The 7/7 Report

[editor]

No because it wasn't posted by me. It was also true at the time it was written.

Doesn't it worry you in the slightest that your conduct here has failed to win over anyone- in fact you've done a truly grand job of completely discrediting a large chunk of the (ahem) 'truth movement' with your constant evasiveness, lies and wriggling.

These boards are very popular, yet all you've done is manage to alienate potential supporters by the score. Doesn't that bother you?

Oh, and could you explain what you meant by this please? I've already asked politely.

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.

 

[Prole]

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.

Not really as sick as you make out BK. These were from eyewitness statements taken immediately after the explosions. People were telling what they saw before any 'offical story' had been put in place.

There is a case to be made that the truth emerges in the first couple of hours, before these facts can be fitted into the official version.

Anyway, I have other things to do today.

 

[Badger Kitten]

Byee!

Do give my regards to Truth and Justice, if you ever run into them

 

[jæd]

Not really as sick as you make out BK. These were from eyewitness statements taken immediately after the explosions. People were telling what they saw before any 'offical story' had been put in place.

There is a case to be made that the truth emerges in the first couple of hours, before these facts can be fitted into the official version.

Anyway, I have other things to do today.

The difference between BK and Prole is one has gone through a harrowing expereience and knows what she's talking about and can experience the "fog of war" in a way most of us can't. If I had gone through these events, I'd be suprised if anything I said immediately afterwards made any sense.

And the other other is a known self-promoting loon. Now shown to have a lied a grand total of five times...!

 

[scalyboy]

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.

...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

Help! I can't find either of these quotes - are these page nos. (10 & 26) PDF page nos. or those of the original document? Am I looking at the right document anyway - "Intelligence and Security Committee: Report into the London Terrorist Attacks on July 7th 2005 - Cm 6785"
Link please - Thanks!

 

[kyser_soze]

@ Prole

It's a different thread topic, and one that inevitably gets swamped with 'It's all MI5/MI6' type drivel, but there are reasons for the continued mainstream perception of Al-Q as a regonisable 'organisation', good and bad.

 

[jæd]

Help! I can't find either of these quotes - are these page nos. (10 & 26) PDF page nos. or those of the original document? Am I looking at the right document anyway - "Intelligence and Security Committee: Report into the London Terrorist Attacks on July 7th 2005 - Cm 6785"
Link please - Thanks!

These are the page numbers on the page, rather that computed by Acrobat... I used the same link to download the pdf... Do a search for "fifth"...

 

[Prole]

Doesn't it worry you in the slightest that your conduct here has failed to win over anyone- in fact you've done a truly grand job of completely discrediting a large chunk of the (ahem) 'truth movement' with your constant evasiveness, lies and wriggling.

These boards are very popular, yet all you've done is manage to alienate potential supporters by the score. Doesn't that bother you?

Oh, and could you explain what you meant by this please? I've already asked politely.

Ed I am surprised that you speak for everyone, but the point is that I never intended to post here 'to win anyone over'. I arrived here via a link to my blog and stayed to discuss the issues. Little did I know then the sorts of people that would post here. And the levels of abuse that would be allowed. As I have said it has been anything from a kangaroo court (presided over by you as Judge and Jury) and at times a lynch mob.

I will not be frightened threatened or bullied out of holding my opinions or expressing my views, however unpopular they are. I care nowt for most people's opinions of me here, I don't think much of them either.

Occassionally there is discussion of the narrative which I enjoy before it descends into abuse and vitriol. I have always tried to remain polite despite serious provocation.

You Ed have always had the option of banning me.

What is important for me is the campaign for truth and justice, which with John Reid's recent announcement that it is inaccurate and Phillip Russel's father saying How can we trust anything in it? will aid the call for a fully Independent Public Inquiry. Small steps methinks, but in the right direction. All done, without much support here and an apparent 'lack of credibility'.

People should always keep an open mind in my opionion and be willing to change long held and even cherished views, such as the State we live under and in, is benign and trustworthy and that it is looking after our interests.

