The 7/7 Report

[TAE]

Disclaimer/retraction/whatever

Primary Source Found!

Ok, this information is from an email which appears to have originated from a thames link employee:
http://www.financialoutrage.org.uk/thameslink_database1.htm

BookedDepartureTime ActualDepartureTime ArrivalTimeAtKingsCross
07.16 ..................... 07.21 ................... 08.19
07.20 ..................... On time ................ 08.15
07.24 ..................... 07.25 ................... 08.23
07.30 ..................... 07.42 ................... 08.39
07.40 ..................... Cancelled ...............n/a
07.48 ..................... 07.56 ................... 08.42


As has been stated repeatedly, it is utterly possible that the bombers took the train at 07.25 and arrived at 08.23.

However, this does show that the narrative is rather lacking in factual accuracy.

There is now reason to believe that the information on that site is not at all reliable.

See: http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=4638041&postcount=160

Never-the-less it seems very likely that this website was the source of the claim that the 7:40 had been cancelled.

 

[zArk]

Never-the-less it seems very likely that this website was the source of the claim that the 7:40 had been cancelled.

The information shows that the press are completely ineffective at investigating facts.
Did the police state which train the lads took from Luton?

Agreed about many of the 911 Truth movement groups being overrun and probably run by agents who allow 'eager' readers to follow dead-end created 'facts'.

I am wary of this timetable but that doesnt take the press, media and police off the hook as they havent given the 'official' train they took and there has been no follow up by the press and media.

 

[editor]

Agreed about many of the 911 Truth movement groups being overrun and probably run by agents who allow 'eager' readers to follow dead-end created 'facts'.

Have you any proof at all of the existence of these 'agents' in the '911 Truth movement' who are busily "over-running groups" please?

Names? Examples? Anything?

 

[Bob_the_lost]

The information shows that the press are completely ineffective at investigating facts.

No it doesn't

I am wary of this timetable but that doesnt take the press, media and police off the hook as they havent given the 'official' train they took and there has been no follow up by the press and media.

I disagree, if you traveled on peak hour trains into london you'd know the timetable is more a guesstimate than anything else, but i suspect that you and i are never going to agree on this topic. The best we can do is shoot down each and every bit of "evidence" one point at a time.

 

[zArk]

Have you any proof at all of the existence of these 'agents' in the '911 Truth movement' who are busily "over-running groups" please?

Names? Examples? Anything?

oh, dont start again assuming the meaning of the word 'agent'.

shall i wiki it or google it or just give you the oxford definition?

 

[zArk]

No it doesn't


I disagree, if you traveled on peak hour trains into london you'd know the timetable is more a guesstimate than anything else, but i suspect that you and i are never going to agree on this topic. The best we can do is shoot down each and every bit of "evidence" one point at a time.

Bob- the cctv at kings cross was timestamped, the cctv at luton was time stamped so it is important to clarify the time of the train they got... especially when a lot of papers reported that they got the 7.40 train.

it is important to clarify the train because on that morning there was a lot of disruption.

The guesstimate is enough for you to believe, fair enough, but it isnt enough for me.

 

[editor]

oh, dont start again assuming the meaning of the word 'agent'.

How about you just make yourself clear the first time around, you patronising little shit?

Please explain exactly what you meant by this please:

Agreed about many of the 911 Truth movement groups being overrun and probably run by agents who allow 'eager' readers to follow dead-end created 'facts'.

Who are these 'agents'? What are they 'running', who are they 'over-running' and on whose behest?

 

[zArk]

How about you just make yourself clear the first time around, you patronising little shit?

Please explain exactly what you meant by this please:
Who are these 'agents'? What are they 'running', who are they 'over-running' and on whose behest?

Actually i dont feel i have to. I am claiming discrimination as my post proceded Lock&Lights (no offense Lock) yet you didnt question that post. You seem very annoyed at my post which was only my opinion. Pardon me.

The question "on whose behest?" i have touched upon here

but if i was to use the word 'agent' and mean it to mean us government funded agents who set out to disrupt information and spread disinformation i would link to this

but that wasnt how i was using the word.

 

[Larry O'Hara]

Have you any proof at all of the existence of these 'agents' in the '911 Truth movement' who are busily "over-running groups" please?

Names? Examples? Anything?

the two most obvious are Machon (Secretary UK9/11 Truth Movement) & Shayler. Proven liars, MI5 track record. Though I suspect these might not be the names Zark had in mind...

