Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

The 7/7 Report

Yes, he was denying that there was an explosion.

One of the many reasons that he reveals himself as barking in that one post is ... I'll fill it in for you.

"Power surges" that had the energy to between them leave 56 dead would be fucking explosions. Lots of vapourised copper around. Very hot. Start fires. Unlike the explosive used.

Of course, if you start from the premise that anything that "questions" what did happen is "good" and that BK was entirely deluded... do you start from that position, Jazzz?

We come back to the basic bizarreness of the 7/7 bollocks.

To be so self-important and self-absorbed that defending their - your - bonkers "theories" is more important than anything - more important than the experiences of those actually bombed - is plenty of grounds for a clinical conclusion.

To attack those who experienced a terrorist attack because it doesn't fit their -your - delusions is a sign of severe sickness.

And saying "what happened to you didn't happen" is an attack.
 
laptop said:
Yes, he was denying that there was an explosion.

He refers to the 'simultaneous train blasts' in the original piece.

In a follow up on the blog he says this

"I have never denied that explosions took place. What is in question is the source and cause of those explosions. "


I am extremely weary of your pernicious finger-pointing laptop. :rolleyes:
 
Jazzz said:
He refers to the 'simultaneous train blasts' in the original piece.

In a follow up on the blog he says this

"I have never denied that explosions took place. What is in question is the source and cause of those explosions. "
Who else was questioning "the source and cause of those explosions" and what evidence was he basing his doubts on at the time?
 
editor said:
Who else was questioning "the source and cause of those explosions" and what evidence was he basing his doubts on at the time?
I don't care. Read his stuff if you can be bothered. I'm not defending his theory to which he was perfectly entitled to (and which I guess he has retracted). What I am defending him against is the accusation that he was starting a row or seeking to invalidate a survivor's experience.
 
Let's have the actual quote:

loonie said:
If you're still not convinced, maybe it's time to reveal the story of a telephone conversation that morning between two friends, one of whom was at a station, the other of whom had yet to leave for the station:

"Hi, it's me, listen don't bother coming to the station, son, it's absolute chaos."​

Nothing unusual about that, except when you bear in mind that the conversation took place at 8.37am that morning, some ten minutes before the time now reported for the simultaneous train blasts that once took place over the course of an hour.

So what you selectively quote is in fact just another nit-pick from him - not an acknowledgement but a denial.

And let's have the main quote on the explosion:

"Totally black" suggests no remnants of a fire from whatever type of blast occured.

Any sort of explosive device in such a confined space and containing so many people, papers and other flammable items such as clothing would have caused some sort of fire, even if only the smallest amount of explosive had been present.

This is wrong. It is false. It is saying there was no bomb.

It is ridiculous and contrary to physics because any "power surge" that could kill dozens of people would have started fires.

He has no fucking clue - only a conviction that whatever is reported must be wrong, that the truth is revealed to him because he has a "conspiracy theory", and he - typing at the safety of his keyboard - knows better than someone who had suffered a terrorist attack. So the experience of someone who had three days previously suffered in a bomb attack must be denied so he can go on believing whatever shit it is he believes.

You are defending the indefensible, Jazzz.

Nothing new there, then.

But why? Because you feel the need to defend all the non-sane?
 
Jazzz said:
What I am defending him against is the accusation that he was starting a row or seeking to invalidate a survivor's experience.
Yes, he was.

The guy's a fucking disgrace.
 
laptop said:
This is wrong. It is false. It is saying there was no bomb.

You are pissing around the subject which was whether he said there was no EXPLOSION. Yes, he said there was no bomb. He wasn't denying there was an explosion. Power surges cause explosions.

How mistaken his physics was is neither here nor there. :rolleyes:

And no, he wasn't editor.
 
laptop said:
But why? Because you feel the need to defend all the non-sane?
I feel the need to defend innocent people against your snide accusations. Not the first time either I might add. :(
 
Once more because it's clearly not being understood:

We come back to the basic bizarreness of the 7/7 bollocks.

To be so self-important and self-absorbed that defending their - your - bonkers "theories" is more important than anything - more important than the experiences of those actually bombed - is plenty of grounds for a clinical conclusion.