I think 7th July could be a major turning point away from any cherished notions about liberal democracy many of you here appear to hold.

The difference is I am willing to change my mind if evidence and proof emerges that shows that I am wrong not to trust what we have been told.

 

[scalyboy]

These are the page numbers on the page, rather that computed by Acrobat... I used the same link to download the pdf... Do a search for "fifth"...

Thanks jaed - I was looking at the wrong document! Should have been looking at this one instead...

 

[editor]

. Little did I know then the sorts of people that would post here. .

You mean the "sorts of people" who like to make their minds up based on credible evidence, well-researched facts and coherently reasoned arguments sourced from non-loon websites?

The sort that expect people to be honest and straightforward with their debates, and not post up an endless succession of hypocritical wriggles while demanding that the "evidence be released" - while they forthrightly refuse to offer their own 'evidence'.

Yes. I can see how that 'sort' of people might pose problems for you.

But just to reiterate your standpoint here: you're saying that the reason why your theories have almost been universally derided here is not because of the laughable paucity of evidence or credible research you've come up with, but it's all down to the 'sort of people' who post here, yes?

 

[Bob_the_lost]

Trying to hold a discussion with prole is a waste of time, she knows that she's correct and as such she's proletysing not discussing. Her conviction is not based upon evidence, it's based upon the knowledge that the government has to be involved. From that flows the inevitable conclusion that the reports are lies. In turn this means that some of the evidence is flawed or faked. When errors or inconsistencies are found they are siezed upon as evidence that this method is correct and that the orriginal conclusion upon all which this is based is correct.

Think of it as building a house by suspending the roof from a crane and building the rest from the roof down.

 

[jæd]

Trying to hold a discussion with prole is a waste of time, she knows that she's correct and as such she's proletysing not discussing. Her conviction is not based upon evidence, it's based upon the knowledge that the government has to be involved.

Prole "believes" in being right, she "believes" that the evidence so far presented is flawed. Its implossible to discuss these topics rationally with her as she isn't interested in "evidence". Rather, in people having "faith" in her theories... And we all know where having "faith" leads...

 

[kyser_soze]

Ed I am surprised that you speak for everyone, but the point is that I never intended to post here 'to win anyone over'. I arrived here via a link to my blog and stayed to discuss the issues. Little did I know then the sorts of people that would post here. And the levels of abuse that would be allowed. As I have said it has been anything from a kangaroo court (presided over by you as Judge and Jury) and at times a lynch mob.

I will not be frightened threatened or bullied out of holding my opinions or expressing my views, however unpopular they are. I care nowt for most people's opinions of me here, I don't think much of them either.

Occassionally there is discussion of the narrative which I enjoy before it descends into abuse and vitriol. I have always tried to remain polite despite serious provocation.

You Ed have always had the option of banning me.

What is important for me is the campaign for truth and justice, which with John Reid's recent announcement that it is inaccurate and Phillip Russel's father saying How can we trust anything in it? will aid the call for a fully Independent Public Inquiry. Small steps methinks, but in the right direction. All done, without much support here and an apparent 'lack of credibility'.

People should always keep an open mind in my opionion and be willing to change long held and even cherished views, such as the State we live under and in, is benign and trustworthy and that it is looking after our interests.

I think 7th July could be a major turning point away from any cherished notions about liberal democracy many of you here appear to hold.

The difference is I am willing to change my mind if evidence and proof emerges that shows that I am wrong not to trust what we have been told.

Well for someone who 'doesn't care' for the people here, or their opinions of what you have to say, nor a need to 'win people over', you've certainly

A. Stayed around for a long time
B. Spent ages and ages defending and arguing your points

Which IMO and IME of human beings would seem to suggest that you DO care and that you DO want to win people over. Otherwise you'd have just fucked off with a proper flounce and not stayed around - which is what people who DON'T CARE about things tend to do.

So you're even a liar here - well, maybe not a liar, but certainly you're deluding yourself if you actually believe that you don't care.

