The 7/7 Report

[Prole]

Wow did I get that wrong I was certain that you were a young firebrand who had been force fed propaganda. If you don't mind me asking why is this so important to you? Are you into conspiracy theories in general?

Perhaps those people who want me to piss off could just ignore me posting this, just pretend I'm not here!
What's important is the truth. I don't care for conspiracies or theories, just facts. I like to make up my own mind. The thought that I can just be shown a couple of 'dots' from which I must draw the picture that they want me to fills me with revulsion.
We must always ask questions, especially in what I see as the present dark-ages, where we could be facing a nuclear attack on Iran and other unspeakable acts.

 

[Jazzz]

Well said Prole. Those people who think the evil, murderous regime that brought us non-existent WMD and for who we know now would have initiated the Iraq war by downing one of their own planes in UN colours and pretending it was the Iraqis had it been necessary... those who think that they would stop at 9/11 or indeed 7/7 because it would involve murdering their 'own' should think again - the people that organise this have not a shred of human empathy.

 

[pk]

Oh please... I was wondering how long before our resident David Icke supporter arrived...

Still - if the conspiranoids remain unbanned... what do you expect?

 

[Jazzz]

Oh please... I was wondering how long before our resident David Icke supporter arrived...

Still - if the conspiranoids remain unbanned... what do you expect?

And this from a poster that thinks 9/11 is fishy as hell. Hypocrite

 

[pk]

And this from a poster that thinks 9/11 is fishy as hell. Hypocrite

9/11 is not 7/7 - and I certainly haven't shared my opinions with you.

I definitely don't subscribe to any of your oddball beliefs, Jazzzbot.

 

[laptop]

Full moon:

13 May 2006 06:53:34

Don't believe anything anyone says about its influence, of course

 

[Jazzz]

<double post>

 

[Jazzz]

9/11 is not 7/7 - and I certainly haven't shared my opinions with you.

I definitely don't subscribe to any of your oddball beliefs, Jazzzbot.

You shared them with me and everyone else on the forum in a 9/11 thread not too long ago. Unless I am much mistaken you voiced significant doubts about the official story.

You have no trouble holding that position and attacking 'conspiraloons' at the same time because you are a hypocrite. I stand up for what I believe in whether popular or not.

 

[editor]

I stand up for what I believe in whether popular or not.

Unless you're insisting that 'poor old' child murdering, mass killer scumbag Ian Huntley was as pure as the freshly driven snow and framed in a bizarre 9/11-related plot, of course.
Or that Joe Vialls was a credible 'investigator.'

Or that the 9/11 planes 'didn't exist' etc etc etc...

 

[Backatcha Bandit]

All these wankers hopping up and down shouting 'conspiraloon' crack me up.

Don't worry, Prole. It's the same wankers who called me similar names for pointing out that the 'Thames Valley Police investigation into Dr. David Kelly's death' began before the poor bastard even left his house.

Go on - somebody ask me for the 'Primary Source' on that.

In my time in this particular corner of the interweb, I've been derided as 'a conspiracy theorist' for my views regarding 'Peak Oil' (now accepted in the mainstream as conventional wisdom), pointing out certain facts regarding the ease with which commercial passenger aircraft can be - and routinely are - controlled by people other than thier pilots, discussing monetary reform and currently for discussing Iranian plans to set up an Oil Bourse trading in Euros.

Well done for resisting the incessant demands that you provide a watertight alternative narrative to the munce we're being spoon-fed before you dare to question the inconsistancies and contradictions in the 'official' narrative.

Were you to comply with these demands for speculation, they'd be jumping up and down pointing out that it was speculation.

As I've pointed out before, with such willingness to deride anyone merely questioning the inconsistancies in the official narrative as 'conspiraloon', there is simply no need for censorship.

 

[editor]

In my time in this particular corner of the interweb, I've been derided as 'a conspiracy theorist' for my views regarding 'Peak Oil' (now accepted in the mainstream as conventional wisdom), pointing out certain facts regarding the ease with which commercial passenger aircraft can be - and routinely are - controlled by people other than thier pilots, discussing monetary reform and currently for discussing Iranian plans to set up an Oil Bourse trading in Euros.