To attack those who experienced a terrorist attack because it doesn't fit their -your - delusions is a sign of severe sickness.

And so Jazzzz feels the need to say "the loony wasn't attacking BK" with some kind of "so she started it" argument. Since neither Jaxzxz nor the loony he's defending has the faintest fucking idea what a "power surge" is, the appeal to this as "a theory" is exactly equivalent to saying "it could have been malicious pixies - but whatever it is, it's not what the people who survived it say they survived". Prick.
 
Jazzz said:
I again refer to you to detective-boy's post in which he disagrees with 9/11 survivor William Rodriguez
My comments related to a survivor of 11th September who was being quoted as an "expert" source of why something had happened. I repeat that an untrained / unqualified (lay, if you like) witness is as good a witness as any when it comes to what they saw / heard / smelt / tasted but, when it comes to providing an opinion they are of no reliability compared with a trained / qualified / experienced expert.

I would take that on a stage, and say that a lay witness present at the scene, would, perhaps, be better able to provide an opinion than a lay person who was not (e.g. you could have asked someone like William Rodriguez "Could one man have moved that item?" and he could give an opinion worth something because he was there, he saw it and he saw the context whereas if you asked a lay person who was not there opinion would probably be worth less as they do not have that knowledge of context unless it were available on CCTV or by some very, very careful and detailed debriefing).

Please stop implying that I would support your right to spout random theories and suggesting that I would argue that you are just as entitled to as someone who was there. I do not and I would not.
 
Jazzz said:
Completely wrong :rolleyes:

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.


Bullshit. The Antagonist linked to my blog and directed people there, he deliberately misquoted my u75 account to say there were no bombs, leavig out the bits where I described the bomb. Since I had seen effects of said bomb ( though have always avioded publishing what I saw since it is too gruesome) I pointed out he was wrong, checked his site, then he was claiming the bus never exploded and those on it were actors and stuntmen. I know bereaved families from Tavistock and have met surviviors. At this point I and other survivors like Mitch and Holly were outraged. He refused to alter the posts tho he did tone down some of the stuff. I then started getting more and more bizzarre messages on my blog. And conspicacy emails. Looking at site meter I found they were coming from Alex Cox's site, which had picked up on the Antagonist blog. I went over to see there it was being discuissed that I was an M15 shill, a liar and worse. I tried to engage, got abuse, deleted my posts, tried again, no joy, meanwhile another site had started a whole thread about me and what I am and what I believe and if i am real and the loon traffic to my site went up and up and up. On New Years Day I looked at all the conspiracy posts and loons infesting my board and decidsed to make my position clear: I want a public enquiry, I have been camapoigning for one since the autumn, I need to distance myself from you people since you are harming the camapign, we cannot afford to be dismissed as loons and the loons were jumping on the survivor petition for a public enquiry. And I was fed up with the only people reading my blog being loons and th eciomments being loony, it was ruining it. And they were starting to pester other 7/7 bloggers. And I was fed up of being slagged off all over their boards.

Since my dad's name came out I'm afraid to say he has had calls letters and emails. The abuse on my now moderated blog has worsened: sample from the weekend when I blogged that I'd had food poisoning '' Pity it wasn't fatal: PeterPower'' . '' You are al LIAR. Who is paying you?'' and so on.

Frankly, if peole insult me, troll my blog, pester my family, defame me on boards, harrangue me in meetings and try to derail the survivor campaign for a public enquiry plus insist I am not real when I have started a survivior group on the basis that I am real - I am going to publish what I think of them and expose them. Here and on my blog. And any really nasty shit will be reported to the police and the IP provider.

Who the fuck they think they are I do not know, but they picked the wrong woman to bully.

Thanks for the support.

BK



PS. I was invited to their meeting after I in desperation asked a few of them to call me at work so they could see I was real and leave me alone. I attended with an other survivor. We were called to the stage to hear a recording of Peter Power claiming he'd been working on an exercise involving bombs at the same stations. I said it was on paper, surely, didn't say I was a survivor. They all started shouting out at me, no, it was a conspiracy, I said I didn't think it was, actually, they shouted, and claled out I raised my voice back, general chaos. It's like a religion, they won't have it if you question Their Truth. Actually, a few of them were reasonable, but it was an odd experience. I went, with the other survivor, to prove I wasn't M15 and to get the abuse to stop. And because they'd been all over her blog too, and she was curious to meet them. They had been creeping her out, she thought it would be reassuring to see them as people so she wasn't freaked out by anonymous comments.

