The 7/7 Report
- Thread starter TAE
- Start date
editor said:
Yes one more flounce. So the fact that Icke questions elements of the second world war and the holocaust (though he has never denied it happening) "goes in the pot"...presumably with the false accusation that he advocates "killing the jews"?
AsI said, when it suits you, you are all liars
Prole said:
Still no straight answer or honesty then. So are you going to tell us how your 'independent' researchers supposedly verified this information and got it so wrong Prole.
Or will you now admit that you woefully overstated their independence, expertise and whether they actually, in any meaningful sense, 'verified' the information then?
The stange thing is that you seem to becoming one of those evasive, mealy-mouthed politicos that you seem to be so suspicious of.
editor
hiraethified
Oh dear. Still squirming away, eh?Prole said:
So are you going to finally RELEASE THE EVIDENCE and name these "independent researchers" and explain the methods they used to "verify" these emails?
Or is that too much like having to come out with the truth for a serial wriggler like you?
tarannau said:
Before I disengage with you as well, let me make something very clear. You can play it as thick as you like but as you will see if you actually read my postings on this board, I have maintained they could not have caught the 7.40 or the 7.48.
Thameslink were contacted to verify train times from Luton to KX on 7th July. Despite all the media stating they caught the 7.40 or 7.48 we knew this could not have happened. Or if it did they could not have then boarded the underground trains. These facts were verified by an 'independent' 'researcher' (no professional qualifications other than a desire to know the truth). The information we had was correct. The police and John Reid have been forced to concede that yes, the narrative was wrong.
I myself took the BBC through the complaints procedure after Horizon reconstructed their journey and claimed they boarded the 7.48. They replied:
"The information in the programme regarding the train times from Luton and at Kings Cross was based on information released by the Metropolitan Police Specialist Operations office and information provided to us by Thameslink and Luton station."
I took the Times to the PCC when they stated they caught the 7.40 from Luton. The PCC thought this was not a significant enough detail to throw any doubt on the substance of the story.
These are just a couple of the small steps that I have undertaken in getting some factually correct information into the public domain. I did this out of respect and concern for the dead and injured and also for concern that we were not being told the truth. It may seem like a small inaccuracy but I couldn't understand why there should exist ANY innaccuracy in what Ian Blair called 'the largest criminal investigation in British history'.
John Reid claimed in the house yesterday that this 'error' remained 'undetected.'
It's so woefully inadequate as any explanation.
Now I hope that is straight enough and simple enough for most of you to understand.
I take my leave for now. It seems for some of you that the 'witch has to drown before she can be innocent'.
Andy the Don
Wise men say only fools..
David Icke said:
Is that for real..
A Reptile..
A member of the Rothschild family..
Prole said:
BULLSHIT...! You and your co-loonies have disrupted survivor meetings and hassled the relatives of the bombers.
How does Prole lie...? Let me count the ways...
* The "Independent" researcher that wasn't
* Where does she post...? One or two or not or maybe another forum...
* That she seeks the truth
* That she has respect for the dead and injured....
sparticus said:
Erm. The fact that there were trains that the bombers could have caught from the station at roughly the same time and arrived in good time in London? Isn't that what the researchers should have really been looking for?
So far Prole, your independent research seems to consist of two unqualified fruitloops (prone to ufo-tastic story frenzies) looking at an email header (that they didn't even seem fit to analyse) from one not particularly senior man and placidly confirming that it might actually be from Railtrack. That's not research, that's missing the point - nobody here has doubted that Railtrack could have got it wrong, nor that timetables could be inaccurate.
It was only you who seemed to place such vital importance on the timetable and the stated train departure times, regardless of relevancy or what it meant to the actual events on the day. What was the point - to say 'hah, there's an inconsistency in the narrative' smugly or to properly look at the events? The researchers have clearly not made any real effort at the latter. On that basis you've got to wonder about the motivations of the 'truth campaign' - is it to make smug smartarse points or to get at the bottom of what actually happened on 7/7?
At the moment it's distinctly looking like a lazy crusade of the usual suspects, chasing any hint of an conspiracy or innaccuracy. The truth comes a distant second - hell, even the campaign for an independent inquiry is clearly effectively useless for these people. On the evidence of this thread the findings and basic jist of the inquiry will happily be ignored by some - these folks seem only fixated on vastly overstating the importance of any inconsistencies to suit their worldview.
Prole said:
Yes, but when somebody previously agreed with you that the media and official narrative were wrong, and visited Luton station and timed the walk to the platform and then suggested that the bombers would have easily been able to catch the 7.25, you stated:
"Firstly and I think this is very important, and is our starting point, all media reports including a Horizon programme placed these men on either the 7.40 or 7.48. The official report has them on the 7.40, and even quotes some witnesses who give conflicting accounts of seeing them. I have read no reports, media or official, that states they caught the 7.25.Therefore I see little sense in trying to prove that they caught the 7.25 and that it would have been possible to get to the platform in under 3 minutes, as you yourself have researched. I do believe that at 7.22 - 7.24 that Luton would be a very busy station, it is a main commuter hub. It is also important to remember that psychologically this would have been the first few minutes that they would be carrying back packs full of explosives. If it was TATP, then this is a highly unstable mixture, and I can only assume they would not want to rush. "
You offered much conjecture up as to why they wouldn't have caught the 7.25 and you seem not to want them to have caught that train.
Do you still think they didn't catch the 7.25?
kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
Bollocks - like all conspiracy types you do it out of the need to be noticed, to set yourself apart from everyone else as knowing 'The Truth'.
