The 7/7 Report

[laptop]

Retaliating? Or launching an attack on her?
I can't be sure, but would like to hear her version too.

"Her version" has been all over these boards.

As I understand it, disturbed that an actual eyewitness and victim of the bombings was contradicting their theories, friends of Ian R Crane (of whom prole is one) decided and declared on their boards that she must be an MI5 plant.

Which to me illustrates how declaring these people delusional isn't a mere criticism, it's a diagnosis. To be so self-important and self-absorbed that defending their bonkers "theories" is more important than anything - more important than the experiences of those actually bombed - is plenty of grounds for a clinical conclusion.

As well as being grounds for concluding that they're thoroughly inhumane in their obsession.

They started swamping her blog. Unwilling to collude in publicising their delusions, she started moderating it. This was denounced, I seem to recall as "censorship".

Then BK went back to their boards to engage them in argument.

So no respect to that post.

 

[Bob_the_lost]

It's on the BBC site, but it crashed firefox for me so i can't be bothered.

 

[Jazzz]

Care to issue a similar condemnation of the people giving Badger Kitten and other survivors a similarly hard time at at least one public meeting/booklaunch??

And care to issue a similar condemnation of those who accuse her of being a shill and a state asset on at least one ultra-barking conspiracist website? In their efforts to belittle and deny her experience and her interpretation of it, because her articulately written blog contradicts their pet theories?

I wasn't at the book launch - a public meeting - so can't really comment. Before that meeting I understand BK turned up at a meeting of the sceptics group and proceeded to completely take it over. I don't think anything is achieved by this fight - both sides are campaigning for the same thing.

Yes, anyone that accuses BK as being a disinfo agent is being very silly - I don't think she's too bothered about that though, she would say it herself jokingly like editor does before anyone else did as if perhaps inviting it, and note her tagline.

I have posted occasionally on www.nineeleven.co.uk as has prole. Doesn't mean I concur with specific others there, just as one would say of urban75.

 

[Kid_Eternity]

It's on the BBC site, but it crashed firefox for me so i can't be bothered.

Heh, typical go looking for it without checking the Beeb first. It's here if anyone else wants a look: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4987716.stm

 

[Jazzz]

(to WoW)

While one might accept an eyewitness' account of their experience that doesn't mean one need share their interpretation of it. This was summed up neatly by detective_boy, speaking about 9/11 survivor William Rodriguez

Unless he has some qualification, expertise or experience which is relevant to the issue, why does the fact that he is an all-round good egg mean that his opinion on why something happened or on what caused something has any more weight than anyone else's? I have no particular problem with accepting what he SAW and HEARD. I have a huge problem with accepting his OPINION.

 

[Blagsta]

I get a general error from Real Player. Ooooh, its a conspiracy!

 

[brixtonvilla]

Can't access it off the BBC site either. WHAT ARE THEY HIDING? WHAT DON'T THEY WANT US TO KNOW? etc etc etc

e2a: *shakes fist at Blagsta*

 

[jæd]

I wasn't at the book launch - a public meeting - so can't really comment. Before that meeting I understand xxx turned up at a meeting of the sceptics group and proceeded to completely take it over. I don't think anything is achieved by this fight - both sides are campaigning for the same thing.

Um... Isn't posting people's real names a bit of no-no...?

 

[Jazzz]

"Her version" has been all over these boards.

As I understand it, disturbed that an actual eyewitness and victim of the bombings was contradicting their theories, friends of Ian R Crane (of whom prole is one) decided and declared on their boards that she must be an MI5 plant.

Which to me illustrates how declaring these people delusional isn't a mere criticism, it's a diagnosis. To be so self-important and self-absorbed that defending their bonkers "theories" is more important than anything - more important than the experiences of those actually bombed - is plenty of grounds for a clinical conclusion.

As well as being grounds for concluding that they're thoroughly inhumane in their obsession.

They started swamping her blog. Unwilling to collude in publicising their delusions, she started moderating it. This was denounced, I seem to recall as "censorship".

Then BK went back to their boards to engage them in argument.

So no respect to that post.

As I understand it Badger Kitten started going after the sceptics once she found that one of them had quoted her account as supporting some theory about power surges. I wasn't involved in any of it but impression I have is that she posted on CT boards before they posted on her blog and went to their meeting (invited) before they turned up at the Milan Rai book launch.

Are you saying that Prole accused BK of being a disinfo agent? Please clarify.

 

[Jazzz]

Um... Isn't posting people's real names a bit of no-no...?

edited, thank you.

 

[editor]

My "9/11 - here's how they did it" thread as you know was several years ago. 2002? A shame we don't have it anymore. In it I posited that the flights were swapped for drone aircraft, they all fired missiles before impact, and the WTC was demolished.

