The 7/7 Report
- Thread starter TAE
- Start date
sparticus said:
I have seen nothing that suggests that any substance other than TATP was involved. The extract contains nothing other than a "commonsense" conclusion from incomplete data.
Hint: TATP is a substance that has university chemists scratching their heads and saying "it does WHAT?"
Common sense does not apply when an entropic decomposition is causing stuff to move away from other stuff at hundreds of metres per second.
Bob_the_lost said:
Well sure if we are talking about positively identifying a face in a crowd I would agree witness statements are not 100% reliable, but whether the explosion was like a '1000 flash cameras' going off at once or not, I would say that's a lot harder to get wrong
http://rachelnorthlondon.blogspot.com/2006/06/dannys-story_26.html and
http://rachelnorthlondon.blogspot.com/2006/07/danny-biddle-update.html
editor said:
I support her the theory that we require a comprehensive independent inquiry that doesn't presume we already know the answers and doesn't presume it was 4 lads acting alone and doesn't presume that al qaeda or MI6 weren't involved.
I would like to see an inquiry where the links between Khan and Aswat and Khan and MI5/6 and Aswat and MI5/6 are explored
Do you believe the official narrative answers all the questions? If not, what questions do you have?
editor
hiraethified
And how the theories she's been talking about here? - you know, the ones I was clearly referring to.sparticus said:
She reckons 'the lads' are as innocent as new born lambs. Do you agree?
Is there any chance of getting a straight answer on this, or can I expect lengthy prolification on this?
Verb: Prolificate
1. To intentionally avoid answering direct questions
2. To go into an extended period of wilful obfuscation
3. To wriggle and writhe, change the subject and do just about anything rather than answer a question directly.
editor said:
Shouldn't that be prevaricate?
Isn't that what anti-conspiraloons also engage in on these boards when discussing these matters. Unfortunately too many people on all sides of the debate engage in prevarication.
Wouldn't it be good if those holding strong views about this were able to step back and say, "fair enough you may have a point there"?
Doesn't often happen.
For example, I can happily accept the high probability that the crisis management walk-through was carried out by a few executives wanting to make sure their company could handle a crisis in London, say a terrorist attack on the tube.
On this thread there has been evidence presented by people who have done these walk-throughs to say that it was likely to be an on paper exercise and that even the tv news broadcast video would likely have been presented to people unconnected with London Underground and likely in a corporate room.
Though this too is just conjecture I must admit, having read the posts, it does seem more likely than a false flag operation by who knows who. I'm sure we all would like to see an independent and public inquiry about 7/7 and the emergency response. If such a thing ever happened, though, I would still only be convinced beyond reasonable doubt if Peter Power was asked to explain exactly how extensive this walk-through drill was, where it was held and who was involved.
Prolificate
(v. t.) To make prolific; to fertilise; to impregnate.
Prevaricate
(v. i.) To shift or turn from one side to the other, from the direct course, or from truth; to speak with equivocation; to shuffle; to quibble; as, he prevaricates in his statement.
(v. i.) To collude, as where an informer colludes with the defendant, and makes a sham prosecution.
(v. i.) To undertake a thing falsely and deceitfully, with the purpose of defeating or destroying it.
(v. t.) To evade by a quibble; to transgress; to pervert.
(v. t.) To make prolific; to fertilise; to impregnate.
Prevaricate
(v. i.) To shift or turn from one side to the other, from the direct course, or from truth; to speak with equivocation; to shuffle; to quibble; as, he prevaricates in his statement.
(v. i.) To collude, as where an informer colludes with the defendant, and makes a sham prosecution.
(v. i.) To undertake a thing falsely and deceitfully, with the purpose of defeating or destroying it.
(v. t.) To evade by a quibble; to transgress; to pervert.
editor said:
If prole is indeed saying they are definately innocent as new born lambs then I disagree, but I don't recall that she has ever said that or indeed that she has ever offered any definitive alternative theory. So straight answer to a direct question: NO
However if she is saying 'the lads' guilt has yet to be established in a way that the general public can confirm for themselves then I agree with her. The authorities should address some of the legitimate questions she and others raise.
As an example I see no reason why the authorities would have a problem answering the question which train the bombers took from Luton. Surely there are witnesses and further CCTV footage that would establish this.
The narrative leaves many important questions hanging and presents an account that is challenged by evidence already in the public domain, for example the troubling questions of the connections between Khan, Aswat and British Intelligence.
Having answered your question, could you answer mine?
sparticus said:
editor
hiraethified
I don't believe any narrative can answer every conceivable question - especially the ones endlessly dreamt up by loons - but I'm reasonably satisfied that it was the four (ahem) "lads" wot done it.sparticus said:
But would I like a focused enquiry to investigate the failures of intelligence, the cock-ups and the (no doubt) arse-covering that has taken place both before and after the event?
Yep, just so long as it is firmly focused on productive areas and not wrecked by the sidetracking antics and paranoid agenda of fucking idiotic, obsessed loons, so I doubt very much if we're after the same thing.