Do you know what I reckon happened with this whole 725/740 bizniz? Someone, somewhere made a typo that was never picked up on and when they found out the error they were too worried about opprobrium/discipline to admit to the mistake.
NEVER underestimate the ability for humans to make simple mistakes and not admit to them.
As for the whole 'how could that happen?' question...well, NASA have managed to loose several multi-billion $$ probes because of typos; when the F16 first went active it allegedly used to flip at the equator because no one put a '-' sign against the southern hemisphere lattitudes.
Humans. Who'd have 'em, eh?
editor
hiraethified
Damn right!Prole said:
So who were these "independent researchers" and what methods did they employ to find 'the truth'?
Release the Evidence!
PS Is anyone from your UFO-lovin', Princess Di laudin', talkin' terrier, charity pretendin' gang still suggesting that the CCTV footage was Photoshopped or are they all quietly forgetting all about that now?
kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
That would be the 'mysterious' reflection, that Garf showed was in fact an extension to the station buildings would it?
JESUS CHRIST
I've taken a break from posting for a while but it's like the mice have ran amok.
Prole, Nick 'purple gold' Kollerstrom and James 'talking terrier' Stewart have been proved ABSOLUTELY RIGHT that there was a glaring discrepancy in the official account, and one that begs explanation.
Thanks to their independent research (yes) the official account has now changed, and the alleged bombers are catching a completely different train!
Anyone who thinks that getting the story straight for 7/7 is at all important should be giving these three a round of applause.
I do.
Of course we know have the question - if they couldn't get the most simple detail like that correct...?
I've taken a break from posting for a while but it's like the mice have ran amok.
Prole, Nick 'purple gold' Kollerstrom and James 'talking terrier' Stewart have been proved ABSOLUTELY RIGHT that there was a glaring discrepancy in the official account, and one that begs explanation.
Thanks to their independent research (yes) the official account has now changed, and the alleged bombers are catching a completely different train!
Anyone who thinks that getting the story straight for 7/7 is at all important should be giving these three a round of applause.
I do.
Of course we know have the question - if they couldn't get the most simple detail like that correct...?
Bob_the_lost
Elsewhere
Which glaring inconsistency are you speaking of? The train times? (Edit: ) Yes, they are inconsistent.Jazzz said:JESUS CHRIST
I've taken a break from posting for a while but it's like the mice have ran amok.
Prole, Nick 'purple gold' Kollerstrom and James 'talking terrier' Stewart have been proved ABSOLUTELY RIGHT that there was a glaring discrepancy in the official account, and one that begs explanation.
Thanks to their independent research (yes) the official account has now changed, and the alleged bombers are catching a completely different train!
Anyone who thinks that getting the story straight for 7/7 is at all important should be giving these three a round of applause.
I do.
Of course we know have the question - if they couldn't get the most simple detail like that correct...?
In the mean time they've also tried to prove that the photos were photoshopped, the traning excersise run on the day was relevant, the bombers innocent and many other laughable theories beside.
Just because you have a single source that doubts the train times does not merit a public enquiry, or the court case that squeegee wants to jump straight into. Simple details are easy to get wrong, after all from the status of the person writing the report it's pretty imaterial which delayed train they caught, that the bombers made it there by train by X hour is all that's relevant.
sparticus said:
You seem to be having another failure of logic.
The Iraq dossier was always suspiciuous and attracted cynicism at the time. However, what possible use was there in stating the wrong departure time for the train? What did it achieve (apart from giving you knobbers something to go 'a-ha about that is)
Bob_the_lost said:
Investigators allegedly spoke to witnesses who saw the 'lads' on the train so which train they caught should never have been in question once these witnesses were tracked down. So the question the police and/or the author of the report need to answer is where did the idea that they caught the 7.40 train come from when presumably the (conveniently anonymous) witnesses would have been saying we were on the 7.25.
All I can do is echo what Grahame Russell is saying here: if they can get basic shit like this wrong what faith can we have in the accuracy of the rest of the report?
Still it was probably a typo, hey?
Bob_the_lost
Elsewhere
You don't have a clue what you're writing, we know that the person who wrote the report was condensing lots of information. All it needs is for them to refer to an earlier document that had incorrect information on it and then no one to pick it up before it's printed.sparticus said:Investigators allegedly spoke to witnesses who saw the 'lads' on the train so which train they caught should never have been in question once these witnesses were tracked down. So the question the police and/or the author of the report need to answer is where did the idea that they caught the 7.40 train come from when presumably the (conveniently anonymous) witnesses would have been saying we were on the 7.25.
All I can do is echo what Grahame Russell is saying here: if they can get basic shit like this wrong what faith can we have in the accuracy of the rest of the report?
Still it was probably a typo, hey?
EG.
Quick summary v3 had 7.40
In depth breakdown part 7 subsection c (finished after QS v3) has the correct time and transcripts of interviews.
Person coallating details refers to summary v3, decides that there is sufficent information there so there's no point in checking the indepth section.
I've seen it happen in practice, both in academic situations and in others.
Bob_the_lost
Elsewhere
How do you circumsize a reptile?scarecrow said:
Jewish reptiles then?
KeyboardJockey
Clowns to the Left of me
Bob_the_lost said:
Depends on the size of the reptile doesn't it If it is a Komodo Dragon probably with a knife on the end of a very large bargepole.
A similar length of pole is needed to fend off consipraloons.
editor
hiraethified
Prole doesn't "do" answers, especially when the questions reveal her 'arguments' to a big, festering back of shite.aylee said:Still waiting.
Mind you, she like to rattle out, "Release the Evidence!" every few posts, while hypocritically keeping her own sources and evidence as a big fruitloop-only secret.
Similar threads
- Locked
