The 7/7 Report
- Thread starter TAE
- Start date
editor
hiraethified
I want to know what basis you have for accepting that the emails are real, seeing as you put such huge significance on them.Prole said:
So far I've only seen them referenced by a UFO-loving, fruitloop-a-loon with a talking terrier and a fraudulent charity, so I'd say that the onus is on you to produce a credible level of proof here.
And that means saying exactly who 'verified' them, what methods they employed and how qualified they were in IT.
Now can you do that or are you going to continue wriggling, squirming, obfuscating and doing just about anything than offering a straight answer to a simple and highly relevant set of questions?
The way you're going on, anyone would think you've got something to hide.
Bob_the_lost
Elsewhere
So you can't answer the points BK made then.Prole said:
Unsurprisingly, we arrive at the conclusion that prole has no concept of the meaning of the word "evidence" and therefore simply doesn't understand editor's question.
The last failure-to-reply indicates that the "email" is a magic talisman. Simply showing it to you should convince you that she's sane - unless, of course, you're in the pay of the lizards.
Either that, or she's a lying bastard.
The last failure-to-reply indicates that the "email" is a magic talisman. Simply showing it to you should convince you that she's sane - unless, of course, you're in the pay of the lizards.
Either that, or she's a lying bastard.
Interesting concept, evidence. Need I say it, just one cctv image of 4 young men, contrasted to the 28/6, outsiude Luton, not even in London, and that is all the proof we need to conclude their guilt? It is interesting how you demand evidence and answers from me, surely you should be making these demands of the PTB.laptop said:
Not sure how to answer this one, if I follow your logic, does that mean you think you're communicating with either a dead person or an alien?laptop said:
As a person of and in the world, I have no magic talismans, in fact once the evidence is released and I can make up my own mind, then that's exactly what I will do.
A Dashing Blade
Takes horses to water but can't make donkeys drink
Prole
I'd really appreciate it if you would answer Badger Kittens questions (post 1735).
No wriggling out, no "if you look thruogh my post . . . " blah blah, the questions seem quite straightforward to me (so no "they may seem straightforward to you Dashing but . . . ).
I'd really appreciate it if you would answer Badger Kittens questions (post 1735).
No wriggling out, no "if you look thruogh my post . . . " blah blah, the questions seem quite straightforward to me (so no "they may seem straightforward to you Dashing but . . . ).
Badger Kitten
oof
once more for Prole...
Here are the questions again.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As you can see they are not personal.
1. Why is no-one who was directly involved with the attacks welcoming your site/campaign/theories? Do you not think that anyone calling for a public inquiry, which includes survivors and victims would welcome your efforts - and yet they do not. Could this be because they think you are wrong?
2. Why is the Guardian article laughing at you? Why, having been presented with these ''anomalies'' by you, does this journalist not give credence to the idea that you might be right? Why does he instead talk about ''canards''?
3. Why, in the face of informed evidence from someone who actually does what Power does ( Detective Boy) do you continue to struggle with the idea that you may have got it wrong in considering 'the Power interview' to be an issue?
4. Why are you so insistent that muddled reporting means the bombers were not on the train? For example, having been given the hypothesis that they got the delayed 7.21 train which left c. 7.40am, you still refuse to engage with this. Why?
5. Why do you publish on your site the hypothesis that the bombers were innocent, and publish biographies of them with the clear indication of making them appear to be innocent men?
The four men were chosen or lured in to be patsies in a classic 'false flag operation' or frame-up by a network involved with one or more of the intelligence services.
The four men thought they were going to be delivering drugs or money to various locations round London, but were deceived, set up and murdered along with the others on their tubes and bus when their back packs exploded.
6. Why do you offer the hypothesis that the original power surges story was correct? When it has been comprehensively disproved?
The original story of power surges which MetroNet reported at the time of the incidents was correct and the exploding bus in Tavistock Square was related to a long-planned anti-terror 'exercise'.
Why would the train operating companies running the London Underground lie about the source of the explosions on the trains?
7. Why do you wilfully ignore the testimony of police officers, forensic experts, witnesses, injuries, survivors in favour of selective reporting and obsessive sifting of every report from a rolling multi-sourced news investiagtion in favour of anomalies which you immediately leap upon as being evidence of a huge cover-up or conspiracy? Even when given clear and intelligent evidence from experts to the contrary?
8. Will you entertain this idea... the bombers DID get a train to Kings Cross, and they suicide-bombed 3 trains and a bus an hour later when the Northern line closed, messing up the original plan. They carried the bombs in rucksacks which they detonated themselves, on or near to the floor of the trains/bus. The bombers were radiclaised extremists led by Khan, who believed they were ''soldiers'' in a ''war'' and were motivated by anger at Britain's foireign policy which they saw as unjust and oppressive to the global family of Muslims, in accordance with al-Qaeda-inspired ideaology.
Still waiting.
Here are the questions again.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As you can see they are not personal.