PS What's your theory on the four bombers?
I don't have a definitive theory on the '4 bombers' since I believe there are a range of alternatives that any inquiry must consider and ultimately establish beyond all reasonable doubt. These range from
1) They were 4 'clean skin' suicide bombers who were 'self radicalised' and operating entirely independently using home made explosives
2) They were 4 suicide bombers being supported by an 'al qaeda' mastermind operating unknown to British Intelligence
3) They were 4 suicide bombers who were being supported by an 'al Q' mastermind (Aswat) who was actually a British double agent or an agent of rogue elements within British Intelligence or who was planning the bombings with the knowledge of (rogue elements' of) MI5/6 but who was unaware that British Intelligence was tracking of their plans
4) They were 4 bombers who had no intention of commiting suicide, but whose bombs were triggered remotely by agents unknown
5) They were taking part in what they believed to be a security exercise involving multiple bombings but were duped
6) They never made it to London, instead they were abducted by the pixies
Etc............
In short I don't prejudge these things, but I can see a whole raft of evidence that contradicts the first theory and which the authorities should explain
1) They were 4 'clean skin' suicide bombers who were 'self radicalised' and operating entirely independently using home made explosives
2) They were 4 suicide bombers being supported by an 'al qaeda' mastermind operating unknown to British Intelligence
3) They were 4 suicide bombers who were being supported by an 'al Q' mastermind (Aswat) who was actually a British double agent or an agent of rogue elements within British Intelligence or who was planning the bombings with the knowledge of (rogue elements' of) MI5/6 but who was unaware that British Intelligence was tracking of their plans
4) They were 4 bombers who had no intention of commiting suicide, but whose bombs were triggered remotely by agents unknown
5) They were taking part in what they believed to be a security exercise involving multiple bombings but were duped
6) They never made it to London, instead they were abducted by the pixies
Etc............
In short I don't prejudge these things, but I can see a whole raft of evidence that contradicts the first theory and which the authorities should explain
editor
hiraethified
Any credible evidence to back up this quite remarkable theory?sparticus said:
Any credible evidence to back up this quite remarkable theory?sparticus said:
Do you think that spinning out wild, fact-free theories like the above helps or hinders those looking for a serious enquiry?
sparticus said:
And what is this raft of evidence...? And if any of them touch on Prole-esque photoshopping of images or the disappearence of entire trains into the air, you *will* be called up on it. And most probably be called a loon-spudding fuckwit of the first order...!
Oh... And how come a random person on a internet web board can see all this but the UK security services can't...?
editor said:
theory
1. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
2. The branch of a science or art consisting of its explanatory statements, accepted principles, and methods of analysis, as opposed to practice: a fine musician who had never studied theory.
3. A set of theorems that constitute a systematic view of a branch of mathematics.
4. Abstract reasoning; speculation: a decision based on experience rather than theory.
5. A belief or principle that guides action or assists comprehension or judgment: staked out the house on the theory that criminals usually return to the scene of the crime.
6. An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.
A theory doesn't have to have facts to support it. Speculation can only be confirmed or rejected by evidence. If it is verified as true beyond reasonable doubt, then it becomes accepted fact.
Why would it not be helpful to ask these questions? Should everyone self-censor their theories then, for fear of being called a conspiracy nut? Yeah, that's what happens in mainstream journalism, which is why you don't need to instruct journalists to avoid asking difficult questions. They err on the side of caution through fear and thus avoid asking those questions anyway.
Are you suggesting that if these theories continue to be spread around it somehow stops us arriving at the truth? As I have said much of it is disnformation, especially on the web. But some theories are plausible, and my problem here is that whether a theory is plausible or wild, they all get treated the same, unless they start from the official line that the Government, Police and Intelligence services maintain.
I don't want to see an inquiry where certain questions are not asked because they are deemed by some to be wild speculation.
Why should my or anyone's curiosity about the world we live in and how it functions be stifled by other people's opinion of what constitutes a plausible theory? Who determines what contitutes a plausible theory anyway? You?
I don't accept any theory as fact. And until I see evidence my mind is not made up. Having a few key journalists take a few police statements and a few experts opinions and then spread around the mainstream media like fact that these four young Muslims are guilty of the bombings is the kind of lazy thinking that does the terrorists work for them.
This is what gets me about the anti-conspiraloons. You decry wild speculation but are quite willing to take speculation as fact if supported by statements, not made under oath or under any legal jurisdiction, by a handful of officials.
If you used the same template when questioning these experts then that would be fair and in fact would help the inquiry. But you don't. You accept theory as fact when it suits you and seem more concerned with branding any theory not on message as the workings of deranged minds, with insulting and offensive language to go with it..
Do you think it possible that the four Muslim boys were NOT members of Al-Q? Is it a plausible theory? Is it possible? Can it be disproved? How?
Do you know for a fact that Peter Power is entirely irrelevant to the 7/7 investigation? Do you know this as fact? Do you?
