The 7/7 Report

[Prole]

I'd say it rather objectionable to make wild claims on a public bulletin board and then refuse to release the evidence when asked politely again and again and again.

Seeing as you claim to be for 'truth and justice' what right have you got to withhold the truth from others and keep important facts secret?

What have you got to hide?

I refused to pass on the names of individuals other than myself to you.

 

[Prole]

You de-humanise the survivors.

You collude against furthering a public enquiry.

You sicken me.

When where who?

 

[Prole]

well duckie, i was aking the man saying I was ''unable to support my assertions'' ie. calling me a liar in a public forum to get in touch via PM.


You call it a threat.

It isn't.

I note he has still not got in touch.

I note that I am able to support my assertions and have done so poublicly, to a worldwise audience, and to the police.

I note that you are unable to support yours, and he, his.

As expected.

Tra la.


Next!

You call people liars, surely if you give it you should be able to take it?

 

[Badger Kitten]

Oh, that's a shame, because I thought you were citing them publicly as independent researchers.

Now they must remain anonymous?

Why did you raise them in the first place, Prole?

My independent researcher mate says you are an lying hypocritical wriggling arse. Can't reveal her name though.

 

[Badger Kitten]

Yes, I call Azrael a liar, for he cannot produce any evidence to support his claims. Release the evidence, darling, etc.

Meanwhile, I am provably NOT a liar. I got nothing to worry about about, dear. You do.

As to your claims - if you indeed even have got that far - release the evidence - or be branded a liar, a wriggler, and a hypocrite.

 

[laptop]

Is it time to call for a separate inquiry into the conspiraloons?

Release the evidence!

I hear John Cleese is charging a very modest daily rate these days. Perhaps he could be Chair.

There is one subject that shouldn't fall off its terms of reference, and it is this.

To each conspiraloon individually:

• Do you support the actions of conspiraloons in feeding off the grief of the bereaved parents of the suicide bombers to boost their delusional self-importance?
• Have you contact any bereaved parents yourself?
• How were their telephone numbers obtained?

 

[editor]

I refused to pass on the names of individuals other than myself to you.

But I thought they were "independent researchers"?
Wy would they hide themselves?

And who are you to stop the world knowing their findings?
What are you hiding?
What gives you the right to keep such vital information secret?
Why are you concealing the truth?
Why won't you release the evidence?

Is it, perhaps, because you're a squirming, lying, bullshitting piece of shit that hasn't the dignity or the honesty to admit that you've been caught out on a big fat lie and that these "independent" researchers do not, in fact, exist?

 

[Prole]

Yes, I call Azrael a liar, for he cannot produce any evidence to support his claims. Release the evidence, darling, etc.

Meanwhile, I am provably NOT a liar. I got nothing to worry about about, dear. You do.

As to your claims - if you indeed even have got that far - release the evidence - or be branded a liar, a wriggler, and a hypocrite.

Branded? Really BK.

I sometimes do not know who some of you people really think you are!

 

[cesare]

When where who?

Those answers are obvious to anyone reading this thread.

No pause to collect your thoughts and no time out to apologise to those who may have been offended by your campaign.

You don't care about the people affected by this.

Your agenda is the only one that counts and you'll tread on anyone in the way, including the survivors and bereaved.

 

[laptop]

You call people liars, surely if you give it you should be able to take it?

The difference, ducky, is evidence.

We've already established that you have no notion what that is, though.

And as for anonymous expert witnesses: when the Attorney-General sought to produce an anonymous expert witness I ended up, with colleagues, going to the House of Lords to defend the principle that this is a Bad Thing.

Bad Things and allegedly Bad People are all that prole does understand. So: next time the government brings an anonymous expert witness, will prole be applauding?

 

[Prole]

But I thought they were "independent researchers"?
Wy would they hide themselves?

And who are you to stop the world knowing their findings?
What are you hiding?
What gives you the right to keep such vital information secret?
Why are you concealing the truth?
Why won't you release the evidence?

Is it, perhaps, because you're a squirming, lying, bullshitting piece of shit that hasn't the dignity or the honesty to admit that you've been caught out on a big fat lie and that these "independent" researchers do not, in fact, exist?

Come on Ed you know it's just ordinary bods like me, no qualifications, individuals, who have a right to privacy.

Lies & liars that's all some of you can say.