 

[editor]

Actually i dont feel i have to.

If you can't back up your claims, I suggest keep to them yourself. You were quite clear in your claims about these 'agents,' so why are you suddenly going so coy when asked to name them?

but that wasnt how i was using the word.

FFS: then explain how you were using the word please without resorting to patronising, wriggling bullshit like, "shall i wiki it or google it or just give you the oxford definition?"

For the third time of asking.

 

[Larry O'Hara]

Well...

my request is only the second. Would not Zark agree that if you're looking for disinformation agents/infiltrators inside the 9/11 Movement, two former MI5 officers, who between 2001 and mid-2005 expressed no dissenting sentiments concerning 9/11 whatsoever, have to be viewed with grave suspicion for their abrupt and implausible about-turn, just prior to the 7/7 bombings too. Especially given the pair (Machon/Shayler) have a proven track record of dissimulation? Doesn't it all seem rather suspect? If not suspect, what would be--Henry Kissinger heading up a 9/11 Campaign maybe, or perhaps Bill Clinton? Do tell!!

 

[zArk]

my request is only the second. Would not Zark agree that if you're looking for disinformation agents/infiltrators inside the 9/11 Movement, two former MI5 officers, who between 2001 and mid-2005 expressed no dissenting sentiments concerning 9/11 whatsoever, have to be viewed with grave suspicion for their abrupt and implausible about-turn, just prior to the 7/7 bombings too. Especially given the pair (Machon/Shayler) have a proven track record of dissimulation? Doesn't it all seem rather suspect? If not suspect, what would be--Henry Kissinger heading up a 9/11 Campaign maybe, or perhaps Bill Clinton? Do tell!!

guilt through ommission, thats an interesting one. If one was to rely solely on one source and that one source was the only source then it must be investigated and its validity challenged

I think what most people are diverted from is that a full independant investigation is being called for. The 7/7 report, it leaves lots of questions unanswered and raises even more questions, just like the 9/11 Commission Report. People arent happy about the created secrecy and the created suspicions in people of the authoritites.

If it takes someone like Shayler to turn the heat up on the authorities, then so be it. If Shaylers evidence was diverting people away from asking for a full independant investigation then i would be concerned.

To answer Larry, self-determination and agency are concepts i am questioning in the link i provided above. Being an agent or a succour doesnt reside within a person or group but emerges from an entity [see my link].

I dare say that some groups or people enjoy preserving suspicion of the government and revel in paranoia.
I am focussed upon raising unanswered questions, discussing them and promoting the creation of a full independant investigation. With the 7/7 investigation i would include Lord Stevens as a pre-requiste.
As for the 911 commission -- Henri Kissenger -- i dont think so, bloody hell the equivalent of someone like Peter Mandleson investigating Trade Fraud between the EU and China. lol

 

[JHE]

zArk is an agent. He's a PR agent for the Kamel Bourgass, the 'slamist murderer and would-be poisoner.

Bourgass should sack zArk for being crap at his job.

 

[editor]

I am focussed upon raising unanswered questions, discussing them and promoting the creation of a full independant investigation.

People like you do more harm to that cause than you'll ever know.

 

[JHE]

Jazzz is almost certainly an agent too. I suspect he's in the pay of the pixies. For all his purported concern about terrorism and 'false-flag' operations he never, ever mentions the role of pixies. How suspicious is that?

 

[Jazzz]

my request is only the second. Would not Zark agree that if you're looking for disinformation agents/infiltrators inside the 9/11 Movement, two former MI5 officers, who between 2001 and mid-2005 expressed no dissenting sentiments concerning 9/11 whatsoever, have to be viewed with grave suspicion for their abrupt and implausible about-turn, just prior to the 7/7 bombings too. Especially given the pair (Machon/Shayler) have a proven track record of dissimulation? Doesn't it all seem rather suspect? If not suspect, what would be--Henry Kissinger heading up a 9/11 Campaign maybe, or perhaps Bill Clinton? Do tell!!

Well I've spoken to Annie about that and the reason is very simple - they only recently came to realise that 9/11 was an inside job. It's not as if they would have known about it at the time.

If they are infiltrators, well they are welcome because they are doing a great job. But I don't think anyone thinks so, and their experiences of having to flee the country due to their book exposing our secret services would seem to mark them as sound.

