Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

The 7/7 Report

Very well, a polite question to Prole.

On this thread you have been suggesting that the four men accused by the government of perpetrating the July 7th attacks as suicide bombers were innocent of the attacks.

Can you indicate how you square your views with the recently released video of one of them ranting about the imminent atrocity and glorifying in his imminent actions?


Prole said:
I have always maintained that the principle of innocent until proven guilty (more imortant methinks in the absence of due process) is what is at stake here.

The videos? Well, I reckon that if 2 young lads from Beeston Leeds are able to track down the al'Q high command and make so-called confession videos with the likes of al-Zarqawi, in an operation run (presumably from a cave with internet access) by an American 'convert to Islam' Adam Pearlman/Gadahan (whose grandfather was on the board of directors of the ADL), why the f*** has it taken nearly 5 years for the combined intelligence & security forces of the 'coalition of the Kiliing' NOT to find them.

Ask the important questions methinks.


Well, it seemed to me that if you're questioning the guilt of the four alleged perpetrators, your reaction to a taped confession-in-advance by one of them might be an important question to ask you about. Why are you calling it a "so-called confession" video?

But anyway, you've simply not started to answer the question, so I'll ask again. Do you regard the contents of the tape that was broadcast recently as being problematic at all for your theory that the four men are innocent?

And there is no such thing as the "Al Qaeda high command" .... have you read Jason Burke's excellent and superbly-researched "Al Qaeda" which explains the etymology of the phrase and the myth that "Al Qaeda" is some sort of shadowy Bond-type organisation?
 
Badger Kitten said:
Lowest point - David Shayler ranting and interupting and calling Milan Rai ''ignorant' and banging on incoherently about 9/11

Happen as maybe, but doesn't that guy have an authority of sorts of what happens behind the veil of the secret services? (If he is who I think he is)
 
Badger Kitten said:
There were people there who I saw sat in the same room s you at the Milan launch, and a woman who looked very like you indeed. My apologies. Why didn't you go?
BK Thanks for the apology, but I do think that there are a few more sentences that need amending in your report.

The people that attended are not 'Prole's mates'.

Why do you feel the need for this character assassination of me? A very similar tactic was used against me over the Milan Rai book launch, which I attended to hear what was going to be said. I even wrote to Milan Rai afterwards with the questions that I was not allowed to ask. I never spoke at that meeting and nor did my two companions. I have said before that I know the truth and so do you, and at the end of the day that's all that really matters. I have a clear conscience. I am certainly not responsible for the behaviour of others, these are open public meetings after all.

I have great respect for the work of CAMPACC and Newham Monitoring Project & Gareth Pierce, if I had attended it would have been to listen to the speakers.
 
Prole said:
Why do you feel the need for this character assassination of me?

You do it to yourself, you do
And that's what really hurts
Is that you do it to yourself
Just you and no-one else
You do it to yourself
You do it to yourself
 
Blagsta said:
You do it to yourself, you do
And that's what really hurts
Is that you do it to yourself
Just you and no-one else
You do it to yourself
You do it to yourself
Only according to the strange & murky world of U75. It doesn't hurt, it just never ceases to amaze me.

All this 'guilty by association' crap, lies becoming facts and facts becoming lies.

Imagine the uproar if I accused BK of being somewhere that she wasn't? U75ers over-use and over-reliance of the term 'liar' springs to mind.

BTW BK there's stil a couple of statements that you haven't changed yet.
 
I retracted the fact that you were there, mistaken identity - someone who looked like you was sat with people I have seen you with before, and others whom I know to be 9/11 posters from sites where you hang out, whom I have met at a demo and at Milan's heckeld book launch. I apologised at once, twice for the mistaken identity. And I stand by everything else, including the FACT that you and your fellow conspsiracists are in my opinion, foaming loons. Who interupt meetings. And are a pain in the arse generally.
 
Prole said:
Only according to the strange & murky world of U75. It doesn't hurt, it just never ceases to amaze me.
.
Quit your fucking whining. She made a mistake and immediately apologised.

Compare that with the weeks of wriggling, lies and bullshit we've had to put up from you after you were asked a simple question about your hush-hush, top-secret, "independent researchers."

:rolleyes:
 
kyser_soze said:
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.

Agreed, quite likely I would have thought. A guess might be that the "7.40" time was arrived at by working backwards, given a sighting of the four men at Kings X at 8.23, and given that the normal journey time is around 40 minutes - without the journalist/police clerk knowing that the 7.40 never ran.
 
Prole said:
BK: What sort of eye-witness are you?

I WASN'T AT THE MEETING TONIGHT.

How many other people that weren't there have you seen?