I have emails from individuals who have checked that the train times given on the site that you despise are correct. I do not have permission to pass those names on to you. That neither makes me a liar a hypocrite or any other name you wish to label me with. Even if I produced them you'd claim they could be faked.

If you could turn this same level of verification and veracity on to the PTB that produced the official report, a report full of anomalies and inconsitencies, and demand that they release evidence to back up their claims, we'd actually make some progress.

Do you accept the report btw?

 

[Badger Kitten]

My magical independent reeasearcher friend, Pixie Fairy La la has independent evidence of how she and her unicorn pals placed the bombs under the trains using their magical invisible fairy spells

sadly though, Prole, I am unable to RELEASE THE EVIDENCE.

Still no attempt to get in contact from bigfish I see

 

[cesare]

Prole - you either haven't got the nouse to take on board information and use it strategically, or you don't want to and prefer winding up survivors/bereaved from the comfort of your keyboard.

 

[laptop]

it's just ordinary bods like me,

Acceptance that you are not "ordinary" is the first stage toward overcoming delusion and returning to a productive life, you know.

no qualifications

So the only reason you listen to them is that they agree with you?

This is one component of prole's failure to understand the concept "evidence": it is not just a statement, but a statment backed by - among other things - proof of the person making it having relevant experience. And that's without getting into equally important matters like proof of chain of custody.

And there the matter is closed. By prole's admission the "verification" is worthless.

 

[Prole]

Prole - you either haven't got the nouse to take on board information and use it strategically, or you don't want to and prefer winding up survivors/bereaved from the comfort of your keyboard.

For certain U75 is not a comfortable place to post. So much abuse is thrown at me here, and only here btw, is what I find interesting.

You see it is statements like that, that somehow I am winding up survivors & the bereaved, which is certainly not my intention, that I do not understand. I question the official report, i question the lack of evidence to support it, how can that wind anyone up?

I have only empathy & sympathy for the bereaved, injured & survivors. Surely we all benefit from finding out the truth and ensuring that justice is served?

I get on with very well with some survivors. Not all of them find me as difficult to deal with as BK does.

I find your comment about using information strategically rather bemusing, could you expand on this?

 

[laptop]

To each conspiraloon individually - that means you prole:

• Do you support the actions of conspiraloons in feeding off the grief of the bereaved parents of the suicide bombers to boost their delusional self-importance?
• Have you contacted any bereaved parents yourself?
• How were their telephone numbers obtained?

 

[Prole]

Those answers are obvious to anyone reading this thread.

No pause to collect your thoughts and no time out to apologise to those who may have been offended by your campaign.

You don't care about the people affected by this.

Your agenda is the only one that counts and you'll tread on anyone in the way, including the survivors and bereaved.

My agenda is truth and justice, which doesn't require that I tread on anyone. Would you like to back up that statement with some evidence? Or is evidence just something that is required from me?

 

[Badger Kitten]

I get on with very well with some survivors. Not all of them find me as difficult to deal with as BK does.

Prole, not one single survivor injured or no, or bereaved family has ever shown the slightest interest in you or your conspiraloon claims to my knowledge.

Not one. Funny that hey, as you claim to be doing it all for the victims?

I can however let you know what Mitch and Holly and several others have said about conspiracy theories. It is not favourable, to say the least.

I doubt very much you get on very well with survivors, I think you are lying again, personally.

 

[editor]

Come on Ed you know it's just ordinary bods like me, no qualifications, individuals, who have a right to privacy.

At last. You're admitting to your lies.

For several weeks you were quite emphatic in your claims that the emails had been "verified" by "independent researchers" to a level of proof high enough to be accepted as evidence for your theory.

And now it seems you're saying they're just a bunch of unqualified, know-nothing, totally biased fruitloons who don't know the first thing about verifying emails.

All of this now begs the question: why do you believe the improbable mutterings of totally unqualified people making outstanding claims without any credible proof or evidence?

Why do you refuse to apply the same level of "truth-seeking" vigour when it comes to people saying what you want to hear?

But seeing as you've finally admitted that you haven't the slightest shred of credible proof that the emails weren't forged/altered/changed, I assume you're now wisely abandoning this theory, yes?

 

[editor]

My agenda is truth and justice, which doesn't require that I tread on anyone. Would you like to back up that statement with some evidence? Or is evidence just something that is required from me?

