The 7/7 Report

[Larry O'Hara]

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!

I have certainly experienced personal abuse from them--Shayler accused me of Nazi style tactics (accompanied by his goon squad) and Machon nastily tried to provoke me & a colleague after the event, in a typical spook tactic designed to precipitate a fist-fight. With the police in close attendance. And remember this--the Leftists she/Shayler spied on were not allowed to see their files, nor have any rank & file ones been disclosed by them.

You say you "judge as you find". Don't you think you need to go beneath the surface charm of operatives, to discern their track-record and thus likely agenda? I personally find Condi Rice charming, attractive and personable. But I wouldn't trust her or Bush one inch, on anything.

 

[Jazzz]

Well.. what could be the agenda of someone planted into the 9/11 truth movement? As far as I know (do correct me if I am wrong, I could be) you are not someone who claims it was an inside job or even LIHOP. Yet there would be no reason to plant someone there, unless there is something dastardly to cover up.

How would disinfo agents planted into the movement go about their business? They could achieve their aims by campaigning poorly, telling lies, getting other people to shut up, or perhaps spreading discord by pointing fingers at others that they are disinfo agents. I have seen none of this from Machon/Shayler, in fact quite the opposite.

 

[Badger Kitten]

There's just over 2000 M15 agents working flat out to stop terrorism, so busy they can't even manage a 7/7 enquiry - why the hell would they bother arsing about on fruitloop sites? 9/11 truthloons give themselves airs and take themselves far too seriously.

 

[Jazzz]

I fear too that is often the case.

 

[Blagsta]

Well.. what could be the agenda of someone planted into the 9/11 truth movement? As far as I know (do correct me if I am wrong, I could be) you are not someone who claims it was an inside job or even LIHOP. Yet there would be no reason to plant someone there, unless there is something dastardly to cover up.

How would disinfo agents planted into the movement go about their business? They could achieve their aims by campaigning poorly, telling lies, getting other people to shut up, or perhaps spreading discord by pointing fingers at others that they are disinfo agents. I have seen none of this from Machon/Shayler, in fact quite the opposite.

I'd hazard a guess that they're there to actively encourage the 9/11 "truth" movement as it obscures the real issues, such as the war in Iraq, economic globalisation etc.

 

[Badger Kitten]

Pffft. I don't see why they would bother. They hardly need to discredit the fruitloops, they manage to do that quite effectively all by themselves.

Anyway, there is a new 7/7 report out tomorrow, so we might have to start a new thread.

 

[Blagsta]

Pffft. I don't see why they would bother. They hardly need to discredit the fruitloops, they manage to do that quite effectively all by themselves..

true enough

 

[TAE]

there is a new 7/7 report out tomorrow

Really? Who by? Do tell.

 

[editor]

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.

That's how Jazzz operates. If he likes the sound of what someone's saying, all rationality and critical faculties disappear - he's that desperate to find an exciting conspiracy.

So he's happy to believe the words of untraceable 'experts' with no known history posting on untraceable bulletin boards just as he's happy to start scaremongering threads based on the words of the owner of a talking terrier with a made up charity.

 

[zArk]

Pffft. I don't see why they would bother. They hardly need to discredit the fruitloops, they manage to do that quite effectively all by themselves.

Badger - has anyone at any of these meetings adequately answered or even raised the question about the train times?

the 7/7 report states, on page four, that;

07.40: The London King’s Cross train leaves Luton station.
08.23: The train arrives at King’s Cross, slightly late due to a delay further
up the line. The 4 are captured on CCTV at 08.26am

this email clearly states that there was no 07:40 train.

This discrepancy must be dealt with.

Either the report is lying or being lied to
or
Chris Hudson is lying or FinancialOutrage are lying or N Kollerstrom has lied.

It cannot be just rubbished because of;

1) the website that prints it
or
2) it doesnt fit with the official story

Has it actually been discredited with any facts?
i.e the ticket record kept by Luton Train Station with timedate stamp showing when the tickets were purchased by the 4 lads?
cctv on the platform at luton which confirm the lads getting on a 07.40am train?