So why don't you just go - you don't like Ed, any of us (except the people who agree with you...what a surprise) and have singularly failed to convince anyone of the merits of your case...

 

[Blagsta]

Only according to the strange & murky world of U75. It doesn't hurt, it just never ceases to amaze me.

My point being that no one assinates your character here - you do it yourself. You come across as an utter lunatic.

 

[aylee]

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!

I'm still waiting. Unless I hear otherwise, I shall assume that Prole's answer is: "shit! the video tape blows my ridiculous theory completely out of the water".

 

[Prole]

I'm still waiting. Unless I hear otherwise, I shall assume that Prole's answer is: "shit! the video tape blows my ridiculous theory completely out of the water".

I caution against making assumptions, but feel free to think what you like. Especially in regards to any theory ridiculous or otherwise which you maintain I hold.

The first, Khan video, was released just at a time when there was much discussion on whether or not these were actual suicide-bombers. The Khan video ended all 'speculation'. The Tanweer video has been known about since the release of Khan's the timing of it's release and showing on MSM was not only cruel, but reinforced the notion that Al'Q are running things.

Not the answer you want to hear, but that's what I think.

 

[jæd]

The first, Khan video, was released just at a time when there was much discussion on whether or not these were actual suicide-bombers.

Please provide at least three links to mainstream news sites to show this "much discussion".

The Khan video ended all 'speculation'. The Tanweer video has been known about since the release of Khan's the timing of it's release and showing on MSM was not only cruel, but reinforced the notion that Al'Q are running things.

You have a strange idea of cruel...! Cruel to show a video. But harrassing survivors isn't..!

 

[editor]

I caution against making assumptions, but feel free to think what you like. Especially in regards to any theory ridiculous or otherwise which you maintain I hold.

For the third time of asking, could you explain what you meant here, please?

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.

 

[detective-boy]

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.

And which is ... er ... undoubtedly one of the reasons that all the other footage has NOT been released ...

 

[editor]

And which is ... er ... undoubtedly one of the reasons that all the other footage has NOT been released ...

But that doesn't matter!

Instead we should all listen to the loons demanding, "Release the evidence!" and not give a fuck about any possible negative consequences on the investigation, because the demands of the conspiraloons should come first before everything!

Release the Evidence! (unless it's the loons' own evidence, in which case it must be kept secret and never made available, no mater how any times they're politely asked).

 

[scarecrow]

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.

Whether Prole tells lies or not. You're a grade A toss-pot jæd.

Listen to yourself. Get a grip.

 

[jæd]

Whether Prole tells lies or not. You're a grade A toss-pot jæd.

Listen to yourself. Get a grip.

Oooh, 'ark at 'er...

 

[scarecrow]

Oooh, 'ark at 'er...

Hark at whatever. I find calling a female a 'silly cow' quite objectionable.

Nomatter how much you disagree with their opinions. And that's all they are mate. It's not like she's raped your kids or anything.

 

[JHE]

Hark at whatever. I find calling a female a 'silly cow' quite objectionable.

Some people find it objectionable that daft, dishonest gits dedicate themselves to defending a bunch of murdering Islamogits, by pretending, very unconvincingly, that the Islamogits didn't really commit the crime we all know they committed. You find it objectionable that one of those daft dishonest gits is called a 'silly cow'. Oh, well... as the young and fashionable like to say, get over it.

 

[Allan]

well, NASA have managed to loose several multi-billion $$ probes because of typos;

Typos like "loose" instead of "lose", perhaps?

 

[aylee]

I caution against making assumptions, but feel free to think what you like. Especially in regards to any theory ridiculous or otherwise which you maintain I hold.

There is no question of me "maintaining" that you believe that the four men were innocent. You told us so. Here are some examples from the first five pages of this thread, before I lost the will to live and stopped reading:

http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=4544091&postcount=13

"It's a travesty of justice, these men didn't do it."

http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=4546148&postcount=94

"The conclusions of the narrative are particularly worrying as they stress that these young men showed no signs of being 'religious maniacs' in fact quite the opposite they were well-integrated just like any other young working-class Muslim lads."

http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=4546148&postcount=101

"Still, no evidence yet to prove these 4 young men set out to blow up the underground."