And not a single word of your idiotic fantasies have been substantiated by trifling things like facts or credible evidence, neither has a single person of the many thousands needed to run such a operation squeaked a note about their involvement in the slaughter of thousands of their fellow citizens.

Pilots, ground staff, aircraft controllers, demolition experts, missile experts, contractors, the airlines (who don't seem to have objected to the govt destroying their planes and plunging their business into crisis), transport staff, explosives workers, aircraft workers, weapons experts, logistics staff, drivers, security staff, insurance investigators, office managers, accident investigators etc etc - all keeping mum forever!

Amazing!

Years ahead of its time

A bit like a sci-fi fantasy, you mean?

Fascinating seeing you trying to take the credit for the second hand ideas you nicked off bonkers sites though. Anyone with half a brain would be doing their best to distance themselves from such laughable rot.

 

[editor]

http://prisonplanet.tv/articles/june2004/061804saddamnotsaddam.htm

But we digress.

And look who wrote it, you clown.



Joe Vialls. One of the biggest liars on the internet.

You know, the same lying twat who suckered you into believing that he'd proved beyond all doubt that Huntley was totally innocent and the beastly US govt were covering up for the child murdering USAF staff as part of a diplomatic 9/11 cover up.

Only a complete fucking moron would believe a word of Joe Vialls' bullshit.

 

[laptop]

Posted: Thu Jan 19, 2006 1:56 pm Post subject: Conspiracy debunkers by "insidejob"

[BK] could indeed exist. She could wittingly or unwittingly allow spooks to use her name to cause dissent among, waste time of and gain intelligence about 9/11 and 7/7 sceptics. Spooks are having her pose as someone who wants an inquiry to make out that she is not a stooge and fool the sceptics.

http: //w w w.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=811

Before Milan Rai's book was published. Pre-emptive smearing.

Posted: Tue Jan 03, 2006 12:37 pm by "Prole"

...
Yet this same [BK] does not answer how a passenger could recognise Germaine Lindsey from what is clearly a description of seeing the back of someone's head.
...
I ask the same [BK] if this is the truth why do you want a public inquiry as it is obvious that you already accept the official story of the events of that day?

http: //w w w.pray for rain.com/coxforum/viewtopic.php?t=43

What I said about attacking the witnesses and survivors because they're contradicting the delusions.

Quod Erat Demonstrandum.

 

[Jazzz]

Pilots, ground staff, aircraft controllers, demolition experts, missile experts, contractors, the airlines (who don't seem to have objected to the govt destroying their planes and plunging their business into crisis), transport staff, explosives workers, aircraft workers, weapons experts, logistics staff, drivers, security staff, insurance investigators, office managers, accident investigators etc etc - all keeping mum forever!

You're just making up a list. It's not as if you have a clue what these people say.

Like, how do we know what the Air Traffic Controllers said when their evidence is shredded into tiny pieces? Have you heard from any of the aircraft workers? You realise that these guys are bound by confidentiality clauses and official secrets acts? For more sequestrated and destroyed evidence we can include the Sheraton Hotel footage and gas station footage of flight 77, the steel from the WTC which was rapidly sent to China, the strange object being carried out under a tarpaulin, etc.

 

[editor]

You realise that these guys are bound by confidentiality clauses and official secrets acts?

All of them, yes? And you have proof of this? What confidentiality clause would a driver have signed? How about an office manager? Security guard? Worker?

And what on earth makes you think they'd adhere to these (non existent) clauses if they realised they'd been duped into playing a part in the mass slaughter of thousands of their fellow citizens?

Perhaps you'd stay quiet as a church mouse if you'd been (bizarrely) hoodwinked by your employer into facilitating the mass murder of thousands, but I sure as hell wouldn't.

Neither would many other decent folk - yet you're claiming every single last one of them has all kept 100% Mum for five long years despite (presumably) being sickened and appalled by what happened.

Wake up for fuck's sake.

 

[editor]

Before Milan Rai's book was published. Pre-emptive smearing.

Distasteful and defamatory too. I'd have the fuckers closed down if they tried to bandy such pathetic lies about me on their pathetic site.

If I could be arsed with such a sad bunch of losers, of course.

 

[Jazzz]

Before Milan Rai's book was published. Pre-emptive smearing.



What I said about attacking the witnesses and survivors because they're contradicting the delusions.

Quod Erat Demonstrandum.

laptop you can find BK going after the sceptics here on Alex Cox's forum in early January, and indeed claiming herself to be MI5 long before anyone else fell into the trap. I venture that is before any of them posted on her blog.

You appeared to be making out that Prole had herself accused BK of being a disinfo agent, I see this is not the case.

 

[laptop]

you can find BK going after the sceptics here on http: //w w w.prayforrain.com/coxforum/viewtopic.php?t=43&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0 Alex Cox's forum in early January, and indeed claiming herself to be MI5 long before anyone else fell into the trap. I venture that is before any of them posted on her blog.