Just something, anything.

 

[editor]

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.

They're cunts, plain and simple.

If you'll excuse my French.

 

[editor]

this email clearly states that there was no 07:40 train.

FFS: why can't you check the credibility of your fucking source yourself?

We've already discussed financialoutrage and noted his dishonest attempts to pass himself off as a charity, his wild, laughably vague and totally unsubstantiated claims about 'The Man' trying to bribe him and I've already spotted a dodgy-looking post on usenet where he appears to claim to be someone else.

Personally, I wouldn't believe a single word the clown says. How about you? Does he look like a credible source to you?

 

[laptop]

Really? Who by? Do tell.

The London Assembly report into emergency services response and communications.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/attackonlondon/story/0,,1790099,00.html

 

[Jazzz]

FFS: why can't you check the credibility of your fucking source yourself?

We've already discussed financialoutrage and noted his dishonest attempts to pass himself off as a charity, his wild, laughably vague and totally unsubstantiated claims about 'The Man' trying to bribe him and I've already spotted a dodgy-looking post on usenet where he appears to claim to be someone else.

Personally, I wouldn't believe a single word the clown says. How about you? Does he look like a credible source to you?

That email was to astro3, who I know personally and have no reason to doubt. He was the guy I went to Birmingham with, you know, to visit the hotel owner that didn't exist in the hotel that didn't exist with the Daily Jang article that didn't exist.

But it's good to check the facts for oneself, why not contact Chris Hudson at Thameslink if you doubt it?

If you like, I can ask astro3 to forward on the email to me to verify it.

 

[editor]

But it's good to check the facts for oneself, why not contact Chris Hudson at Thameslink if you doubt it?

Have you contacted him?

No idea what else you're blathering on about but it sure as hell doesn't relate to anything in my post.

Back on topic, do you think your lying mate with the made-up charity, talking terrier dog and PC with self downloading auto-written documents is a credible source or not?

Guardian story: http://www.guardian.co.uk/guardian_jobs_and_money/story/0,3605,1201683,00.html

He has also launched Financial Outrage, a Charity which will "raise public awareness" of money affairs and help "reduce unnecessary poverty caused by Massive Overcharging by stealth."
This may be laudable. Unfortunately, Financial Outrage is not a registered charity even if the website has a link to the Charity Commission. Stewart tells Capital Letters that he wants to raise money - he tells site readers to send in cheques and postal orders - to buy full page adverts in newspapers so he can publicise his mortgage thoughts.
He says he has the charity registration forms but has not filled them in yet. He says he will do this "within a couple of months" or when he finds a major sponsor.
The Charity Commission is not impressed. It says: "Financial Outrage is not a registered charity. We will be contacting the people responsible for organisation to find out why they are calling it a 'charity' and to ask about its activities.

 

[Jazzz]

That's how Jazzz operates. If he likes the sound of what someone's saying, all rationality and critical faculties disappear - he's that desperate to find an exciting conspiracy.

So he's happy to believe the words of untraceable 'experts' with no known history posting on untraceable bulletin boards just as he's happy to start scaremongering threads based on the words of the owner of a talking terrier with a made up charity.

'someone having a go at jazzz, sounds good, let's pitch in'.

You do realise Larry O'Hara is spreading paranoia about disinfo agents? David Shayler? Annie Machon? But why stop there - we could go on to me, BK, and why not Larry himself? And of course we all know about you editor.

 

[editor]

You do realise Larry O'Hara is spreading paranoia about disinfo agents? David Shayler? Annie Machon? But why stop there - we could go on to me, BK, and why not Larry himself? And of course we all know about you editor.

What do you think about your mate - you know, your big credible, number one source - still claiming that he's a registered charity on the front page of his remortgagenow.co.uk now?