Could I see some examples of each of those threads, please?

PS Could you give an example where anyone's asked for a 'watertight' alternative 7/7 scenario too?

I don't recall seeing that, but I do recall people asking for a credible alternative, which seems a reasonable arguing point considering the circumstances.

 

[Backatcha Bandit]

Could I see some examples of each of those threads, please?

You could had you not 'binned' most of them.

I do recall people asking for a credible alternative, which seems a reasonable arguing point considering the circumstances.

If a person is asking a question relating to a particular narrative, incessant demands for an 'alternative' - credible, watertight or otherwise - are demands for speculation.

When such demands are met, the 'alternative' is derided as 'speculation', which it invariably is, that being what was demanded.

It's what you always do.

 

[editor]

If a person is asking a question relating to a particular narrative, incessant demands for an 'alternative' - credible, watertight or otherwise - are demands for speculation.

I'd say that it's entirely reasonable to ask how the bombers made it to London if someone is insisting that they didn't catch the train.

The simple physics of travelling that distance in the rush hour means that I can't think of any other way they could possibly get to London, so why shouldn't I ask for a credible alternative?

For the sake of a grown up discussion, some remotely credible proof to support an alternative theory would be nice too, otherwise it's just fantasy stuff.

How do you think the bombers got to London if they didn't catch the train?

 

[Prole]

I don't recall seeing that, but I do recall people asking for a credible alternative, which seems a reasonable arguing point considering the circumstances.

How comes you want a credible alternative when the official story is so incredible?

I'd prefer to ask for a credible official story, surely that's the least we can expect.

 

[editor]

How comes you want a credible alternative when the official story is so incredible?

You're asking me to believe something even more incredible - if they didn't catch the train they would have had to have been invisibly flown there by helicopter, invisibly parachuted in or maybe teleported.

How else could they possibly get there in such a short time?

 

[Backatcha Bandit]

How do you think the bombers got to London if they didn't catch the train?

Oh, for christ's sake.

I'm not going to sit here and dream up a speculative bedtime story for you just so you can jump around telling me it is speculation and thinking up cute little phrases like 'fact-free-delude-athon' to hurl at me.

If you want a story, read a book.

 

[editor]

I'm not going to sit here and dream up a speculative bedtime story for you just so you can jump around telling me it is speculation and thinking up cute little phrases like 'fact-free-delude-athon' to hurl at me.

Too tricky a question, eh?

 

[Backatcha Bandit]

Too tricky a question, eh?

As I've repeatedly said, I'm not going to play your little game and give in to your incessant demands for speculation, just so that you can point out that it's speculation and call me silly names.

Has that sunk in yet?

 

[editor]

As I've repeatedly said, I'm not going to play your little game and give in to your incessant demands for speculation, just so that you can point out that it's speculation and call me silly names.

I'm not asking for speculation.

I'm simply asking for a credible means that the bombers could have physically got to London within that time frame that morning.

If you can't think of any possible human means (I certainly can't), that's fine.

 

[laptop]

I'm not going to play your little game and give in to your incessant demands for speculation

It seems that you are, for tonight at least, associating yourself with the claim that they could not have taken a train from Luton to London.

I have not noticed you denying that they were in Luton, or that they were in London.

So you are content to have no account at all of what happened?

 

[Prole]

You're asking me to believe something even more incredible - if they didn't catch the train they would have had to have been invisibly flown there by helicopter, invisibly parachuted in or maybe teleported.

How else could they possibly get there in such a short time?

All I know is that the official report has them on the 7.40 train that was cancelled. The next train to leave Luton was the 7.42 which arrived KX at 8.39, too late to board the underground.
That's the official story.
Perhaps if we asked for the CCTV images, stills or videos, as we have been shown from 28/6 we'll know how they got to London. You see you're asking the wrong person here. I never said they were in London that day, that's what the State has told us. Let them prove it.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

There are any number of reasons besides 'MI5/6 did it' that would motivate the government to lie about this stuff.