I expect it will soon become a fact around here. Lies = facts and Facts = lies.

Kindly retract this claim BK.

Oh, and how can we trust *anything* you say...? You've been caught out in lies four times now on this board. :rolleyes:
 
Prole said:
The people that attended are not 'Prole's mates'.

Nope, because you don't have any... Why else do you need to make up stories of "Independent" Researchers and you crackers theories...? To fill the time... Why else do you come onto a web forum in the middle of the night...? A forum where you are repeatedly insulted, where no-one trusts you (or even likes you) and your reputation is in tatters from all your lies and "facts" being exposed.

Pathetic, sad old cow. :rolleyes:
 
BK said: Prole and her mates all sitting in a row and interuppting and handing out ''July 7 Truth RELEASE THE EVIDENCE'' flyers.)
Still there, please amend.

Strange how seeing someone once (maybe from a photograph?) can then confuse a person into thinking that same person was somewhere else, just because they look similar. This is what makes eye-witness accounts taken after the issuing of the pictures of the 4 men (Danny Biddle seeing Khan and Edgware Rd Bomber on TV could easily lead to the mistake of believing he saw him) so unreliable.

Or perhaps it is because you expected me to be there that led you to think I was?

For once I agree with some on here that I usually find too offensive and narrow-minded to bother taking seriously, this behaviour at such an important meeting is disgraceful and I wouldn't want to be associated with it and don't condone it. This was an important and serious meeting with groups and individuals who campaign against injustice and for whom I have respect. It was not a forum to heckle and disrupt with calls around 9/11 etc. But people do what they want BK, I can't be held responsible for anyone's actions other than myself.

Interesting how this all happened just as the J7 truth campaign was making headway and had already resulted in John Reid having to annouce to the House that the narrative was flawed. We will continue campaigning BK for truth and justice and a fully Independent Public Inquiry and to Release the Evidence.
 
Prole said:
Interesting how this all happened just as the J7 truth campaign was making headway and had already resulted in John Reid having to annouce to the House that the narrative was flawed.
What's "interesting" about it?

Please explain further.
 
aylee said:
Well, it seemed to me that if you're questioning the guilt of the four alleged perpetrators, your reaction to a taped confession-in-advance by one of them might be an important question to ask you about. Why are you calling it a "so-called confession" video?

But anyway, you've simply not started to answer the question, so I'll ask again. Do you regard the contents of the tape that was broadcast recently as being problematic at all for your theory that the four men are innocent?

Still waiting! :rolleyes: :D
 
scalyboy said:
Agreed, quite likely I would have thought. A guess might be that the "7.40" time was arrived at by working backwards, given a sighting of the four men at Kings X at 8.23, and given that the normal journey time is around 40 minutes - without the journalist/police clerk knowing that the 7.40 never ran.
Which then begs the question: What train were the eye-witness accounts taken from? The narrative says the 7.40.

It also states that there was talk of a 5th bomber from witness statements and CCTV at Luton. There are also statements in the narrative that witnesses saw them on this train.

It was the lack of train times being in the public domain that originally aroused my suspicions. If you want witnesses to come forward, why then have all the media state the 7.40?

Surely the CCTV from the platform at Luton would immediately identify which train these men boarded. For a start, they'd be 15 minutes less footage of them.
 
Prole said:
Which then begs the question: What train were the eye-witness accounts taken from? The narrative says the 7.40.

It also states that there was talk of a 5th bomber from witness statements and CCTV at Luton. There are also statements in the narrative that witnesses saw them on this train.

It was the lack of train times being in the public domain that originally aroused my suspicions. If you want witnesses to come forward, why then have all the media state the 7.40?

Surely the CCTV from the platform at Luton would immediately identify which train these men boarded. For a start, they'd be 15 minutes less footage of them.
What the hell is your point?

You know they got there by train, you know what time they got to kings cross, make a point for once in your otherwise pointless life.
 
Prole said:
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.

Prole, good point about them carrying bombs possibly made of unstable TATP and not wanting to rush. They don't appear to be in a hurry in the CCTV image outside Luton station - quite relaxed in fact. Mind you, when I timed it myself, I wasn't particularly hurrying either, and still managed it in under 2 minutes.

Alternatively, mightn't this suggest that the CCTV datestamp was out - fast by a few minutes?

Whilst I don't agree with you, I can see that you may feel that the "non-running 7.40" saga was the loose thread which, if pulled, would unravel the whole offical version of events. However IMHO there is far too much other evidence to support the official version - their DNA and ID at the scenes of crime, the Khan and Tanweer videos etc etc. I reckon they just took the 7.24 that left at 7.25 and arrived at 8.23.