Charity internet Site: www.financialoutrage .org.uk

Oh, and the difference between you and Larry is that he hasn't started an endless slew of mindbogglingly mindless, scaremongering threads about tosh like "mini nukes in Parliament" and 'false flag operations' authored by dodgy blokes with talking terriers.

 

[Jazzz]

Have you contacted him?

No idea what else you're blathering on about but it sure as hell doesn't relate to anything in my post.

Back on topic, do you think your lying mate with the made-up charity, talking terrier dog and PC with self downloading auto-written documents is a credible source or not?

Guardian story: http://www.guardian.co.uk/guardian_jobs_and_money/story/0,3605,1201683,00.html

His warnings are not based on anything that has to be taken on trust, it's information in the public domain. yes, calling his website a charity before it was registered was silly, I don't approve at all, but it's not something to wet your pants over (unless you are laptop). Neither is making an amateurish one-off post as another identity. Neither is having a talking terrier dog.

I know from astro3 that his email is genuine.

 

[editor]

yes, calling his website a charity before it was registered was silly, I don't approve at all, but it's not something to wet your pants over (unless you are laptop). Neither is making an amateurish one-off post as another identity.

I think 'dishonest' is the word you're looking for there - and he's still claiming to be a charity a year after he was exposed in a national newspaper.

So why do you believe such a liar?

 

[Jazzz]

What do you think about your mate - you know, your big credible, number one source - still claiming that he's a registered charity on the front page of his remortgagenow.co.uk now?

edited to add: HE'S NOT MY 'MATE' I have never met him.

I shall point out to him where it is and ask him to remove it.

Oh, and the difference between you and Larry is that he hasn't started an endless slew of mindbogglingly mindless, scaremongering threads about tosh like "mini nukes in Parliament" and 'false flag operations' authored by dodgy blokes with talking terriers.

Thank you for revealing that you pick sides in a discussion on a personal basis rather than the topic being discussed, that's what I was saying.

 

[editor]

I know from astro3 that his email is genuine.

That'll be the Astrology fan who bangs on about the "lunar month and node cycles in Stonehenge", yes?

 

[editor]

edited to add: HE'S NOT MY 'MATE' I have never met him.

You haven't been having cosy email chats then?

So, since you've discovered that he's still lying about his charitable status, do you still view him as a credible source?

 

[zArk]

FFS: why can't you check the credibility of your fucking source yourself?

We've already discussed financialoutrage and noted his dishonest attempts to pass himself off as a charity, his wild, laughably vague and totally unsubstantiated claims about 'The Man' trying to bribe him and I've already spotted a dodgy-looking post on usenet where he appears to claim to be someone else.

Personally, I wouldn't believe a single word the clown says. How about you? Does he look like a credible source to you?

So you are dismissing the email and dismissing its validity.

well thats pathetic.

You slag off conspiraloons or others who dont approach things the way you want and when confronted by information that states there was no 7.40am train-- you totally dismiss it.
Well, what do you expect from conspiraloons or people like me?
Should i just take your word for it?

give me a break.

 

[TAE]

Well I'm the one who found that web-site, quoted it in this thread, even defended the contents as properly sourced (has email address of sender) and had no reason to believe it to be false ... until some people on this board looked into the guy running "financial outrage" and found out that his honesty was questionable.

Now Jazz says he knows the guy who received this email. I'd be interested in seeing the full header of that email. You know: originating server, etc.

Then I might just ask the named sender if he did indeed send it with the given contents.

 

[Jazzz]

TAE, if you pm your email address, I will email astro3 and ask him to forward the email on to you.

 

[editor]

So you are dismissing the email and dismissing its validity.

well thats pathetic.

I asked you a simple question.

Does he look like a credible source to you?

 

[TAE]

TAE, if you pm your email address, I will email astro3 and ask him to forward the email on to you.

Forwarding the email won't give me the email header.