And, please, no prolification, I mean prevarication
editor
hiraethified
I'm getting really bored with your pointless parroting of dictionary definitions.squeegee said:
Of course, if you'd bothered to read my words instead of dumbly reaching for the dictionary, you would have absorbed the fact that I was referring to "wild, fact-free" theories, none of which matches the content of your patronising cut and paste.
I see no point whatsoever in trotting out wild theories that have no credible basis in fact, neither do I think there is any point pursuing those bonkers theories in an independent enquiry.
In fact I believe they actively damage the prospects of an independent enquiry.
They're as helpful as asking whether aliens were involved or not. The people positing these bonkers theories aren't even remotely interested in the truth - a fact borne out by their constant dismissal of anyone offering hard evidence or experience that doesn't fit their loopy ideas.squeegee said:
Who's saying they are? And what's this got to do with 'theories' based on unverified emails posted on dodgy sites with talking terriers?squeegee said:
Have you the slightest, teeniest weensiest remotest shred of credible evidence to suggest he's got anything to do with the events of 7/7?squeegee said:
Do you?
Anything at all?
Let's hear it.
Oh gawd.
Of course, the definition of a conspiraloon is someone who doesn't understand the concept "evidence", so this post is wasted on them.
- Official line is: Iraq had weapons of mass destruction - lies - overwhelming lack of evidence for it despite huge, expensive, assiduous search
- Official line is: it's been warm today: not lies (in London): overwhelming evidence it has been
- Official line is: four disaffected young men blew themselves up in London a year ago: 99.99% certain not lies - overwhelming evidence for it (despite attempts to produce the tiniest of nitpicks in an overwhelmingly coherent set of data)
- Official line is: water flouridation improves health: don't know, the evidence is still inconclusive either way
Of course, the definition of a conspiraloon is someone who doesn't understand the concept "evidence", so this post is wasted on them.
On the web. I decided to leave it in anyway, rather than amend it. I think the general point of what defines a theory still holds ie speculation.
But yeah, I could have found a better site with a better definition. Or amended it myself, or redefinied it. But I didn't see the need and I must admit part of me seems to get a thrill from giving prevaricators ammunition to go off on tangents and not address the real points.
But then at least I'm not making up definitions off the top of my head based on a word with an entirely different meaning, eh?
But yeah, I could have found a better site with a better definition. Or amended it myself, or redefinied it. But I didn't see the need and I must admit part of me seems to get a thrill from giving prevaricators ammunition to go off on tangents and not address the real points.
But then at least I'm not making up definitions off the top of my head based on a word with an entirely different meaning, eh?
editor said:
Of course it was entirely predictable that you would jump on the scientific definition of a theory, which is why I left the option in.
I do accept that the wilder theories do alot of damage to genuine investigation.
I'm not talking about aliens or illuminati or anything like that. But you will lump every theory under the same banner, won't you.
And as for Peter Power, why turn it around? Do you say it is fact that his client was in no way involved with the LU a public organisation that since PFI tenders out alot of it's business to private companies?
Pointless parroting?
One was in reference to a definition that you blatantly got wrong and have not even acknowledged you got wrong, and the second was to point out that a fact-free theory is an oxymoron since a theory can never be a fact. One leads to the other. They are not synonymous.
One was in reference to a definition that you blatantly got wrong and have not even acknowledged you got wrong, and the second was to point out that a fact-free theory is an oxymoron since a theory can never be a fact. One leads to the other. They are not synonymous.
Badger Kitten
oof
Oh, FFS. Grrr.laptop said:
The evidence is on this thread. It may be flimsy but it can form the basis for reasonable assumptions that of course need to be verified, by specific questioning of specific people in a public forum.
Ireally don't think all the conspiracy speculation is hindering a full independent investigation. In fact, I think it making it more likely.
Hence the continual attempt in the mainstream media to squash any difficult questions. The mass of disinformation, conspiracy theories, suspicions about Government involvement in everything from 911 to the Iraq and Afghan invasions to 7/7 is pushing us as a society to finally get a full independent inquiry.
The conspiracy theories can only be disproven with reasoned, dispassionate rebuttal. Any insults, prevarication etc only keeps it running and more and more people get to hear about it.
Badger Kitten
oof
There's enough difficulty getting them to answer sensible questions relating to what could be looked at in a proper independent inquiry, without introducing irrelevant conspiranioa that is totally off-piste, like the fact that a management training session was taking place somewhere in London, like it does most days, about disaster response, when that has been carefully explained to you to be of no importance. And you have been presented with evidence about it, Power has made a statement, Detective Boy has explained what went on, why are you still chuntering on about it? Because you have an emotional investment in there being some kind of sinsiter cover up involving false flags and what have you, as some kind of bizzarre article of faith. Well, get over it. Cock ups, probably, covering up the cock ups, almost certainly, politicisation of intelligence, yes, gangs of actors pretending to explode buses whilst Government henchmen offed innocent Muslim laddies, nope, *dur*
Anyway, check the Mirror tomorrow. Calls for inquiries gather apace.
Anyway, check the Mirror tomorrow. Calls for inquiries gather apace.
Similar threads
- Locked
