The 7/7 Report

[Prole]

Contact Details

Below is listed a wide variety of First Capital Connect and rail organisations contact details.

First Capital Connect Customer Relations
Tel: 0845 026 4700
E-mail: customer.relations.fcc@firstgroup.com
Fax: 0845 676 9904
Open 7 days a week, from 0700 to 2200, except Christmas Day.

First Capital Connect
Freepost ADM 3973
London
SW1A 1YP.

 

[KeyboardJockey]

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

If it is places like Prison Planet then Prole is probably feted as a hero there.

Trying to get the conspiraloons to accept that there may be another point of view from the one that they consider the truth is like trying to get a fundamentalist chiristan to see that the bible has contradictions.

I think that the C'loons NEED to be slagged off as it helps them build their own self image as 'truth seekers'. Without the slagging they are just preaching to the demented in their own little self contained ponds on the internet etc. Like rabid xtians etc they feel the need to evangelize people with their views and every challenge will be met with 'but you are just mainstream media consuming sheep' which is similar to a xtian saying 'but the devil has fooled you into taking the broad road with many people on that leads to hell' I'm not sure what can be done about them without hindering the need for sensible debate on many matters.

The problem is the more we say to them 'show us the evidence' and the more they stall the more they are encouraged in their lunacy.

I think the mods etc on here have been very tolerant of the conspiraloons - far more tolerant than probably many other sites.

I don't know what the policy on here is for people who come on here pushing religion down peoples throats but I would imagine that they would be banned if they were disturbing people and disrupting threads. As the conspiraloons are behaving in a very similar cultish evangelical way shouldn't they be treated ina similar manner? I'm not one to call for bans for particular points of view but the presence of the conspiraloons on threads such as these is very disruptive.

There should be a way to debate issues like the London Bombs and 11/09 which doesn't get hijacked by the lizard men.

Maybe a definition of conspiraloon that can be agreed up on so that when they turn up on here they can be challenged by the mods / editor a certan amount of times and if they persisit in their shit then be banned either temporarily or permanantly? I'm in two minds about such a policy as I wouldn't want to ban people with conspiraloon views but who are generally good posters on other sections of the boards but I feel that we need to deal with these disruptive parachute artists who jump into here and just stir up the mud.

 

[Prole]

If it is places like Prison Planet then Prole is probably feted as a hero there.

Trying to get the conspiraloons to accept that there may be another point of view from the one that they consider the truth is like trying to get a fundamentalist chiristan to see that the bible has contradictions.

I think that the C'loons NEED to be slagged off as it helps them build their own self image as 'truth seekers'. Without the slagging they are just preaching to the demented in their own little self contained ponds on the internet etc. Like rabid xtians etc they feel the need to evangelize people with their views and every challenge will be met with 'but you are just mainstream media consuming sheep' which is similar to a xtian saying 'but the devil has fooled you into taking the broad road with many people on that leads to hell' I'm not sure what can be done about them without hindering the need for sensible debate on many matters.

The problem is the more we say to them 'show us the evidence' and the more they stall the more they are encouraged in their lunacy.

I think the mods etc on here have been very tolerant of the conspiraloons - far more tolerant than probably many other sites.

I don't know what the policy on here is for people who come on here pushing religion down peoples throats but I would imagine that they would be banned if they were disturbing people and disrupting threads. As the conspiraloons are behaving in a very similar cultish evangelical way shouldn't they be treated ina similar manner? I'm not one to call for bans for particular points of view but the presence of the conspiraloons on threads such as these is very disruptive.

There should be a way to debate issues like the London Bombs and 11/09 which doesn't get hijacked by the lizard men.

Maybe a definition of conspiraloon that can be agreed up on so that when they turn up on here they can be challenged by the mods / editor a certan amount of times and if they persisit in their shit then be banned either temporarily or permanantly? I'm in two minds about such a policy as I wouldn't want to ban people with conspiraloon views but who are generally good posters on other sections of the boards but I feel that we need to deal with these disruptive parachute artists who jump into here and just stir up the mud.

Is this another call to have me banned? Won't it be a nice cosy middle-class place without he proles of this world! If I didn't 'stir up the mud' you could all go on happily wallowing in it.

 

[cesare]

She needs argument to define, delineate and reinforce what she's doing. Without an audience it would all turn to dust.

 

[KeyboardJockey]

Is this another call to have me banned? Won't it be a nice cosy middle-class place without he proles of this world! If I didn't 'stir up the mud' you could all go on happily wallowing in it.