Middle aged or older, middle class, almost totally white and about 30 of them comprised the British 9/11 truth movement. A few younger ones, but they looked like bell ringers or train spotters, rather than the teenagers or youths I had expected.
 
By th eway last night I and a hundred survivors from Kings Cross/Russell Square attended a meeting with Tessa Jowell, CICA and the DCI in charge of the investigation with other officers including foresnic officers. The meeting was over 2 hours and was non stop questions from us. Th eoifficer took us through the whole investigation ion more detail than the narrative which he had worked on.

The reason , Prole, that they have not released additional footgae of the bombers' journey is because the bereaved families have begged them not to.

] I am also sorry to report that some bereaved families have been pestered by conspiracy theorists, and that conspiracy theorists have pestered the officers working on the investigation with endless requests.

FFS.

Are you surprised I am fucked off with the whole bloody lot of you?

The bombers are dead, I don't hate them, but you lot are fucking ghouls and there is no excuse , none, for your behaviour.

I hav etried beign polite to you, didn't work, tried ignoring you, didn't work. I will not be slagged off by you and told I am a liar and a shill and I will not stand by whilst your lunacy prevents people from getting on with their lives and asking for a public enquiry, or derails the campaign for people to learn lessons from what happened to us.

You are sick. And you picked a fight with the wrong woman.
 
to the conspiracy theorists in general...

And if you even think about turning up and demonstrating at the public event to commemorate 7/7 to which the public, to which survivors and bereaved are invited to mingle with the public, with your fliers and your placards and your lies, please be aware that I have already warned the police and the DCMS about you. They already knew. They won't let you try.
 
:eek: :mad: :mad: :( :( at this thread!

Big respect to you Badger Kitten for maintaining your equilibrium in the face of unbelievable paranoid delusional shite.
 
Big respect BK. From what you've said the conspiraloon scum are showing their true loonspud bullying colours now.

In terms of sheer arrogance the CT'ers are catching up with the AR loons unfortunately.

Hang in theere and don't let them grind you down.
 
Thanks all, sorry about the spelling, no time to proof read as I was late for work and my typing is shit with a hangover as we all went down the pub last night and got smashed.
 
Are you going to blog about it at all?

It may be worth saying something there about not wanting the CT people around as - you'll be amazed to hear - you're being quoted by them in support of their own demands for an enquiry...
 
Badger Kitten said:
The reason , Prole, that they have not released additional footgae of the bombers' journey is because the bereaved families have begged them not to.

A significant point, and one which I believe has not been raised up until now.

Given that the police are satisfied that they have correctly identified the perpetrators, there isn't a need to release further CCTV images for the purposes of appealing for info regarding a crime which has already been solved.

If it is correct that witnesses saw the 4 bombers 'euphoric' and 'hugging' at Kings X, one can see why bereaved relatives would not want such images in the public domain...
 
Badger Kitten said:
I pointed out he was wrong, checked his site, then he was claiming the bus never exploded and those on it were actors and stuntmen..
What? What a moron!
Badger Kitten said:
Since my dad's name came out I'm afraid to say he has had calls letters and emails. The abuse on my now moderated blog has worsened: sample from the weekend when I blogged that I'd had food poisoning '' Pity it wasn't fatal: PeterPower'' . '' You are al LIAR. Who is paying you?'' and so on.
Be sure to keep the IP addresses of these sick, sick fuckers.
 
scalyboy said:
A significant point, and one which I believe has not been raised up until now.

Given that the police are satisfied that they have correctly identified the perpetrators, there isn't a need to release further CCTV images for the purposes of appealing for info regarding a crime which has already been solved.

If it is correct that witnesses saw the 4 bombers 'euphoric' and 'hugging' at Kings X, one can see why bereaved relatives would not want such images in the public domain...

