The 7/7 Report

[editor]

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

Really. So why did you completely ignore all the other evidence? What were your grounds for discounting every single peice of evidence that put them at the scene? How about the DNA? How did that get there?

And, at the time, how were these all-important email, conspiracy-busting, vital emails verified?

Why, it was done by your hush-hush, top secret, "Contain The Truth" non-existent "independent researchers" who turned out to a Princess Di-loving, crop circle admiring, full on 9/11 loon and the buffoon with the fraudulent charity and the talking terrier, both with ZERO relevant qualifications for credibly verifying the emails.

And from that laughably partisan "investigation" by two totally unqualified dabblers, you declared "the lads" to be as innocent as new born lambs!

You're a fucking joke. Your agenda has been exposed for what it is here.

You're not interested in justice - you're only interested in being part of an exciting loon gang who are the first to uncover 'the truth,' regardless of the facts.

And just in case anyone's in any doubt about your supposed mission doe "truth and justice, " here's your own emphatic words again:

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

 

[tarannau]

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

Only if you were a deliberately blinkered muppet with a one-track agenda. The majority of independent thinkers, unsurprisingly, considered that there were wider issues in the narrative, with a possible rogue train time more than possibly being an inaccuracy.

You speak a revisionist load of bollocks frankly Prole. It's amazing how fast you can try and rebrand your position. Christ knows why you're meant to be an organizers of a 'truth' campaign - you're strikingly unperceptive, clearly biased and prone to innaccuracies and lying about research. Why should anyone trust you?

 

[Prole]

Really. So why did you completely ignore all the other evidence? What were your grounds for discounting every single peice of evidence that put them at the scene? How about the DNA? How did that get there?

And, at the time, how were these all-important email, conspiracy-busting, vital emails verified?

Why, it was done by your hush-hush, top secret, "Contain The Truth" non-existent "independent researchers" who turned out to a Princess Di-loving, crop circle admiring, full on 9/11 loon and the buffoon with the fraudulent charity and the talking terrier, both with ZERO relevant qualifications for credibly verifying the emails.

And from that laughably partisan "investigation" by two totally unqualified dabblers, you declared "the lads" to be as innocent as new born lambs!

You're a fucking joke. Your agenda has been exposed for what it is here.

You're not interested in justice - you're only interested in being part of an exciting loon gang who are the first to uncover 'the truth,' regardless of the facts.

And just in case anyone's in any doubt about your supposed mission doe "truth and justice, " here's your own emphatic words again:

Wriggle wriggle on the compare & contrast between 7/7 and 21/7.

If the train time hadn't been changed by John Reid over a year later, then yes we were right, they couldn't have got to London could they? So yes, a travesty based on the official report.

But don't let that stop your obvious enjoyment and delight in throwing abuse around.

I've worked with enough abused and traumatised children in my time to know a bully when I see one.

 

[editor]

It's worth noting that the "truth seeker" Prole was unequivocally declaring the bombers to be as innocent and as pure as new born lambs way back in early May.

Clearly no more research was needed because, as Prole so boldly informed us, it was "a travesty of justice, these men didn't do it."

In a stunning feast of hypocrisy, the same post contained this little quote, garnered, curiously enough, from Joseph Goebbels:

"The essential English leadership secret does not depend on particular intelligence. Rather, it depends on a remarkably stupid thick-headedness. The English follow the principle that when one lies, one should lie big, and stick to it. They keep up their lies, even at the risk of looking ridiculous."

<cough splutter>

 

[editor]

I've worked with enough abused and traumatised children in my time to know a bully when I see one.

Nice piece of off topic personal abuse there, but that doesn't alter the fact that you've been exposed as a liar and a hypocrite here by your very own words.

Any semblance of you actually wanting to find out the truth about 7/7 has been exposed as an utter sham. Your mind was made up a long time ago.

On 12th May, you told us that the "four lads" were totally innocent and the whole thing was a "travesty of justice."

Perhaps you might now explain the process by which you were able to discount every piece of evidence available at the time - like the DNA samples - in preference to some side-issue emails "verified" by hopelessly biased, unskilled, unqualified fellow loons?

 

[Prole]

Only if you were a deliberately blinkered muppet with a one-track agenda. The majority of independent thinkers, unsurprisingly, considered that there were wider issues in the narrative, with a possible rogue train time more than possibly being an inaccuracy.