I'm not cosy and I'm not middle class. I'm just interested in seeing intellegent debate not a facsimile of semi religious ranting.

Yeah maybe it would be good for the conspiraloons to be temporarily banned for a while.

Prole yourself and others of your ilk have been called very politely to supply credible links and information about a very very emotive subject and the conspiraloons have ducked out and resorted to personal abuse.

There are whole areas of the London Bombs that need to be debated such as the effect of Blaircunts middle east policy, relations with the muslim minority, why help took a long time to arrive and what can be done to prevent and or alieviate future events of this type.

These sort of debates cannot be had if the lizard men are wasting bandwidth with their shite.

Prole, try this site http://www.davidicke.com/index.php/
you might find your views DON'T get challenged there.

 

[laptop]

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

For fuck's sake.

The Independent reported that he had been telephoned by conspiracy theorists.

So once more, each conspiraloon individually - that means you prole:

• Do you support the actions of conspiraloons in calling the bereaved parents of the suicide bombers?
• Have you contacted any bereaved parents yourself?
• How were their telephone numbers obtained?

 

[editor]

Contact Details

You're making the claims. You back them up.

You've already been caught out lying, so I'll be fucked if I'm going to waste any more of my time chasing your fantasies.

 

[cesare]

Don't ban her. Leave her here muttering rabidly to herself in silence.

 

[KeyboardJockey]

Don't ban her. Leave her here muttering rabidly to herself in silence.

If we don't feed the conspiraloons then that may happen - even though I'm as guilty as others of jumping in to challenge when I see their shite.

 

[cesare]

If we don't feed the conspiraloons then that may happen - even though I'm as guilty as others of jumping in to challenge when I see their shite.

I've given in to the urge to challenge it today as well. I'll leave it now though, how many times can the same argument go round and round in ever decreasing circles.

 

[KeyboardJockey]

I've given in to the urge to challenge it today as well. I'll leave it now though, how many times can the same argument go round and round in ever decreasing circles.

As I said earlier arguing sensibily with a demented conspiraloon is like trying to argue sensibly with a demented street evangelist.

 

[Prole]

I'm not cosy and I'm not middle class. I'm just interested in seeing intellegent debate not a facsimile of semi religious ranting.

Yeah maybe it would be good for the conspiraloons to be temporarily banned for a while.

Prole yourself and others of your ilk have been called very politely to supply credible links and information about a very very emotive subject and the conspiraloons have ducked out and resorted to personal abuse.

There are whole areas of the London Bombs that need to be debated such as the effect of Blaircunts middle east policy, relations with the muslim minority, why help took a long time to arrive and what can be done to prevent and or alieviate future events of this type.

These sort of debates cannot be had if the lizard men are wasting bandwidth with their shite.

Prole, try this site http://www.davidicke.com/index.php/
you might find your views DON'T get challenged there.

Evidence that I have ever resorted to personal abuse? Is the term conspiraloon itself abusive?

Implying that I believe in lizards is nonsense, as are links to davidicke. Don't you see that these are your own prejudices and biases just projected onto me. None of these accusations actually has anything to do with me.

Evidence please for all the above becuase I am getting sick of these evidence free accusations that are bandied around purporting to be facts. (Now what does that remind me of?)

 

[cesare]

As I said earlier arguing sensibily with a demented conspiraloon is like trying to argue sensibly with a demented street evangelist.

They can't engage on that level. Just another form of fundamentalism.

 

[laptop]

But I fear that they're so deluded about the nature of evidence that if unchallenged they'd be linking to their postings here as though they substantiated the claims in them.

After all, Mr Talking Terrier has been caught out citing one of his own pseudonyms...

 

[Prole]

For fuck's sake.

The Independent reported that he had been telephoned by conspiracy theorists.

So once more, each conspiraloon individually - that means you prole:

• Do you support the actions of conspiraloons in calling the bereaved parents of the suicide bombers?
• Have you contacted any bereaved parents yourself?
• How were their telephone numbers obtained?

Only in your own mind does it mean me. I will not answer any more posts where I am referred to by the abusive 'conspiraloon' tag. Enoughs enough.

 

[laptop]

So you're refusing to say, prole, whether you support people calling up the bereaved parents?

Or whether you have done so yourself?

 

[cesare]

But I fear that they're so deluded about the nature of evidence that if unchallenged they'd be linking to their postings here as though they substantiated the claims in them.

After all, Mr Talking Terrier has been caught out citing one of his own pseudonyms...