Well yes, but CT's are unimaginative souls who don't realise how offensive their requests for "evidence" are. I was guessing the above was the reason we don't have loads of pics from the cameras...

Either that, or the Met police aren't very fast at photoshopping all the cctv images... :rolleyes:
 
editor said:
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.

Are you claiming that no one with inside knowledge of 9/11 has come forward to challenge the official account?

You are remarkably poorly informed

Sibel Edmonds

Colleen Rowley

and there are others if I could be arsed to look them up for you

Here is a list of other prominent people challenging 9/11 some of whom you will find have inside information in that they were there or involved in events leading up to 9/11 or their investigation
 
Badger Kitten, respect to those posts.

Jazzz, your version of the exchanges earlier, does not read convincingly in any way, when compared to what BK is saying. And I've looked again at the relevant links and blogs.

I know you're not personally involved with the obsessive fanatics that she describes, but it should be clear by now even to you, that the behaviour of some of them is a total unmitigated disgrace and their activities an out and out embarassment.

BK has an absolute right to detest and speak out against what some of those 'truthseekers' have been getting up to, and from where I'm sitting she's done nothing whatsoever to be criticised for at all.
 
sparticus said:
Are you claiming that no one with inside knowledge of 9/11 has come forward to challenge the official account?

You are remarkably poorly informed

Sibel Edmonds

Colleen Rowley
n
Nope. Try as I can't see any suitably qualified 'whistleblowers' mentioning their involvement with pre-wired explosives in the WTC, disappearing planes, missile launchers, pods and the all other bollocks Jazzz was on about in there.

Perhaps, being so 'well informed', you could point them out to me?
 
And here in lies my principle beef with how 9/11 truth movement is discussed here.

It seems all those challenging the official version of 9/11 (and 7/7 for that matter) are grouped together as conspiraloons, when in reality the 9/11 truth movement ranges from credible and high profile doubters through to people who to be honest are an embarassment and who I wouldn't claim to be credible.

Colleen Rowley and Sibel Edmonds are credible which perhaps explains why Sibel Edmonds is gagged and her testamony ignored by the 9/11 commission

Some of the more credible voices of 9/11 truth have just released this video. It focusses on the intelligence failures and air defense failures and the like and avoids pods, missile launchers and the physical evidence in general.

Those that dismiss 9/11 truth campaigners as JUST a bunch of conspiraloons should watch this
 
sparticus said:
And here in lies my principle beef with how 9/11 truth movement is discussed here.

It seems all those challenging the official version of 9/11 (and 7/7 for that matter) are grouped together as conspiraloons

If the so called 911 'truth seekers' publicly disassociated themselves with the liars and fantasists and cultists like Viallis and Jones etc etc then people might be willing to give them a fairer hearing. There are problems with 911 but they are mostly due to people covering their own arses within beauracracies over why this attack wasn't spotted and general ineffiencencies. The big issues are what went wrong not pods and buildings wired for explosions etc.

If the challengers didn't act like conspiraloonspuds then they wouldn't be treated like conspiraloonspuds.
 
sparticus said:
Those that dismiss 9/11 truth campaigners as JUST a bunch of conspiraloons should watch this
I just dismiss the ones who obsessively keep on spouting their clueless, evidence-free drivel about invisible pods, pretend planes, invisible explosives installed invisibly by invisible operatives, CIA Mike Yarwoods and the like.

And if the conspiraloon cap fits....

By the way, seeing as you decided to shove your oar in, are you going to answer my question?

It makes perfect sense in the context of this thread (see: Jazzz's earlier claims).
 
Badger Kitten said:
Middle aged or older, middle class, almost totally white and about 30 of them comprised the British 9/11 truth movement. A few younger ones, but they looked like bell ringers or train spotters, rather than the teenagers or youths I had expected.

BK, please bear in mind that it would be an absolute pleasure, the next time you hold one of these meetings, to be there in a supporting role, and should any of these "9/11 truth movement" idiots so much as let a pin drop whilst you are speaking then hypothetically they could be dragged out and given a taste of free speech.

I'd like to think they would need to think twice before calling any of the survivors liars.

And I'd like to photograph them.

And maybe even crack a few in the head.

I'm sure I'm not alone.
 
Back
Top Bottom