity, like the Admiral Duncan nail-bombing for example. Bit too empirical for you though, wouldn't it be??

If i misinterpreted your statement then i'm terribly sorry, but i think you can understand the cause of the confusion. I do belive that i've looked at the site in question, however i kept getting linked to a book about it and got bored of it, maybe it was a different site, i don't know. Maybe i will return to them but all the sites i remember tried to sell me something, a bad sign if you ask me.

 

[Loki]

That's a different word loki. As the letters atre trying to point out.

Looks like you're right.

http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=1673385&postcount=67

 

[bigfish]

If you really want to thank me you could start by not posting up endless threads about less than credulous people lifted from bonkers websites that believe in chemtrails, remote control Boeings and pod missiles. Cheers.

Look, Loki, we live in a country where freedom of speech is a right that we all share. Therefore, wouldn't it be much easier for everyone, not to mention infinitely more democratic, if you simply don't read the threads and read something else instead, rather than I, or anyone else, stop posting them?

 

[Larry O'Hara]

If i misinterpreted your statement then i'm terribly sorry, but i think you can understand the cause of the confusion. I do belive that i've looked at the site in question, however i kept getting linked to a book about it and got bored of it, maybe it was a different site, i don't know. Maybe i will return to them but all the sites i remember tried to sell me something, a bad sign if you ask me.

There has been no book on the Admiral Duncan bombing--or if there has, I'd love to hear about it.

certainly, we don't give NFB away free--if we did, then it would cease to exist. As it is, we can only afford to bring it out once a year, would love to do two, but there you have it. It is in the British Library--why not order it?

 

[DaveCinzano]

I love the way that straight off you accuse me of making a claim 'David Copeland was working at the behest of the government' I have never made, then ask me to 'support' it. Priceless!

chill out larry, not everyone is familiar with you or your work a cursory glance at your lines, and what bob's come out with isn't such a far-fetched interpretation of what you were saying, whether that's what you intended or not.

be more precise, and a bit more courteous if you don't mind

save the outrage for the nutters

 

[Larry O'Hara]

chill out larry, not everyone is familiar with you or your work a cursory glance at your lines, and what bob's come out with isn't such a far-fetched interpretation of what you were saying, whether that's what you intended or not.

be more precise, and a bit more courteous if you don't mind

save the outrage for the nutters

Fair point--I stand corrected

 

[DaveCinzano]

y'see? one big happy family!

*feels the love*

 

[Lock&Light]

Stupid Boy!

 

[steeplejack]

Look, Loki, we live in a country where freedom of speech is a right that we all share. Therefore, wouldn't it be much easier for everyone, not to mention infinitely more democratic, if you simply don't read the threads and read something else instead, rather than I, or anyone else, stop posting them?

These threads always end with you in a furious rage with half a dozen sceptical posters.

Just wondering what you got out of them, is all.

*shrugs*

 

[Bob_the_lost]

There has been no book on the Admiral Duncan bombing--or if there has, I'd love to hear about it.

certainly, we don't give NFB away free--if we did, then it would cease to exist. As it is, we can only afford to bring it out once a year, would love to do two, but there you have it. It is in the British Library--why not order it?

Well for a start there's this, a very quick amazon search shows that there is at least one book on David Copeland.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos...-5/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i5_xgl/026-4907687-51740828

As for the rest of it i'm searching for your pages (and the pages that irritated me so much if they are different) and may get back to you about them...

 

[Loki]

Look, Loki, we live in a country where freedom of speech is a right that we all share. Therefore, wouldn't it be much easier for everyone, not to mention infinitely more democratic, if you simply don't read the threads and read something else instead, rather than I, or anyone else, stop posting them?

And I'm using my own freedom of speech in asking you to desist from posting up endless threads based on articles from fruitcake websites that believe in chemtrails, remote control Boeings and pod missiles, which invariably end up in the bin.

Got a problem with that?

 

[bigfish]

Hmmn I disagree...bigfish's 'Spud' 'Spuddocks' 'Spudchester United' 'Spudcheese' varieties are all his own and not much to do with 'fuckspud'.

But hey ho.

Spuddocks and Spudchester United are mine, but they were derived from spudcheese and spudcheese deluxe, which are Urban originals.

 

[Larry O'Hara]

Well for a start there's this, a very quick amazon search shows that there is at least one book on David Copeland.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos...-5/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i5_xgl/026-4907687-51740828

As for the rest of it i'm searching for your pages (and the pages that irritated me so much if they are different) and may get back to you about them...

My mistake--yes, there are two books on Copeland as a whole from the Searchlight team (Lowles)/ Met Police mouth-piece (McLagan). As they are not on the Admiral Duncan specifically, and are full of disinformation, I hadn't counted them, but can see how somebody would think they were/are legitimate books, which they're not, in my considered view. The link that annoyed you was possibly my web-site, but the Outrage piece is interesting. Mainstream publishers can be found for disinformation, its rather harder to get refutation of such into such areas...