I'm talking about something like:

Received: from mail.bieberdorf.edu (mail.bieberdorf.edu [124.211.3.78]) by mailhost.immense-isp.com (8.8.5/8.7.2) with ESMTP id LAA20869 for <tmh@immense-isp.com>; Tue, 18 Mar 1997 14:39:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from alpha.bieberdorf.edu (alpha.bieberdorf.edu [124.211.3.11]) by mail.bieberdorf.edu (8.8.5) id 004A21; Tue, Mar 18 1997 14:36:17 -0800 (PST)
From: rth@bieberdorf.edu (R.T. Hood)
To: tmh@immense-isp.com
Date: Tue, Mar 18 1997 14:36:14 PST
Message-Id: <rth031897143614-00000298@mail.bieberdorf.edu>
X-Mailer: Loris v2.32
Subject: Lunch today?

You could just copy and paste that into this thread.

 

[Badger Kitten]

Gosh, did the bombers get the actual 7. 40 train - or did they get on a train that left for Kings Cross at 7.40am?

Hmmmm...is there a possibility that the Thameslink timetable is not representative of actual Thameslink train travel experience shockah?

Well bugger me with a chainsaw, in all my years of using Thameslink that has never happened before.

Any fule kno that all Thameslink's trains arrive precisely on time and depart precisely on time...surely...?


Let me fire up my secret weapon, which I shall call by its code name ''G**gle''. It will be a long, hard dedicated investigation, taking all of 2 minutes, but who knows if I can find any evidence to challenge this devastating hypothesis that the train was wierdly, oddly, late...

Trains are never late, especially not Thameslink. However, laughable as this theory is, I shall give it a whirl with an open mind...

oooh, hang on a moment....

Despite the improvements, an overwhelming 100% of passengers questioned in a Thameslink opinion survey in July 1999 said the service was worse than six months previously, a reflection perhaps of the chronic overcrowding on rush hour trains into London.

The company's reliability and punctuality is also on the slide. Figures collated by CRUCC suggested that in the year ending March 1999, there were 53% more delayed trains compared to the previous year and 4% more trains cancelled.

Oooopps...

.The report gave the Brighton to Bedford Thameslink service the worst ratings of all the lines in the South of England, with 60 per cent saying on board information was "bad".

..One in ten Thameslink trains was more than 15 minutes late arriving at its destination...Chairman of the Southern England Rail Passengers Committee Tim Nicholson said: "Thameslink has a long way to go to improve its arrival times."

Thameslink said its services had been hit by the work to bring the Eurostar service into a new international terminal at St Pancras.

Hummm...

Connex yesterday became the first private rail operator to be stripped of its franchise after being accused of financial mismanagement and poor service....

Connex South Eastern did not have the worst punctuality record in the latest SRA report. That distinction was held by Thameslink.

Well, blow me.

What do you think people? Have we compelling evidence that the bombers were never on a Thameslink train and so July 7th was undoubtedly a false flag evil pixie satanic owl hoax, or is there a faint chance that...

answers on a postcard.

 

[Prole]

BK said:

Gosh, did the bombers get the actual 7. 40 train - or did they get on a train that left for Kings Cross at 7.40am?

Hmmmm...is there a possibility that the Thameslink timetable is not representative of actual Thameslink train travel experience shockah?

Everyone, except you it seems, knows that the train times that are being discussed are the ACTUAL times that trains left Luton and arrived at KX and not the scheduled times according to the timetable.

You have been noticeably quiet on this fact, despite maintaining that they caught an earlier train or even a St Pancras Mainline train.

OTOH I believe it was you that left a comment on a blog stating 'I don't give a stuff how they got to KX'.

The 7.40 (which was actually the delayed 7.30 which left at 7.42) arrived at KX Thameslink at 8.39. Too late to board the underground trains that we have been told they boarded.

But then don't let little things like facts get in the way of a good story.

For those of us who believe in simple things like Truth and Justice, these facts are paramount.

 

[Blagsta]

Badger - has anyone at any of these meetings adequately answered or even raised the question about the train times?

the 7/7 report states, on page four, that;



this email clearly states that there was no 07:40 train.

Its already been established that that email is dubious to say the least. You're one of them who really needs to read this