You speak a revisionist load of bollocks frankly Prole. It's amazing how fast you can try and rebrand your position. Christ knows why you're meant to be an organizers of a 'truth' campaign - you're strikingly unperceptive, clearly biased and prone to innaccuracies and lying about research. Why should anyone trust you?

Where do I ask for trust? I am not trying to convince anyone, this is a discussion thread, to discuss the narrative, no?

Don't trust me, I certainly don't trust you, just trust yourselves. An open mind is all that is required.

The truth will emerge eventually and it may take a lot of campaigning and questioning to achieve. I have no idea what it will be and frankly, neither do any of you.

 

[jæd]

Wriggle wriggle on the compare & contrast between 7/7 and 21/7.

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

You're the one who is wriggling, and only answering questions you agree with...!

 

[tarannau]

Don't trust me, I certainly don't trust you, just trust yourselves. An open mind is all that is required.

The truth will emerge eventually and it may take a lot of campaigning and questioning to achieve. I have no idea what it will be and frankly, neither do any of you.

Open mind? You're having a fucking laugh? If there's anything this sorry incident has shown it's that you've the most closed-minded approach of anyone on this thread, assuming these guys innocence on one piece of timetable information and busily closing your ears to any other possibility, evidence and insight. Follow that with your lies and deliberate misrepresentation of your researchers - who effectively did no research - and your ever changing goalposts, and it's obvious that you're not in the slightest bit concerned about really having an open mind.

You're a lousy hypocrite with no self perception. If the full truth comes out it'll be in spite of liars and hypocrites like you, not because of it. You're a discredit to any truth campaign - like many others I want the truth, but I don't see why we've got to have unashamed revisionist liars like you crusading duplicitiously on our behalf.

 

[editor]

An open mind is all that is required.

But you'd made your own mind up way back on the 12th May, declaring the bombers to be totally innocent and the victims of a "travesty of justice."

Your words. Your conclusion. Your closed mind.

I don't how you can look at yourself in the mirror when you come up with such blatant lies like this.

 

[Prole]

Nice piece of off topic personal abuse there, but that doesn't alter the fact that you've been exposed as a liar and a hypocrite here by your very own words.

Any semblance of you actually wanting to find out the truth about 7/7 has been exposed as an utter sham. Your mind was made up a long time ago.

On 12th May, you told us that the "four lads" were totally innocent and the whole thing was a "travesty of justice."

Perhaps you might now explain the process by which you were able to discount every piece of evidence available at the time - like the DNA samples - in preference to some side-issue emails "verified" by hopelessly biased, unskilled, unqualified fellow loons?

I also remain unconvinced that the official story is correct. Until more evidence is released I remain unconvinced. No point in bullying me, abusing me and all the other rather nasty tactics you choose, innocent until proven guilty methinks.

Not a word, not a word, of criticism from any of you over the narrative containing the wrong time. Not a word on the Met saying they never gave the time to the HO. Not a word on whether a proven lying mendacious murdering and criminal Govt should be trusted. Not a word from you Ed.

The point I made about children/bullies is they pick on those they perceive as 'smaller and weaker' rather than those that abuse them, the bigger and mightier. It makes them feel powerful in their own powerlessness.

You choose to turn a vitally important debate into something that resembles a children's playground, lots of name calling and attempts at isloating anyone perceived as 'different'. I'm not even sure that analogy is fair on children, who have the ability to show a sight more common decency and humanity than some of you display.

I get absolutely nothing out of visiting these boards other than to hope there is still room for reasoned debate and in the knowledge that the only way to defeat bullies is to stand up to them.

Now if any of you are interested in discussing the official report then that's fine, if you want it to remain as a campaign against who you perceive is PROLE based on your own biased and prejudiced views then I am not willing to 'play'.

 

[Prole]

But you'd made your own mind up way back on the 12th May, declaring the bombers to be totally innocent and the victims of a "travesty of justice."

Your words. Your conclusion. Your closed mind.

I don't how you can look at yourself in the mirror when you come up with such blatant lies like this.

BASED on the 7.40 train time ED, but just continue to ignore the facts.

 

[jæd]

who have the ability to show a sight more common decency and humanity than some of you display.

Is it common decency to disrupt the meeting of the worst terror attack on London's survivors...? Is it decent to call up the father of one of the bombers...?