So I do think you are barking up the wrong tree - that said, IMHO the anti-'conspiraloon' personal abuse/feeding frenzy on this thread has been somewhat intemperate...
 
Prole said:
It also states that there was talk of a 5th bomber from witness statements and CCTV at Luton. There are also statements in the narrative that witnesses saw them on this train.

There is no mention of a fifth bomber *anywhere* in the narrative.... :rolleyes:
 
jæd said:
There is no mention of a fifth bomber *anywhere* in the narrative.... :rolleyes:

IIRC, there were stories of a 5th man with them at King's X - appeared in early news reports - I *think* there was an unconfirmed report of video evidence indicating a 5th man who peeled off at Kings X.
Probably just rumour?
 
I don't know if there was speculation about a fifth bomber following the 7 July atrocities, but there was certainly talk of a fifth bomber following the Islamonuts' failed attempts on 21 July - and for the very good reason that a backpack-bomb was found abandoned in a park in west London.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4713651.stm

Perhaps Inspector Prole has become confused about the two incidents.
 
Prole said:
Still there, please amend.

Strange how seeing someone once (maybe from a photograph?) can then confuse a person into thinking that same person was somewhere else, just because they look similar. This is what makes eye-witness accounts taken after the issuing of the pictures of the 4 men (Danny Biddle seeing Khan and Edgware Rd Bomber on TV could easily lead to the mistake of believing he saw him) so unreliable.

Or perhaps it is because you expected me to be there that led you to think I was?

For once I agree with some on here that I usually find too offensive and narrow-minded to bother taking seriously, this behaviour at such an important meeting is disgraceful and I wouldn't want to be associated with it and don't condone it. This was an important and serious meeting with groups and individuals who campaign against injustice and for whom I have respect. It was not a forum to heckle and disrupt with calls around 9/11 etc. But people do what they want BK, I can't be held responsible for anyone's actions other than myself.

Interesting how this all happened just as the J7 truth campaign was making headway and had already resulted in John Reid having to annouce to the House that the narrative was flawed. We will continue campaigning BK for truth and justice and a fully Independent Public Inquiry and to Release the Evidence.


Prole read the post again…I realise you don't like to grapple with anythign that doesn't priove what you want to see, but just try, so you look less of a berk

me said:
Mil Rai is the peace activist and author of 7/7 The London Bombings islam and the Iraq war'. His was the book launch attended by survivors which was purposefully disrupted ny members fo the '' British 9/11 TRuth movement'', feat. Prole and her mates all sitting in a row and interuppting and handing out ''July 7 Truth RELEASE THE EVIDENCE'' flyers.)


Were you at the Milan Rai book launch? Yes. Did you sit in a row with your hecking conspiracy theory mates? Yes you did. Did you hand out flyers for the '' July 7 Truth organisation'? Yes you did. Does the post say that? Yes it does.

As to your offensive crap about Danny. Danny told me several times how he first saw Khan on TV from his bed. The sound was off, there was no caption, Khan was speaking . Danny told me how he thought ' I know that bloke from somewhere'. He had been unconscious and recovering from his injuries. He had missed the stuff about Khan.

As he watched Danny told me he realised that the face he saw on TV was the last face he had seen on the train, then the caption came on, that Khan was the bomber and Danny realised.

He is about the most reliable witness I have ever spoken to, his dreams are haunted by Khan's face, as he detonated the bomb. The media have not always accurately reported what he says, but he has said the same thing again and again, and is IMO a highly reliable witness, depsite the lies peddled by conspiraloons ( there was even lies speculating that Danny Biddle was the bomber on one board! Which he has read and was disgusted by. He is committed to th einquiry and as dismissive of conspiraloon as me and every other survivor I have ever met.)

As to your relentles, pathetic, puerile milking of the fact that I mistakenly thought you were at the meeting, I've apologised, immediately, and twice. You still have stuff on your J7 truth board up claiming I am'' lying'' about you being there.

Care to retract that? No, thought not. Care to answer anyone's questions here? No, thought not.
Like to carry on wriggling and bullshitting and peddling mass-murderer-exonerating shite? Probably.
 
p.10 of the narrative:

It was thought because of witness statements and CCTV that there was a 5th man with the group travelling down from Luton ...