The video shows that your stance was utterly preposterous. Why are you simply unable to admit that you got it totally wrong?

The first, Khan video, was released just at a time when there was much discussion on whether or not these were actual suicide-bombers. The Khan video ended all 'speculation'. The Tanweer video has been known about since the release of Khan's the timing of it's release and showing on MSM was not only cruel, but reinforced the notion that Al'Q are running things.

Let's assume that "Al-Qaeda are running things", whoever or whatever Al-Qaeda is. Really, you should read Jason Burke's book to:

(a) get an understanding of what "Al-Qaeda" is and is not, and;

(b) get an understanding of what credible sources and careful independent research are. Azrael, Jazzz and the rest of you might also find it illuminating in that respect.

But even if you're right and "Al-Qaeda" were behind the July 7th bombings, "they" are still out there. Don't you think that by "releasing the evidence", the police might possibly be compromising an ongoing investigation, or has that not occurred to you?

 

[jæd]

Some people find it objectionable that daft, dishonest gits dedicate themselves to defending a bunch of murdering Islamogits, by pretending, very unconvincingly, that the Islamogits didn't really commit the crime we all know they committed. You find it objectionable that one of those daft dishonest gits is called a 'silly cow'. Oh, well... as the young and fashionable like to say, get over it.

Yes... I also find it "objectionable" that said persons go to survivors meetins and disrupt them. And then to lie about when brought up on it... Oh, and phoning up the bombers family and spouting tosh is a bit of a no-no in my book as well...

 

[editor]

So there we have it.

For all her wide-eyed posturing, the "Truth seeker" Prole has, without any credible evidence at all - made her mind firmly up, declaring the four "lads" to be totally innocent, and announced that the whole thing was a stitch up.

Far from having an "open mind" it's clear that she has made up her mind some time ago and this whole exercise is just her desperately trying to find something - anything - that fits her lunatic agenda, regardless of whether it's actually true, credible or decently sourced or not.

"It's a travesty of justice, these men didn't do it."

*What* a hypocritical liar!

 

[Prole]

So there we have it.

For all her wide-eyed posturing, the "Truth seeker" Prole has, without any credible evidence at all - made her mind firmly up, declaring the four "lads" to be totally innocent, and announced that the whole thing was a stitch up.

Far from having an "open mind" it's clear that she has made up her mind some time ago and this whole exercise is just her desperately trying to find something - anything - that fits her lunatic agenda, regardless of whether it's actually true, credible or decently sourced or not.*What* a hypocritical liar!

Based on the 7.40 train time in the official report it was the only conclusion that could be reached.

And as for the rest, innocent until proven guilty methinks. There is also no credible reason why the evidence cannot be released. Especially if witnesses are required to come forward.

Why does this same logic not apply to the release of evidence immediately after the 21/7 flour bombers? For whom there will be a trial? Are witnesses not required? Just do a compare and contrast and then come back with a reasoned argument that doesn't contain the levels of abuse you like to throw my way and I will then consider whether I choose to reply.

 

[jæd]

Based on the 7.40 train time in the official report it was the only conclusion that could be reached.

And as for the rest, innocent until proven guilty methinks. There is also no credible reason why the evidence cannot be released. Especially if witnesses are required to come forward.

Why does this same logic not apply to the release of evidence immediately after the 21/7 flour bombers? For whom there will be a trial? Are witnesses not required? Just do a compare and contrast and then come back with a reasoned argument that doesn't contain the levels of abuse you like to throw my way and I will then consider whether I choose to reply.

Ok...

July 7: People killed, people horribly maimed, people shell-shocked and wounded...
July 21: There's a funny stain/smell on some tube trains...

Whatever could the difference be...?