Thing is, you've already proved yourself - beyond any doubt - to be a liar in this very thread with your fraudulent "verified by independent researchers" claim.

You've now admitted that they hadn't been properly 'verified', neither were the "researchers" even remotely 'independent'. That was all lies.

Shame on you.

 

[Badger Kitten]

Your agenda is to prove/infer/imply that 4 mass murderers did not kill 52 and injure 770, which makes you...[ insert word here] in my book.. I'll throw that one open to the floor.

 

[Badger Kitten]

A fruitbat, yesterday.

 

[laptop]

* Resists posting image of the epithet I have in mind *

 

[Badger Kitten]

An independent researcher verified the fruitbat charge BTW. Got their address and everything.

 

[jæd]

Come on Ed you know it's just ordinary bods like me, no qualifications, individuals, who have a right to privacy.

...

If you could turn this same level of verification and veracity on to the PTB that produced the official report, a report full of anomalies and inconsitencies, and demand that they release evidence to back up their claims, we'd actually make some progress.

Classic... So the ordinary bods know more about the events od 7/7 than the police and the security services.

 

[Prole]

At last. You're admitting to your lies.

For several weeks you were quite emphatic in your claims that the emails had been "verified" by "independent researchers" to a level of proof high enough to be accepted as evidence for your theory.

And now it seems you're saying they're just a bunch of unqualified, know-nothing, totally biased fruitloons who don't know the first thing about verifying emails.

All of this now begs the question: why do you believe the improbable mutterings of totally unqualified people making outstanding claims without any credible proof or evidence?

Why do you refuse to apply the same level of "truth-seeking" vigour when it comes to people saying what you want to hear?

But seeing as you've finally admitted that you haven't the slightest shred of credible proof that the emails weren't forged/altered/changed, I assume you're now wisely abandoning this theory, yes?

Sometimes I feel really sorry for you.

We have the emails from Thameslink, we have the data verified by Thameslink.

I am sure you would rather prove me wrong, and somehow claim that these emails are faked, than even dare call into question the official report.

Do you really think I care about your opinion of me, if I did I wouldn't bother sticking it out here.

Tell you what, why don't one of you contact Thameslink and ask them yourselves. Find out the actual times the trains ran on 7th July 2005 between Luton and KX. Do some research yourself, I am sure it's the only evidence you'd accept anyway. The email stating the actual times the trains ran was published on the J7 website and you refused to accept it.

On the other hand, Lindsay parked his car at about 5 am, which should mean there is approx 2 and a half hours of him captured on CCTV. At 6.49 the other 3 arrive and are captured on CCTV, therefore at least another 30 minutes of all 4 outside Luton. Then there are the CCTV cameras on Luton station and at KX. More CCTV that could be released to prove that they took the 7.40 and arrived at 8.23 before being seen on the concourse at 8.26 and 8.30. That's a lot of evidence to support the official report.

Do you accept the official report btw?

 

[jæd]

For certain U75 is not a comfortable place to post. So much abuse is thrown at me here, and only here btw, is what I find interesting.

Oh... Where else do you post...? I'm guessing its not a place where people get called up on being a fruitloop...

 

[Prole]

Your agenda is to prove/infer/imply that 4 mass murderers did not kill 52 and injure 770, which makes you...[ insert word here] in my book.. I'll throw that one open to the floor.

I do not think that justice has been served by just one image of the 4 outside Luton, 30 miles from London, serving as the only evidence in the public domain to support the official report.

Even Hasib Hussain's father told the BBC that he has seen no evidence that proves his son's guilt.

Don't you think it is in everyone's interest BK that the evidence is shown?

 

[editor]

We have the emails from Thameslink, we have the data verified by Thameslink.

Who's the "we" here?

And how have the emails been "verified" now that we've established you lied about these non existent "independent" researchers?

Why did you feel the need to lie for so long, by the way?

Do you accept the official report btw?

It certainly makes a lot more sense than the made-up, lying shit you've been coming up with.

 

[Prole]

Who's the "we" here?

And how have the emails been "verified" now that we've established you lied about these non existent "independent" researchers?

Why did you feel the need to lie for so long, by the way?
It certainly makes a lot more sense than the made-up, lying shit you've been coming up with.

Oh Ed nice try. I'm fed up of hearing this nonsense, aren't you fed up of saying it?

Check with Thameslink yourself. Then you'll know for certain.