That's a fair point. But it doesn't take much to break the links without engaging.

<link to hostile/conspiraloon site broken>

 

[laptop]

That's a fair point. But it doesn't take much to break the links without engaging.

<link to hostile/conspiraloon site broken>

You know how to track down references on conspiraloon sites and break links from there to urban75?

It's the damage to urban75 that counts.

 

[Prole]

If anybody is interested in checking out the email from Chris Hudson of Thameslink confirming the actual train times from Luton to KX:

http://www.julyseventh.co.uk/july-7-0740-cancellation-confirmation.html

 

[cesare]

You know how to track down references on conspiraloon sites and break links from there to urban75?

It's the damage to urban75 that counts.

Agreed - but they'll do that anyway. And they'll do it more if they think there's an active platform here.

 

[Prole]

Agreed - but they'll do that anyway. And they'll do it more if they think there's an active platform here.

I've always maintained that you can choose to ignore me or ban me.

What part of 'they' am I btw?

 

[laptop]

Agreed - but they'll do that anyway. And they'll do it more if they think there's an active platform here.

I really don't think they're going to be linking to this thread, for example, as though it offered support for their claims.

But they're under the delusion that "evidence" is the same thing as "a text published somewhere by persons unknown".

That means if there were threads here full of conspiraloons congratulating each other, they'd be citing - linking to - urban75 as if it were a source that backed them up.

 

[laptop]

So you're refusing to say, prole, whether you support people calling up the bereaved parents?

Or whether you have done so yourself?

 

[cesare]

I really don't think they're going to be linking to this thread, for example, as though it offered support for their claims.

But they're under the delusion that "evidence" is the same thing as "a text published somewhere by persons unknown".

That means if there were threads here full of conspiraloons congratulating each other, they'd be citing - linking to - urban75 as if it were a source that backed them up.

Talking to them doesn't seem to work as evidenced by this thread (amongst many). Banning is a no-platform approach which is self defeating. Ignoring and breaking links is a halfway house. Taking the piss relentlessly might work but involves more effort than gain.

 

[laptop]

Talking to them doesn't seem to work...

Oh, I don't expect to change their minds.

There's some small hope that they might be pushed toward seeking proper medication.

The point I've been trying to make is that I'd rather urban75 published to the world examples of how easily their so-called arguments are demolished, than that it offered them a space to promote them. So arguing or banning are the only options.

 

[cesare]

Oh, I don't expect to change their minds.

There's some small hope that they might be pushed toward seeking proper medication.

The point I've been trying to make is that I'd rather urban75 published to the world examples of how easily their so-called arguments are demolished, than that it offered them a space to promote them. So arguing or banning are the only options.

How many times does urban75 need to demolish the same argument over and over? There's nothing new in what they're saying. Perhaps a solution would be to have a mod on conspiraloon duty - conspiraloon posts variation on conspiratheory x, mod retorts with stock retort y. It'll end up that way in the end, but with far fewer pages and less emotion.

 

[editor]

Only in your own mind does it mean me. I will not answer any more posts where I am referred to by the abusive 'conspiraloon' tag. Enoughs enough.

Allow me to reword it:

* Do you support the actions of self-declasred "truth seekers" in calling the bereaved parents of the suicide bombers?
* Have you contacted any bereaved parents yourself?
* How were their telephone numbers obtained?

 

[laptop]

Perhaps a solution would be to have a mod on conspiraloon duty

Not sure there'd be many volunteers to do that for a duty.

I've been thinking about a bot

E2A: This mathematician did some of the groundwork for such a bot

 

[editor]

If anybody is interested in checking out the email from Chris Hudson of Thameslink confirming the actual train times from Luton to KX:

Now that you've admitted that your "independent researchers" with the expertise to meaningfully verify the material was one big fat lie, why should anyone take material posted up on a dodgy site at face value?

 

[editor]

Talking of lies and liars, why is your site claiming that Nick Kollerstrom is an "independent public researcher" when he clearly is nothing of the sort?

He's heavily involved with both your barking campaign and the London 911 Sceptics and is credited for the 'joint research' of the entire train timetable piece!

So how the fuck does that make him "independent"?

Fabulous to note who his fellow researcher was on this article - none other than the UFO-linking bloke with the fake charity and the talking terrier, Mr FinancialOutrage!

What do you think about Nick's fawning astrological waffling about "Jupiter Cycles of Princess Di," by the way?
http://www.skyscript.co.uk/diana2.html