The Times:

Each man carried a large, military-style rucksack packed with more than 10kg of explosive, but a quantity of explosive was left in the car boot, perhaps intended for use by a fifth bomber. The CCTV camera on the platform at Luton filmed the four, unobtrusive young men as they prepared to board the 7.40 to King’s Cross. The camera also picked up a fifth man, standing alongside them, who then peeled off and vanished into the crowd.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,22989-1696094_2,00.html

Perhaps the timestamp on this CCTV will be accurate and could verify the time the train left.
 
scalyboy said:
IIRC, there were stories of a 5th man with them at King's X - appeared in early news reports - I *think* there was an unconfirmed report of video evidence indicating a 5th man who peeled off at Kings X.
Probably just rumour?

Well... There is often a difference between a witness report and what actually happens... Witnesses aren't always 100% reliable. (But in the world of Prole & Co they are... :rolleyes: )

That there is a fifth bomber is another of Proles "facts". The narritive states:

Narrative said:
There was at the time of the attacks, reports of a “5th bomber”. It
was thought, because of witness statements and CCTV, that there
was a “5th man” with the group travelling down from Luton. Inquiries
showed the individual was a regular commuter and he was
eliminated from the inquiry. Also in the period immediately following
the attacks, one man was arrested in connection with the
investigation but he was released without charge. In subsequent
weeks, a further man who had claimed to be the “5th bomber” was
also arrested and later charged with wasting police time. There is no
intelligence to indicate that there was a fifth or further bombers.

Narrative said:
...it remains unclear whether others in the UK were involved in radicalisingor inciting the group, or in helping them to plan and execute it. But there is
no evidence of a fifth bomber;
 
Prole said:
p.10 of the narrative:

It was thought because of witness statements and CCTV that there was a 5th man with the group travelling down from Luton ...

The Times:

Each man carried a large, military-style rucksack packed with more than 10kg of explosive, but a quantity of explosive was left in the car boot, perhaps intended for use by a fifth bomber. The CCTV camera on the platform at Luton filmed the four, unobtrusive young men as they prepared to board the 7.40 to King’s Cross. The camera also picked up a fifth man, standing alongside them, who then peeled off and vanished into the crowd.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,22989-1696094_2,00.html

Classic Prole selective quoting...!
 
Prole - fancy retracting this from your forum? Whatever.

However long ago it was, Rachel's already off telling lies on Urban 75 about Bridget being present at the meeting when, in fact, she wasn't.

Some people have no shame.

Didn't you see me there? Rachel did!

I thought I was here with the kids and watering the garden but apparantly I was 'looking adoringly at my loony ranting mates'!

I expect this latest lie will become fact along the lines of how I disrupted a survivors meeting (the Milan Rai book launch) at which I never uttered a word. (Apart from goiing up and introducing myself to Rachel and speaking to the lovely Gill Hicks after the meeting).

Someone obviously feels the need for a bit of character assassination!
 
Funny how in Prole world, witnesses from 3 carriages away from the bomb talkign about tiles on the train floor flying up because of the force of the explosion are to be taken as gospel and then stretched to infer bombs under trains ( the explosion was on the train floor, in a rucksack causing the tiles to fly up as the shockwaves blasted through the train floor) and then taken to infer bombs planted by fuck knows who, pixies,

are taken as ''gospel.''

Whereas a man 18 inches from Khan who watched him detonate the bomb is dismissed as ''unreliable.''


Sick.
 
And there is no such thing as the "Al Qaeda high command" .... have you read Jason Burke's excellent and superbly-researched "Al Qaeda" which explains the etymology of the phrase and the myth that "Al Qaeda" is some sort of shadowy Bond-type organisation?

AL-Q is a brand name for anyone wishing to use it. The problem is that many people have difficulty thinking about organisations as anything other than top down, managed hierarchy. Al-Q is what a management-speak-geek would call:

'Node distributed localised units who are briefed on the overall company mission, have access to company resources but who are wholly autonomous in their tactical decison making and action implementation'
 
Badger Kitten said:
However long ago it was, Rachel's already off telling lies on Urban 75 about Bridget being present at the meeting when, in fact, she wasn't.

Some people have no shame.

Prole - fancy retracting this from your forum? Whatever.
No because it wasn't posted by me. It was also true at the time it was written.

BTW BK I wasn't aware you were on the J7 forum. Are you a member?
 
kyser_soze said:
AL-Q is a brand name for anyone wishing to use it. The problem is that many people have difficulty thinking about organisations as anything other than top down, managed hierarchy. Al-Q is what a management-speak-geek would call:

'Node distributed localised units who are briefed on the overall company mission, have access to company resources but who are wholly autonomous in their tactical decison making and action implementation'
That is not the impression given to the general public though is it? Even the narrative states 'Khan's video statement broadcast together with a statement by Al Qaida's deputy leader Ayman Al-Zawahiri'.

Hardly gives the impresssion of a lack of hierachy or leadership.
 
Back
Top Bottom