1. Why is no-one who was directly involved with the attacks welcoming your site/campaign/theories? Do you not think that anyone calling for a public inquiry, which includes survivors and victims would welcome your efforts - and yet they do not. Could this be because they think you are wrong?
2. Why is the Guardian article laughing at you? Why, having been presented with these ''anomalies'' by you, does this journalist not give credence to the idea that you might be right? Why does he instead talk about ''canards''?
3. Why, in the face of informed evidence from someone who actually does what Power does ( Detective Boy) do you continue to struggle with the idea that you may have got it wrong in considering 'the Power interview' to be an issue?
4. Why are you so insistent that muddled reporting means the bombers were not on the train? For example, having been given the hypothesis that they got the delayed 7.21 train which left c. 7.40am, you still refuse to engage with this. Why?
5. Why do you publish on your site the hypothesis that the bombers were innocent, and publish biographies of them with the clear indication of making them appear to be innocent men?
The four men were chosen or lured in to be patsies in a classic 'false flag operation' or frame-up by a network involved with one or more of the intelligence services.
The four men thought they were going to be delivering drugs or money to various locations round London, but were deceived, set up and murdered along with the others on their tubes and bus when their back packs exploded.
6. Why do you offer the hypothesis that the original power surges story was correct? When it has been comprehensively disproved?
The original story of power surges which MetroNet reported at the time of the incidents was correct and the exploding bus in Tavistock Square was related to a long-planned anti-terror 'exercise'.
Why would the train operating companies running the London Underground lie about the source of the explosions on the trains?
7. Why do you wilfully ignore the testimony of police officers, forensic experts, witnesses, injuries, survivors in favour of selective reporting and obsessive sifting of every report from a rolling multi-sourced news investiagtion in favour of anomalies which you immediately leap upon as being evidence of a huge cover-up or conspiracy? Even when given clear and intelligent evidence from experts to the contrary?
8. Will you entertain this idea... the bombers DID get a train to Kings Cross, and they suicide-bombed 3 trains and a bus an hour later when the Northern line closed, messing up the original plan. They carried the bombs in rucksacks which they detonated themselves, on or near to the floor of the trains/bus. The bombers were radiclaised extremists led by Khan, who believed they were ''soldiers'' in a ''war'' and were motivated by anger at Britain's foireign policy which they saw as unjust and oppressive to the global family of Muslims, in accordance with al-Qaeda-inspired ideaology.
Still waiting.
editor
hiraethified
Funny how a self-declared 'truth seeker' like yourself is unable to answer a simple question, despite being repeatedly asked again and again and again.Prole said:
Show me the evidence please and stop the pitiful wriggling, you fucking hypocrite.
Who verified these emails? How? And what were their technical qualifications?
PS Posting up a slab of text is not proof, as anyone could alter the headers/content. I want to see how the email was "independely" verified please.
You'd have to be incredibly stupid to think mine were real because I don't charge the ridiculous money that organisations like Visor do. But if I had the funding to do it, I would put together absolutely convincing "Newsflash" type broadcasts, even using real newsreaders if the budget ran that far (and I have seen a couple done to that level).Prole said:
Peter Power got a little carried away and saw an opportunity to promote his company on 7 July. He obviously didn't think through the implications of what he said, and the words he used. Mind you, he probably didn't realise there would be so many conspiraloons hanging on every syllable.Prole said:
He regreted it immediately. He gave clarification interviews within hours / days. But his original words are still there on tape and no-one bothers listening to the subsequent stuff.
He was niave. He has done his reputation no good at all within the crisis management business. I am not the only one to believe that his comments (and his failure to realise the increduility in the interviewers voice in the very first interview for what it was) demonstrated a lack of judgment.
The Independent on Sunday obviously feels there are some big holes and questions to ask of the official narrative (See leader article
In particular it refers to Nafeez Ahmed's work, the evidence against the explosives being homemade TATP and the connections between Khan and Haroon Rashid Aswat (alleged 7/7 mastermind and MI6 asset (here and here
Selected paragraphs...........
There are some bewildering gaps in the Whitehall account of 7/7; even the nature of the explosives used in the bombing is unclear. The report says only that "it appears" they were home-made, although there is plenty of evidence that the bombs were powered by at least some commercial or military explosive.
"Forensic science ... tends to produce unambiguous answers within a matter of hours and days," Mr Ahmed says. "The idea that continuous examination over many months has failed to finish the job beggars belief."
Furthermore, the substance that the bombers were said to have mixed from household products - TATP - produces neither flame nor heat upon detonation. But eyewitnesses reported both.
Then there is the curious official reticence over proven links between the bombers' ringleader, Mohammed Siddique Khan, and other terrorists, including senior al-Qa'ida lieutenants abroad. Officially, it is admitted only that Khan was on the "periphery" of another terror plot currently the subject of court proceedings. In fact, Khan had been placed on a watchlist in 2004. MI5 had opened a file on him. Mr Ahmed claims the three other bombers were all also known to MI5.
The official narrative baldly states: "The extent to which others may have been involved in indoctrinating the group, have known what they were planning, or been involved in the planning, is unknown at this stage."