 

[Bob_the_lost]

My mistake--yes, there are two books on Copeland as a whole from the Searchlight team (Lowles)/ Met Police mouth-piece (McLagan). As they are not on the Admiral Duncan specifically, and are full of disinformation, I hadn't counted them, but can see how somebody would think they were/are legitimate books, which they're not, in my considered view. The link that annoyed you was possibly my web-site, but the Outrage piece is interesting. Mainstream publishers can be found for disinformation, its rather harder to get refutation of such into such areas...

I've found the Outrage site, i doubt it was the offending one, but i've found nothing on there that even implies the government assisted (or failed to aprehend as early as possible) David Copeland. But the night is young and i've got unmetered broadband, the search goes on!

 

[DaveCinzano]

bob - the 'searchlight' thing is a whole big thread of its own in the making!

don't go down there tonight unless you're planning on spending all evening sat at the computer

 

[DaveCinzano]

But the night is young and i've got unmetered broadband, the search goes on!

sorry mrs bob, i was too late - you've lost him

 

[Larry O'Hara]

bob - the 'searchlight' thing is a whole big thread of its own in the making!

don't go down there tonight unless you're planning on spending all evening sat at the computer

I'm not--out in 15 minutes...

there is a link to the relevant Outrage article, surely? I agree, it poses the questions--to which NFB has provided harsh answers. Not on the internet as such.

 

[Bob_the_lost]

sorry mrs bob, i was too late - you've lost him

ah, but i've got the attention span of a gold... look, shiny!

<wanders off>

 

[Bob_the_lost]

Yeah, found that article, but at most it alledges that the police didn't do a very good job, with issues in passing on information to the appropriate sources etc. There's a slight insinuation that the police lied about the amount of surveilance and Copelands links to white supremiscist organisations.

But all of that is far from saying that it had any sort of malicious intent by the police, or that they did thier best to catch him, which is the impression i got from your post. Bad policing maybe, but this is a conspiracy type thread.

 

[bigfish]

And I'm using my own freedom of speech in asking you to desist from posting up endless threads based on articles from fruitcake websites that believe in chemtrails, remote control Boeings and pod missiles, which invariably end up in the bin.

Got a problem with that?

Yes, I have. You are exercising your right to free speech here in order to ask me to desist from exercising mine. I mean, how pathetic is that Loki? Clearly, no one in their right mind would agree to your request, so why bother making it in the first place? Why don't you just go and read something else, if you're as disinterested in the topic as you claim?

 

[butchersapron]

Still got those two questions that you raised unanswered BF...

 

[Bob_the_lost]

Still got those two questions that you raised unanswered BF...

Give up, he won't.

 

[butchersapron]

Mate, i knew that 4 years ago....he'll call me sub-durrutian next....

 

[editor]

To save me the bother of trawling through another of bigfish's cut'n'paste-from-dodgy-sites-athons, could someone sum up if a "Former MI5 Agent" really did say that "9/11 Was An Inside Job" or not, please?


(with credible links, natch)

 

[Loki]

Yes, I have. You are exercising your right to free speech here in order to ask me to desist from exercising mine. I mean, how pathetic is that Loki? Clearly, no one in their right mind would agree to your request, so why bother making it in the first place? Why don't you just go and read something else, if you're as disinterested in the topic as you claim?

I'm not disinterested, have I ever said so? But I don't much like these free forums being used by conspiranoids to endlessly spout their conspiracy nonsense from fruitcake websites... again and again and again (and again). Because I happen to like this place. There's no stopping you lot, you're obsessed with it. But if nobody says anything your daft theories would go unchallenged.

 

[Loki]

---

 

[Larry O'Hara]

Yeah, found that article, but at most it alledges that the police didn't do a very good job, with issues in passing on information to the appropriate sources etc. There's a slight insinuation that the police lied about the amount of surveilance and Copelands links to white supremiscist organisations.

But all of that is far from saying that it had any sort of malicious intent by the police, or that they did thier best to catch him, which is the impression i got from your post. Bad policing maybe, but this is a conspiracy type thread.

The established facts go beyond conspiracy theorising, including

1) police tailing Copeland in Soho

2) MI5 advance knowledge gays/Soho would be a target

3) Admiral Duncan one of only 3 gay venues visited

etc: as I say, order NFB issues 3 5 & 6 from the British Library.

 

[yield]

To save me the bother of trawling through another of bigfish's cut'n'paste-from-dodgy-sites-athons, could someone sum up if a "Former MI5 Agent" really did say that "9/11 Was An Inside Job" or not, please?


(with credible links, natch)

There is no empirical evidence that a credible "Former MI5 Agent" really did say that "9/11 Was An Inside Job".

That does not remove the possibility that the US adminstration was involved, either directly or indirectly, in the "terrorism" on 9/11.

 

[editor]

There is no empirical evidence that a credible "Former MI5 Agent" really did say that "9/11 Was An Inside Job".

So the thread title is in fact misleading at best and downright dishonest at worst?

 

[yield]

So the thread title is in fact misleading at best and downright dishonest at worst?

Exactly.

Unless it's possible to agree with the spirit, if not the letter, of a thread?