Link to hostile site. Break or be banned.

BK appeared on that forum replying to the 2 January post I quoted, idiot. Which post was directing fruitloops to her blog.

You appeared to be making out that Prole had herself accused BK of being a disinfo agent, I see this is not the case.

Once more, that's you being more concerned with "your story" than what is written or what is in the world. I didn't say that. I haven't the stomach to go through the fruitloopery to find out whether prole made or joined in the MI5 smear, so I wouldn't say that.

 

[William of Walworth]

"Her version" has been all over these boards.

As I understand it, disturbed that an actual eyewitness and victim of the bombings was contradicting their theories, friends of Ian R Crane (of whom prole is one) decided and declared on their boards that she must be an MI5 plant.

Which to me illustrates how declaring these people delusional isn't a mere criticism, it's a diagnosis. To be so self-important and self-absorbed that defending their bonkers "theories" is more important than anything - more important than the experiences of those actually bombed - is plenty of grounds for a clinical conclusion.

As well as being grounds for concluding that they're thoroughly inhumane in their obsession.

They started swamping her blog. Unwilling to collude in publicising their delusions, she started moderating it. This was denounced, I seem to recall as "censorship".

Then BK went back to their boards to engage them in argument.

So no respect to that post.

Just seen this, all the things you describe ring bells now, and they're fucking outrageous, it's just that I didn't remember the details before, when I was posting earlier, and I was inviting BK to give her version ... which I' m sure is pretty much identical to your summary above.

Jazzz, I do hope you really abhor and condemn that kind of shite behaviour, you've hinted that you do but I really hope so.

Respect suspended

 

[laptop]

Apologies. Here's the 2 January post directing people to BK's blog - earlier in the thread quoted.

Posted: Mon Jan 02, 2006 1:40 am by "The Antagonist"

It comes just at an odd time as not one but two posts in as many days, both in a very anti-asking-questions vein, have been published by ... a Piccadilly Line survivor devoted to calling for a public inquiry people in her survivor group don't believe will get them any closer to the truth they deserve.

http: //w w w.prayforrain.com/coxforum/viewtopic.php?t=43&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0

 

[Jazzz]

Link to hostile site. Break or be banned.

Rachel appeared on that forum replying to the 2 January post I quoted, idiot. Which post was directing fruitloops to her blog.

Since when did you become a moderator?

Don't go around threatening to ban people unless you are one. Christ. Thank god you aren't.

I take it you are going to remove Badger Kitten's name from your posts?

Right - My assessment of the BK vs. sceptics hoohah was entirely correct. The Antagonist quoted her testimony here with maybe an outlandish theory but certainly no malice towards BK ("Let the words and courage of survivors like 'R' be testimony to us all.").

BK took great exception to that and posted very aggressively on that blog as you can read, and that's how it started. BK was the first to go into the other's territory. She then launched a scathing attack on 'conspiracy theorists' in her blog to which prole and maybe others responded
http://rachelnorthlondon.blogspot.com/2006/01/conspiracy-theorists.html

Not condoning any of the nonsense here but I would have to say that BK initiated that conflict.

Once more, that's you being more concerned with "your story" than what is written or what is in the world. I didn't say that. I haven't the stomach to go through the fruitloopery to find out whether prole made or joined in the MI5 smear, so I wouldn't say that.

This is what you said earlier

As I understand it, disturbed that an actual eyewitness and victim of the bombings was contradicting their theories, friends of Ian R Crane (of whom prole is one) decided and declared on their boards that she must be an MI5 plant.

Seems to me very much like you were implying that prole had accused BK of being a disinfo agent, which is bang out of order if you won't back it up.

 

[Jazzz]

Respect suspended

If you have the patience to go through it WoW you will see that laptop's version is an extremely biased and inaccurate account. I'm certainly not condoning any abuse which BK has received though.

 

[editor]

Right - My assessment of the BK vs. sceptics hoohah was entirely correct. The Antagonist quoted her testimony here with maybe an outlandish theory but certainly no malice towards BK ("Let the words and courage of survivors like 'R' be testimony to us all.").

Apart from the fact that it looks like the author is either an idiot unable to read BK's clear words properly or he has intentionally tried to misrepresent and distort her words to suit his fact-free fruitloop agenda.

I'd be pretty fucking annoyed at that too, especially if I was reading that bullshit just a week after the bomb.

I think Dave (on that same blog) sums it up rather well:

I knew someone killed in that Bomb. It took a week before we knew because her body took so long to retrieve then identify. A power surge?
The only surge is the surge of utter rage at idiots like you who play fantastical games in which, like Mohammed Siddique Khan, you conceive of yourself as having the ability to rise above the plane of existence we mortals live on and transcend the lies and smoke covering us. Fuck off and go play paintball or have a wank and do something less insidious and less insulting.

