The 7/7 Report
- Thread starter TAE
- Start date
editor said:
What host of imaging experts? Why were they not interviewed on TV when the report came out?
Why are the police talking about further prosecutions anyway as an excuse not to release the info that a public independent enquiry would need? These guys are supposed to have acted alone - the police said so - who's left to prosecute?
How many of the name-callers on this thread [including editor, who sees a conspiracy theory every time someone asks for an explanation of anything] actually bothered to write to their MP or even signed a petition to get a public independent enquiry?
Given that our government couldn't be trusted to tell you the right time, I don't understand why people are vilified for not immediately accepting the govt. version of events on 7/7? The public should know the full facts - then there would be no need for any more speculation on this subject.
editor
hiraethified
So you don't think it a little odd that you - someone who is hopelessly unknowledgeable about image manipulation and video editing - should somehow notice a supposed conspiracy-rumbling anomaly that far, far more qualified people have all managed to miss?zArk said:
And why do you continue to totally discount the informed opinions of posters here who have a vastly superior knowledge about video and image manipulation techniques, video compression and other image related issues?
editor said:
ahhh you know my theory about how and why intelligence services have evolved.
false flag operations conducted in order to secure the nation. This is key to understanding what occured on the 7th July 2005 in london.
The communications problems are being used to push through homeland security
drug cartels and criminal business people are helping to secure the nation
and finally where can we find this new form of terrorism emerging from -- CIA, Mafia (Irish, Italian, Jewish formed Cartels) , Military Intelligence, Anti-Communists, Contras, Mi6, Mi5 all working together.
editor
hiraethified
Sadly, your 'theory' is a laughable sack of ill-informed shite seeing as it starts with a laughably dumb claim about "7/7 Simulation exercise by VISOR/London Underground – ‘real’ attack on UK."zArk said:
Seeing as you're too busy cooking up bonkers theories to do any actual research, I suggest you read this and feel suitably stupid:
http://www.channel4.com/news/special-reports/special-reports-storypage.jsp?id=372
editor said:
I think you are waaaaaaaay outta your depth and havent fully appreciated what my theory is getting at.
You think that i am blaming Visor or something else like that -- you twit.
Ill-informed -- kiss my arse. I've spent 10 years studying and critically analysing sociology and cultural studies predominantly, focussing upon identity, agency and essential self. (granted not as long as many others-- but i am sure longer than you)
Who the fuck are you are say my theory is 'ill-informed'?
I suggest you go and study Capital, Psychoanalysis, Power, Control, Agency, value, morals and ethics and then argue against my theory with reason and logical.
A Dashing Blade
Takes horses to water but can't make donkeys drink
zArk said:
Well, that was a waste of taxpayers money wasn't it.
A Dashing Blade
Takes horses to water but can't make donkeys drink
zArk said:
Don't you read what people post here? E.g.
Bob_the_lost said:
Three of those seem, from an Occams Razor perspective, pretty valid (I'm not telling which three though).
Plesase, I need a laugh at the moment, what is your preferred theory about the "curb distortion"?
(note this is a direct, carefully phrased question)
A Dashing Blade said:
The distorted curb shows that there has been alteration to the photo which totally discredits the photo as 'evidence' that those 4 lads were actually at Luton station around 7.20 am on the morning of the 7th July 2005.
That is the only picture of Luton station 7th July with a time stamp.
How do we know that those 4 lads were actually there? The importance of them being there at Luton Station is paramount to connect them with the 'car full of explosives'.
The photo is fake and there is no other evidence proving that the 4 lads were there. No CCTV on the platform, no cctv inside the trainstation at the ticket stand or barriers like on the 28th.
It is clear the photo was produced to frame 4 lads for the attacks and claim suicide bombers.
Is it that fucking amazing?
The history of the 4 lads has been shown to be totally unrecognisable to the MO of terrorists and futhermore suicide bombers.
Unless there is solid proof that those lads did it, you are blaming innocent people for the mass murder.