The ISC report goes a little further, admitting that Khan and Tanweer probably received "some form of operational training" in Pakistan in the months before the attacks. But Mr Ahmed is amazed that this ignores the telephone traffic between Khan and, among others, Haroon Rashid Aswat, an al-Qa'ida lieutenant previously based in Pakistan, believed by US investigators to be the mastermind of 7/7.
In particular it refers to Nafeez Ahmed's work, the evidence against the explosives being homemade TATP and the connections between Khan and Haroon Rashid Aswat (alleged 7/7 mastermind and MI6 asset (here and here
Selected paragraphs...........
There are some bewildering gaps in the Whitehall account of 7/7; even the nature of the explosives used in the bombing is unclear. The report says only that "it appears" they were home-made, although there is plenty of evidence that the bombs were powered by at least some commercial or military explosive.
"Forensic science ... tends to produce unambiguous answers within a matter of hours and days," Mr Ahmed says. "The idea that continuous examination over many months has failed to finish the job beggars belief."
Furthermore, the substance that the bombers were said to have mixed from household products - TATP - produces neither flame nor heat upon detonation. But eyewitnesses reported both.
Then there is the curious official reticence over proven links between the bombers' ringleader, Mohammed Siddique Khan, and other terrorists, including senior al-Qa'ida lieutenants abroad. Officially, it is admitted only that Khan was on the "periphery" of another terror plot currently the subject of court proceedings. In fact, Khan had been placed on a watchlist in 2004. MI5 had opened a file on him. Mr Ahmed claims the three other bombers were all also known to MI5.
The official narrative baldly states: "The extent to which others may have been involved in indoctrinating the group, have known what they were planning, or been involved in the planning, is unknown at this stage."
The ISC report goes a little further, admitting that Khan and Tanweer probably received "some form of operational training" in Pakistan in the months before the attacks. But Mr Ahmed is amazed that this ignores the telephone traffic between Khan and, among others, Haroon Rashid Aswat, an al-Qa'ida lieutenant previously based in Pakistan, believed by US investigators to be the mastermind of 7/7.
Bob_the_lost
Elsewhere
That article makes it seem that the book does not doubt anything that happened on the day, but the background setting ie. the involvement or lack of it by Al quaida. Not the events on the day, not the people involved, not that the four were bombers themselves. A bit of face saving and arsecovering, not the sort of fruitloopery some might attribute to it. Which is possible, but very different to the sort of public enquiry that Prole et al are demanding.
Sparticus, can you please, please use the quote functions? It seems to be a failing of several posters and it makes reading your posts a nightmare.
Sparticus, can you please, please use the quote functions? It seems to be a failing of several posters and it makes reading your posts a nightmare.
Bob_the_lost said:
No I would say Prole et al and me want similar sorts of inquiry: comprehensive, transparent and rigorously independent from Blair and the intelligence services.
And I don't think that the evidence pointing towards military/commercial explosives or the connections between Khan and Aswat are trivial issues. Given the accusations of John Loftus that Aswat was (1) the July 7 'mastermind' and (2) an MI6 asset and that John Loftus isn't just any body, I would say that leaves the official narrative with some fairly fundamental questions to answer and opens up the possibility that (rogue elements of) British Intelligence services were aware of and/or involved in the bombings.
It is also interesting that the Independent should deem Nafeez Ahmed's work worthy of repeating (including referring to it in a leader article), since Nafeez was amongst the first to catelogue the US authorities' prior knowledge of 9/11
Bob_the_lost said:
I'll try and learn
Bob_the_lost
Elsewhere
No, Prole wants to see detailed shots of the event and the bombers en route. Prole wants to see Peter Powers interviewed.sparticus said:
The independant article does not dispute ANYTHING that occured on the day from the report, not a single action was questioned. Everything refered to is based upon the background of the bombers.
They don't like the lack of information given, but it does not mention the possible reasons for doing so. If it can be made in one bath tub it can be made in another.
I would say that questioning the nature of the explosive used is fundamentally challenging the official narrative of events on the day. Of course the narrative covers its arse by saying that it merely 'appears' that homemade explosives were used.
The fact that numerous tube survivor witnesses describe a huge bright flash coming towards them undermines the theory that these were homemade TATP bombs
Out of interest and apologies if you have answered this before but did you see a huge flash Badger Kitten?
The fact that numerous tube survivor witnesses describe a huge bright flash coming towards them undermines the theory that these were homemade TATP bombs
Out of interest and apologies if you have answered this before but did you see a huge flash Badger Kitten?
Bob_the_lost
Elsewhere
Eye witnesses are crap.sparticus said:
By the way an expanding bright flash (ie fireball) rules out HE, you don't get a flash with that, just a shockwave of dust. It's nothing like the movies. Improvised is far more likely to use a chemical that combusts rather than exploding. You can either trust me on this one or go to google to find out that i'm right.
No, you're yet to convince me that the nature of the explosive is of any real merit. Definitly not worth wasting thousands if not millions on an inquiry.
Similar threads
- Locked