 

[editor]

. But I don't think anyone thinks so, and their experiences of having to flee the country due to their book exposing our secret services would seem to mark them as sound.

Err, he only 'fled' because he'd broken the Official Secrets act. And then he came back to enthuse widly about the 'legitimate' work of the British security services, earning a pie-ing in the process.

http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2002/03/24228.html

 

[Larry O'Hara]

Well I've spoken to Annie about that and the reason is very simple - they only recently came to realise that 9/11 was an inside job. It's not as if they would have known about it at the time.

Ah, "only recently"--but why "only recently" given they have had all these 'inside' contacts in the spook world from pre-2001 to the present day. If you really believe that, you'll believe anything..

Although to be serious/exact Jazz, what exactly was it that supposedly convinced these truth-seekers to become 9/11 converts? For the record, I'd be very interested to know.

 

[zArk]

Ah, "only recently"--but why "only recently" given they have had all these 'inside' contacts in the spook world from pre-2001 to the present day. If you really believe that, you'll believe anything..

Although to be serious/exact Jazz, what exactly was it that supposedly convinced these truth-seekers to become 9/11 converts? For the record, I'd be very interested to know.

Larry, why dont you ask Shayler yourself?

 

[Jazzz]

Ah, "only recently"--but why "only recently" given they have had all these 'inside' contacts in the spook world from pre-2001 to the present day. If you really believe that, you'll believe anything..

Although to be serious/exact Jazz, what exactly was it that supposedly convinced these truth-seekers to become 9/11 converts? For the record, I'd be very interested to know.

Because the vast majority of people working in our secret services and those of the USA are good people who would have no truck with 9/11. They are not 'in on it' by virtue of being spooks. This was all something conducted by some very few at a very high level, who aren't going to leak it out to the lackeys any more than they will tell you or I about it.

editor: Shayler spent years doing legitimate work for our security services. He quit when he found out there was some dodgy stuff going on too. Also, you have to understand he was returning from exile. But you won't find him making the same speeches now.

 

[zArk]

People like you do more harm to that cause than you'll ever know.

Well, i think the traditional way of doing things -- like leaving it to 'the experts' has failed totally and caused more questions and more suspicions.

I'll do my thing thanks.

 

[Larry O'Hara]

Because the vast majority of people working in our secret services and those of the USA are good people who would have no truck with 9/11. They are not 'in on it' by virtue of being spooks. This was all something conducted by some very few at a very high level, who aren't going to leak it out to the lackeys any more than they will tell you or I about it.

editor: Shayler spent years doing legitimate work for our security services. He quit when he found out there was some dodgy stuff going on too. Also, you have to understand he was returning from exile. But you won't find him making the same speeches now.

So, you're telling me

1) most spooks did not know about 9/11--is this your view or Shayler/Machon's?

2) Shayler now sings a different tune than previously. Agreed.

The question still stands, indeed you haven't even attempted to answer it, so I shall put it in bold for you: What was it exactly, and when, that caused Machon & Shayler to change their views on 9/11? . A very straightforward question, and one you apparently asked Machon. So what is the answer??

 

[Jazzz]

So, you're telling me

1) most spooks did not know about 9/11--is this your view or Shayler/Machon's?

2) Shayler now sings a different tune than previously. Agreed.

The question still stands, indeed you haven't even attempted to answer it, so I shall put it in bold for you: What was it exactly, and when, that caused Machon & Shayler to change their views on 9/11? . A very straightforward question, and one you apparently asked Machon. So what is the answer??

Agree on two points, 1) is my view, I can't speak for Shayler/Machon but am confident they would agree. 2) I wouldn't put it as 'singing a different tune', he just wasn't singing before on 9/11.

I didn't ask Annie any such question, I had a kind of 'how long have a been a 9/11 sceptic' getting to know you banter in which she volunteered that she and David were more recent converts to the cause.

I don't know if there was one thing which caused a 'eureka' moment for them, or whether (more likely) it was based on many things and a longer gestation period.

zark has a good point, why don't you ask him? They are very accessible. Annie even tried to register on urban75 (not on my recommendation, before editor shouts about my inviting of ex-spooks) but had some problem registering. I assured her that would have been some technical issue.

 

[editor]

Annie even tried to register on urban75 (not on my recommendation, before editor shouts about my inviting of ex-spooks) but had some problem registering. I assured her that would have been some technical issue.