 

[jæd]

Now if any of you are interested in discussing the official report then that's fine, if you want it to remain as a campaign against who you perceive is PROLE based on your own biased and prejudiced views then I am not willing to 'play'.

Nope... Its based on what you say... You've been proved a liar five times now... If you don't want people to think you're a hypocrite then don't post up hypocracy...

 

[editor]

BASED on the 7.40 train time ED, but just continue to ignore the facts.

Oh dear. Your self delusion knows no bounds.

Perhaps you might now explain the process by which you were able to discount every piece of evidence available at the time - like the DNA samples, eye witness testimony etc - in preference to some side-issue emails "verified" by hopelessly biased, unskilled, unqualified fellow loons?

On the 12th May you made an emphatic claim. You weren't 'asking questions' or 'seeking the truth.' You told us that the bombers were completely and utterly innocent of all crimes and that the whole thing was a "travesty of justice."

And all that was based on some emails which you knew had not been verified to any level of accuracy.

And yet, despite that, you saw fit to ignore every other piece of evidence and rushed to your loon-tastic conclusions.

And that sums up your agenda-laden dishonest approach.

You're a fucking liar and a hypocrite and arseholes like you who go around declaring that a "travesty of justice" has taken place when you have jack shit credible evidence does nothing but harm for those seeking truth and justice.

You're a disgrace.

 

[detective-boy]

Perhaps you might now explain the process by which you were able to discount every piece of evidence available at the time - like the DNA samples, eye witness testimony etc - in preference to some side-issue emails "verified" by hopelessly biased, unskilled, unqualified fellow loons?

And, while you're about it, perhaps you'd like to explain how the fact that an e-mail had been verified as genuine had the slightest fucking relevance as to whether or not the train time was actually reliable / correct. Because a verified, genuine e-mail would arise from these two extreme sceanrios ... and everything in between:

Extreme scenario A:

Prole asks Thameslink for the train times. Thameslink person realises it's dead important they get it right. They spend hours checking (a) timetables; (b) actual computer-based records of train movements on the day; (c) drivers / controller's logs; (d) CCTV footage; (e) ticket barrier information; (f) driver's recollections, etc., etc., etc. And then they send an e-mail with the absolutely best available data on the actual train times on the day, along with some guidance as to how reliable the data is and where, and how big, any error is likely to be.

Extreme scenario B:

Prole asks Thameslink for the train times. Thameslink person doesn't realise it's dead important and presses a few buttons at random and reports the first thing the computer spews out. And then they send an e-mail with some random data on the train times on the day, which may, or may not, be reliable and with no indication as to where, and how big, any error is likely to be.

As you could not verify the actual source data without further information from Thameslink, and as you have not reported any such further information, I suspect your "verification" is simply that it is a genuine e-mail.

But arising from which scenario, or which point in between?

 

[sparticus]

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.

I wasn't there either Prole, but I know people who were. I wouldn't condemn the behaviour of others on the account of BK since we both know her account may have a certain bias

 

[editor]

I wasn't there either Prole, but I know people who were. I wouldn't condemn the behaviour of others on the account of BK since we both know her account may have a certain bias

What do you think about those scumbag fruitloop cunts who have been ringing up the families of the bombers, sparticus?

 

[Prole]

I wasn't there either Prole, but I know people who were. I wouldn't condemn the behaviour of others on the account of BK since we both know her account may have a certain bias

Agreed I should have qualified this by stating 'IF this was what actually happened'. We know how the Milan Rai book launch was characterised, and that if a lie is repeated enough times ....

 

[Loki]

oh god it's back

 

[Prole]

What do you think about those scumbag fruitloop cunts who have been ringing up the families of the bombers, sparticus?

Ed what do you think of the BBC taking a bereaved partner with a TV crew to 'pounce' on the father of Hasib Hussain, a man who must be carrying the dual burden of not only losing his beloved son but also the blame that his son carries, with accusations of 'Your son murdered my wife!'. You've never answered my question of whether that is acceptable.

I think it is outrageous. At least IF there were phone-calls and I and you have no way of knowing if there were (unverified by experts methinks and just reported in the papers and all that) at least Mr Hussain could put the phone down, he had a choice. What choice did he have in being confronted by a BBC TV crew for all the world to witness?

Muslims expected to carry collective guilt for 7/7 and father's carrying guilt for sons, it's truly despicable. Now turn on your TV's and watch innocent people being bombed and starved and slaughtered by Israel meting out collective punishment based on a similar theory of collective guilt.