You cannot defend the hypothesis produced of 4 suicide bombers if there isnt any proof but if you do, you are sick and twisted. I would even venture racist in that 4 lads who are Muslim and 'foreign looking' 'fit the bill', because when it boils down to the hard facts the only thing that holds the accusations together in the minds of the public is "they were muslims".
Laugh away you pathetic drone. Blame innocent people if you want, fuckhead.
zArk said:
FFS, Proles gone and had a sex change op...! Um, Mr "I'm Proles Loony Boyfriend" Zark, how do you explain the personal effects of the bombers & their dna right near the explosions... Placed there by black ops...?
Oh, and isn't the fact they lived in house were explosives were made a bit relevent...?
editor
hiraethified
That's all mighty relevant to 7/7 then.zArk said:
So what are your actual qualifications, in particular in the area of photo and video analysis (for this is the only so-called 'evidence' in regard to 7/7 that you've mustered up in over a year)?
You haven't started off too brightly though, claiming that paper document scanning software was somehow used to fake the pictures. You also claimed that the software was 'packaged' with Windows. Perhaps you should ask your 'essential self' how much more wrong can you get?
editor said:
Oh no, you had my answer and if you wish to discuss it in depth i am willing within another thread as it is does touch into 7/7 but not on the whole.
You have failed to discredit the curb and so have the rest of you. Stick to the curb because that is what is in question.
The photos validity is important if it is to be used as evidence.
A Dashing Blade said:
ROFL.You'd have thought he may have qualified by now as well wouldn't you? Should be a blinking well regarded professor of sociology by now shouldn't he?
Instead we've got our Zark still falling for any old rubbish he finds on websites, including providing links to ancient old obvious hoaxes like the "How to cook an egg with your mobile.' Oh yes, this Zark fella's a blinking genius: a veritable Sherlock Holmes when it comes to sniffing out honest leads and being discerning with his use of information. And now - despite some breathtakingly dumb assertions about Microsoft Paint and an obvious lack of any technical insight - Zark's made himself an expert on photo and footage manipulation. He's a convincing 'expert let me tell you, oh yes.
I'm beginning to think Zark's on a wind up. Surely someone can't really be this delusional, laughable and self-aggrandising can they?
editor
hiraethified
I don't have to "discredit the curb" - I've already offered my far-better-informed opinion on what could may cause any possible anomalies from video footage.zArk said:
My qualifications? Over ten years as a graphic professional with extensive experience of Photoshop and a comprehensive knowledge of photography. (Graphics, First Class BA Hons if anyone's interested.)
But seeing as you've decided to boast us about your own supposedly highly relevant expertise, "10 years studying and critically analysing sociology and cultural studies predominantly, focussing upon identity, agency and essential self," I'd like to know what actual qualifications you have in this area and what relevance it has to 7/7.
Or are we talking about you reading a few books at home?
editor said:
of, course.
You asked me to name the commander in charge or some theory.
So I did and now pricks are jumping all over my theory with crappy slurs and poor piss taking. So now i am wondering whether my 'commander' theory will be given the
"total bollocks, no proof, closing thread" treatment.
So I was just checking.
*** check out all the dicks jumping on that one post of mine. Having a great ole time.
editor said:
Entrapment, fuck you. I knew it.
BA hons Cultural and Film studies 2:1
MA Social and Cultural Critism and Theory pass
what the fuck has this got to do with 7/7 and that curb?
"I've already offered my far-better-informed opinion on what could may cause any possible anomalies from video footage"
you said 'cropping', then you said 'artefacts'
which artefacts could cause the distortion to that one curb in such a way?
editor said:
Its embarrassing to read really.
Editor please re-read my answer to your commander question.
Already gone over it.
I aint repeating it again and cant be bothered to link to it.
When you work out what i am going on about with regard to agency and identity, you might find it a very strong argument but until then i feel you will miss the point completely.
Why not go and ask Phil Dwyer what he thinks, at least then you will have some decent material to argue against me on the 'commander' issue.
Similar threads
- Locked