...and...

And for your train spotter mind, I was on the last carriage, there were emergency lights that came on in that carriage and emergency lights in the tunnel. There was no fire, it was a BOMB not a fire. Human flesh does not ignite. Put that in your bloody pipe and smoke it.
By Holly Finch,

 

[laptop]

Right - My assessment of the BK vs. sceptics hoohah was entirely correct. The Antagonist quoted her testimony here

You what?

This geezer posts to say there could have been no explosion.

He is doing precisely what all you conspiraloons are doing: starting from his preferred delusion and proceeding to smear everyone who disagrees with it. And the most bizarre feature of the 7/7 bollocks is smearing the people who had suffered a terrorist attack.

Three days earlier, BK had been in the middle of an explosion.

He says there can't have been one.

And you don't take that as him* starting a row, for fuck's sake?

I would have to say that BK initiated that conflict.

You'd have to say all sorts of shit.

bizarre theory

You don't say. As usual, applying their massively restricted "common sense" with no regard for the facts.

The explosive used doesn't burn - it dissociates.

Seems to me very much like you were implying that prole had accused BK of being a disinfo agent, which is bang out of order if you won't back it up.

But I didn't say that, did I?

* No, I don't know it's male. But statistically it's very very likely, isn't it?

 

[Jazzz]

You what?

This geezer posts to say there could have been no explosion.

He is doing precisely what all you conspiraloons are doing: starting from his preferred delusion and proceeding to smear everyone who disagrees with it. And the most bizarre feature of the 7/7 bollocks is smearing the people who had suffered a terrorist attack.

Three days earlier, BK had been in the middle of an explosion.

He says there can't have been one.

And you don't take that as him* starting a row, for fuck's sake?

Completely wrong

He wasn't saying there was no explosion, just that the explosion was caused by a power surge and not a bomb. Reading his theory that he is clearly not intending to start a row neither is he in any way 'smearing' BK or other survivors, in fact he pays tribute to her. His theory is wrong but he is no way seeking to invalidate anyone's experiences, in fact how could he use BK's account otherwise?

Here's an example of an explosion by power surge. Not fun if you were in that at the time I bet.

The next stage of the affair was BK turning up at his place to give him a good kicking with her mates following suit, and then the whole thing went ballistic from there.

I don't want to rake any of this nonsense up again, I'm just saying it's extremely unfair to suggest that all these nasty sceptics turned up out of the blue to pour abuse on BKs blog and her meetings, because there was plenty coming in the other direction.

 

[JHE]

No, he's wasn't saying there was no explosion, just that the explosion was caused by a power surge and not a bomb.

Explosive power surges on three Tube trains and the upper deck of one bus! Yes, I knew it all along.

Who could have achieved such a feat? Pixies! It has to be the fuckin' pixies! Face facts! Stop covering up for the bastards!

 

[laptop]

That'd be funny if it wasn't so insulting.

An accident involving water in a toilet has what to do with what, exactly?

Scraping the pan with 44 minutes of truly desperate googling...

Power surges that leave 56 people dead are like what, exactly?

Especially, as noted, power surges on the top floor of a bus...

He's a fucking loony. He was denying that what happened to BK had happened. That's starting a row.

 

[editor]

He wasn't saying there was no explosion, just that the explosion was caused by a power surge and not a bomb.

Oh for fuck's sake. So this cretin was claiming that there were 'power surges' going off simultaneously all over the tube network - as well as on the bus too - yes?

 

[Jazzz]

That'd be funny if it wasn't so insulting.

An accident involving water in a toilet has what to do with what, exactly?

Scraping the pan with 44 minutes of truly desperate googling...

Power surges that leave 56 people dead are like what, exactly?

Especially, as noted, power surges on the top floor of a bus...

He's a fucking loony. He was denying that what happened to BK had happened. That's starting a row.

So you now agree he wasn't denying there was an explosion. No acknowledgement you got that wrong of course, you just keep shouting.

And I can see that an attempt to lighten the mood was entirely wasted with you around.

He wasn't denying BK's experience in any way. Yes, he was wrong. But he certainly wasn't starting a row. He was just saying his theory. If you think it's wrong for him to have a theory which was different to BK's, I again refer to you to detective-boy's post in which he disagrees with 9/11 survivor William Rodriguez

I have no particular problem with accepting what he SAW and HEARD. I have a huge problem with accepting his OPINION.

Others are entitled to exactly the same freedom of thought.

 

[Jazzz]

Oh for fuck's sake. So this cretin was claiming that there were 'power surges' going off simultaneously all over the tube network - as well as on the bus too - yes?

How sensible or ridiculous his theory was is not the issue here.