 

[laptop]

Ed what do you think of the BBC taking a bereaved partner with a TV crew to 'pounce' on the father of Hasib Hussain

a) They went to ask what he was about; your mates went to tell him shit;

b) The account is that he turned away, then changed his mind, spoke to the parner and told them his piece;

c) Don't for a moment think you can carry on avoiding the question with a feeble attempt to change the subject.

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

 

[JHE]

...accusations of 'Your son murdered my wife!'

Not the kindest thing to say to him, but at least it has the merit of truth.

 

[jæd]

Muslims expected to carry collective guilt for 7/7...

Um... Nope... If I remember correctly, Muslim leaders distanced themselves very quickly away from the bombers. And survivirs have tended not to associate Muslims with bombing them...

Though, if you have any evidence to back up your statements, I expect they'll prove interesting...

 

[jæd]

Now turn on your TV's and watch innocent people being bombed and starved and slaughtered by Israel meting out collective punishment based on a similar theory of collective guilt.

Did Tony Blair bomb the shit out of Leeds on 8 July last year...? Must of missed that bit...

 

[JHE]

...theory of collective guilt...

Ugly, innit? The Islamogits who murdered more than 50 people in London a year ago were not exactly discriminate. Nor were their thinkalikes in Bombay this week.

 

[editor]

You've never answered my question of whether that is acceptable.

I'll answer just as soon as you have the courtesy to FINALLY answer my questions:

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

Why can't you ever answer questions directly?

Seeing as you claim to be a "truth seeker" why do you keep on acting like the lowest form of wriggling politician and keep avoiding straightforward questions?

 

[Prole]

I'll answer just as soon as you have the courtesy to FINALLY answer my questions:

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

Why can't you ever answer questions directly?

Seeing as you claim to be a "truth seeker" why do you keep on acting like the lowest form of wriggling politician and keep avoiding straightforward questions?

Show me verified proof (preferably by an expert with impeccable credentials) other than one newspaper report that this has happened.

Even if I had, which I haven't, I wouldn't see what businesss it is of yours.

Now answer my question about the BBC, which I don't have to prove as you know it is true, was that outrageous and despicable behaviour?

 

[Badger Kitten]

Show me verified proof (preferably by an expert with impeccable credentials) other than one newspaper report that this has happened.

Even if I had, which I haven't, I wouldn't see what businesss it is of yours.

Now answer my question about the BBC, which I don't have to prove as you know it is true, was that outrageous and despicable behaviour?

From 77 section of the forum of the ''British 9/11 Truth'' site, frequented by Prole...

I know several people have tried their best to contact all the families. dh, do you know which boy's father Keith has visited several times - was it this man?

I think I would be prepared to go see this man if someone would go with me.

[QUOTE='dh' on the 9/11 forum]Yes, Jane. It's delicate as far as I know because the family do not want the hassle, understandable in the light of all the doorstepping
I'll ask Keith about this and suggest we keep this offline at present[/QUOTE]

 

[editor]

Show me verified proof (preferably by an expert with impeccable credentials) other than one newspaper report that this has happened.

Even if I had, which I haven't, I wouldn't see what businesss it is of yours.

Now answer my question about the BBC, which I don't have to prove as you know it is true, was that outrageous and despicable behaviour?

I think it was insensitive, but nowhere near as disgusting as the 7/7 Truth scumbags who have been disrupting survivor's meetings, hassling them on their personal websites and shoving their big fat lunatic oars into their private lives.

I'm sure you'll join with me in condemning these fouls scumbags, yes?

Have you complained to the BBC, btw, or does your "outrage" only go as far as whining here.

Oh, and just in case anyone's in any doubt about your 'truth-seeking' credentials, here's a reminder of your "open mind" in action, back in May:

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

Perhaps now you'll FINALLY answer my question on this subject and explain the process by which you were able to discount every piece of evidence available at the time - the DNA samples, CCTV, eye witness testimony - the lot - in preference to some side-issue emails "verified" by hopelessly biased, unskilled, unqualified fellow loons?

 

[editor]

From 77 section of the forum of the ''British 9/11 Truth'' site, frequented by Prole...

There we have it. They're a disgrace.

Do you condemn them, Prole? And if so, why haven't you uttered a squeak of protest about it on their website?