Well it certainly had fuck all to do with me.

 

[pk]

People like you do more harm to that cause than you'll ever know.

I'd like to do more harm to the sad fucks who disrupt 7/7 survivors meetings more than they'll ever remember.

I think you have to try and put these people's heads in touch with reality - failing that, put their heads in touch with the pavement.

 

[Jazzz]

Well just to get facts straight pk, the Milan Rai book launch wasn't a survivor's meeting, it was a public meeting as such members of the public were invited to ask questions.

Unless I am mistaken, you have severe misgivings over the official theory of 9/11 yourself. Should your head be introduced to the 'reality' of the official story of 9/11 by connection with the pavement? Would you like that?

Violence is not the solution to any of this. I rather think you know that, and are simply posturing.

 

[pk]

Well just to get facts straight pk, the Milan Rai book launch wasn't a survivor's meeting, it was a public meeting as such members of the public were invited to ask questions.

Unless I am mistaken, you have severe misgivings over the official theory of 9/11 yourself. Should your head be introduced to the 'reality' of the official story of 9/11 by connection with the pavement? Would you like that?

Violence is not the solution to any of this. I rather think you know that, and are simply posturing.

Violence is definitely the solution to the problem of your fucking retarded mates calling Badger Kitten a liar, and I would be only too happy to oblige should the next public meeting require some security. I'd do it for free.

 

[Larry O'Hara]

Agree on two points, 1) is my view, I can't speak for Shayler/Machon but am confident they would agree. 2) I wouldn't put it as 'singing a different tune', he just wasn't singing before on 9/11.

I didn't ask Annie any such question, I had a kind of 'how long have a been a 9/11 sceptic' getting to know you banter in which she volunteered that she and David were more recent converts to the cause.

I don't know if there was one thing which caused a 'eureka' moment for them, or whether (more likely) it was based on many things and a longer gestation period.

zark has a good point, why don't you ask him? They are very accessible. Annie even tried to register on urban75 (not on my recommendation, before editor shouts about my inviting of ex-spooks) but had some problem registering. I assured her that would have been some technical issue.

I have been asking questions of these two spooks for 8 years--and even had a filmed debate with Shayler 21/6/05. I also had a more recent encounter when the two brought some thugs along to last year's anarchist bookfair.

Ultimately though, you're telling me you and co-thinkers are so naive, that despite all the abuse heaped on Badger Kitten, when you get presented with real-life spooks in your ranks, you don't ask the most elementary questions. Given that the dodginess of Shayler/Machon has been extensively chronicled in print (Notes From the Borderland and now DVD for eight years, there really is no excuse for your feigned ignorance about just how dodgy they are. Especially when, I repeat, your co-thinkers give Badger Kitten such a hard time--abuse that goes way beyond legitimate political disagreement into character-assassination.

 

[Badger Kitten]

Chill, they weren't violent, just tiresome in the extreme. It was a book launch about a 7/7 book by Milan Rai, a respected peace activist and the launch was attended by 6 survivivors, and the train driver, amongst others. Because of the hostile atmosphere created by the barracking of the conspiracy theorists, who were given even 3 minutes floor time to explain their '' alternative point of view'' - but they still interupted, heckled, and kept saying that basically the book was false and 7/7 was a false flag operation, the bombers could not have been on the train, the bombs were under the carriage, and so on, the people in the room including people who had actually been on the train, and in one case, lost limbs in the explosion, felt cowed and unable to speak.

Nonetheless I think nobody in that room would advocate violence, though I personally did feel like slapping one obnoxious individual who posts here regularly and who has repeatedly said things such as '' so the survivor group is a means of everyone getting their story straight?'' and '' just another fact that mustn't be allowed to get in the way of a good story, BK?''. However I didn't slap her, I went down the pub with the people from the train ainstead nd laughed at their ludicrous, suicide-bombing denying leaflet instead.

Report on meeting here from independent source

 

[Jazzz]

I judge as I find Larry.

Whilst I don't condone abuse that badger kitten has received (nor the abuse she dishes out, there's been plenty of it) I am not aware of any such coming from Machon/Shayler. I don't think them going to the Milan Rai book launch served useful purpose but I understand Annie held her hand up patiently for the whole evening and was not allowed to put a question, although her book was referenced by one of the speakers!