The most likely of which are probably incompetence and involvement in illegal, immoral or traitorious activities of various kinds.

Something that totally unaccountable secret organisations are notorious for.

 

[laptop]

There are any number of reasons besides 'MI5/6 did it' that would motivate the government to lie about this stuff.

And as I noted on the other thread, there is a glaring lie of omission in the "narrative": it suppresses mention of US support for Islamists fighting the Soviet occupation of Aghanistan, including that (whether direct or via Islamabad) for bin Laden.

But are the conspiraloons interested in discussing this actual lie in the report? Oh no. This would require actual connection with the world and actual thought. Disconnected disordered textual nit-picking is so much easier.

 

[Backatcha Bandit]

It seems that you are, for tonight at least, associating yourself with the claim that they could not have taken a train from Luton to London.

I have not noticed you denying that they were in Luton, or that they were in London.

It seems? Now who's speculating?

-

You raise a serious point here, though:

So you are content to have no account at all of what happened?

Which is preferable - having no full account or having a multitude of accounts, all of which contain inconsistancies?

What the fuck has happened to our minds that we need a story - a cohesive narrative that accounts for all known facts and disinformation - before we can point at inconsistencies or disinformation and call them for the shit that they are?

Is it a product of the information age we inhabit, that we cannot rest unless all aspects of an occurance are explained in a seamless narrative?

Stories. I've gone on about this before. That's what the media do for us - everything is explained away in a nice, neat narrative, that leaves us with a feeling of 'completeness', of 'understanding' - questions like 'Why do the terrorists hate us?' are tidily explained away in a well rounded jackanory. Everything is packaged in a nice, neat easily digestable bundle that saves us having to think, having to wonder, having to lie awake at night too often.

Inconsistencies and awkward facts are ignored, trimmed off and forgotten on the cutting room floor... anything to enable us to be presented with an intellectually unchallenging, uncluttered and simple apologue which we willingly ingest - as the alternative: Confusion, restlessness, the troubled mind - remind us of our fallibility, our lack of control, our ignorance.

And boy, does that scare us.

So, No. I'm not that interested in stories.

 

[Jazzz]

So you are content to have no account at all of what happened?

This is a weakness of human nature. The brain hates loose ends. So, something happens which we don't understand. If we are then given a story as to what happened, in the absence of an alternative we will then latch on to it because it's really hard for us to go back to the doubt and uncertainty.

 

[laptop]

That's what the media do for us - everything is explained away in a nice, neat narrative

Yes, this is a problem with reporting narrowing things down to "black hat, white hat" narratives - largely caused by editors' restricted attention spans.

But that does not mean that we should an accept an answer to the question "Who shot the sheriff?" that goes: "The bullet was in the chamber. And yes, the bullet was in the sheriff. But I deny that the bullet left the barrel. And I'm not going to think about how it got from there to there"

 

[Jazzz]

You never seen a magician perform the 'bullet catch' laptop?

You see the bullet loaded into the chamber.

Then you see the gun fired.

Then it appears in the magician's mouth!

Of course, as you remark with your analogy, there can't be any other explanation than that the magician has cheated death by catching the screaming projectile with his teeth.

 

[Backatcha Bandit]

You never seen a magician perform the 'bullet catch' laptop?

You see the bullet loaded into the chamber.

Then you see the gun fired.

Then it appears in the magician's mouth!

Of course, as you remark with your analogy, there can't be any other explanation than that the magician has cheated death by catching the screaming projectile with his teeth.

Now do it without the *cough*.

Nice one for expressing what I was attempting to get across in quite a few less words, BTW.

 

[laptop]

Nice one for expressing what I was attempting to get across in quite a few less words, BTW.

So you're accepting Jazz "magician" analogy - which implies (again by analogy with the trick) that the bombers were already in London, and that their apparent presence in Luton was misdirection?

I am disappointed.

But you'll be sober in the morning.

Won't you?

 

[Backatcha Bandit]

When you can come up with a post worthy of my respect and attention, I'll let you know.

Till then, feel free to make up your own stories - regarding 7/7 or my sobrerity.

<walks away shaking head in disgust>