The 7/7 Report

[laptop]

''Hurrah for Prole!'' and install her as Truth Queen Extrordinaire.

 

[pk]

I'd just like to say how much I admire Badger Kitten for dealing with Prole and other similarly screwed up obsessives whilst maintaining composure and dignity throughout.

Shouldn't have had to do it, but there we go, the world is full of loons.

Nice one BK.

 

[pk]

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

You are a cunt.

 

[sparticus]

BK

Do you welcome the admiration of pk? Such a nice fella

 

[editor]

The fact that you call them bombers suggests that you've already decided that they're guilty, which makes me wonder why you would bother joining a forum that's trying to find the truth.

Now this really is too much seeing as it's coming from the bullshitting, lying hypocrite who had announced - over two months ago - that all the bombers were completely and utterly innocent and cruel victims of a "travesty of justice."

 

[sparticus]

Now this really is too much seeing as it's coming from the bullshitting, lying hypocrite who had announced - over two months ago - that all the bombers were completely and utterly innocent and cruel victims of a "travesty of justice."

I believe Prole has clarified this. Whilst she may believe the alleged bombers are innocent, there is no way she can KNOW this.

I personally believe that they are unlikely to be innocent, but equally neither have they been proven guilty. They are charged in the media and by the official narrative as being 4 clean skin, self radicalised, self financed suicide bombers. This is looking increasingly unlikely. A key line of inquiry ignored by the official narrative has to be their reported connections to MI5/6 and al CIAda.

If British intelligence and security services were shown to be involved in July 7, this throws open to challenge the whole reliability of the British authorities account

 

[jæd]

I believe Prole has clarified this. Whilst she may believe the alleged bombers are innocent, there is no way she can KNOW this.

I personally believe that they are unlikely to be innocent, but equally neither have they been proven guilty. They are charged in the media and by the official narrative as being 4 clean skin, self radicalised, self financed suicide bombers. This is looking increasingly unlikely. A key line of inquiry ignored by the official narrative has to be their reported connections to MI5/6 and al CIAda.

I like the way no-one can actually do anything for themselves these days, and needs to relly on Government help... Oh, so whats your explanation for the dna evidence & personal effects at the scene of the explosions, the bomb factories, hire car used to travel down, and all the cctv evidence, etc...?

If British intelligence and security services were shown to be involved in July 7, this throws open to challenge the whole reliability of the British authorities account

Evidence, please, or is this just baseless speculation...

 

[editor]

I believe Prole has clarified this.

She hasn't actually.

She made her mind up as far back as May and has since refused to explain her rationale for ignoring every other single piece of evidence that pointed to the bomber's involvement.

How anyone can claim to be a 'truth seeker' after reaching a firm conclusion on the total innocence of the bombers months ago defies belief - especially when the evidence was based on the opinions of two totally unqualified, totally partisan conspiraloons (who she refused to name).

She's a joke and her dishonesty has been exposed for all to see here.

 

[Prole]

In fact (I can now exclusively reveal!) there was only ever one fan against the bill at the time - me - but my bedroom bluff worked and the national media were soon listing the fears of football supporters all over, er, Brixton.

But it's not just website owners who can be a little economical with the truth:

This site doesn't exactly have spotless credentials when it's own founder is not above err 'lying' when it suits his own purposes. Some people call that opportunism.

You Ed are really tiresome, I qualified my statement about a travesty and innocence, it was based on the narrative saying 7.40. a train even John Reid accepts 'did not run'. Therefore I based my statement on the facts as they were known at that time. I must admit though to being gullible in believing that the HO were going to produce an accurate narrative.

Why do you still hark on about the names of the researchers? They have now been proved correct, even the man with the talking dog, so what is your problem? I stated that I had no permission from them to give names to you or your fellow travellers. So what if they are ordinary people, don't they count? Or do you just snear at us common folk for having the guile to question and do research ourselves. What snobs you are.

Some honesty from some of you might lift the debate on to a more constructive level, but then perhaps that is what you fear most. So if you wish to keep it at this gutter level I will continue to think that it's because you don't want the narrative scrutinised too closely.

BTW Would you support a petition to 'Release the Evidence' that supports the, now discredited, narrative?

 

[Lock&Light]

BK

Do you welcome the admiration of pk? Such a nice fella

You won't win many friends with that kind of argument.

 

[jæd]

This site doesn't exactly have spotless credentials when it's own founder is not above err 'lying' when it suits his own purposes. Some people call that opportunism.

Prole... Have you ever thought about putting links to website you are quoting... Oh, and how is about some Bill about football equal to an act of terrorism...?

Why do you still hark on about the names of the researchers? They have now been proved correct, even the man with the talking dog, so what is your problem? I stated that I had no permission from them to give names to you or your fellow travellers.

Um... Are you trying to insult the Editor by saying he is a traveller...? Ie, are yoiu trying to make out that travellers are bad people...? I think this could backfire on you...!

 

[editor]

You Ed are really tiresome, I qualified my statement about a travesty and innocence, it was based on the narrative saying 7.40. a train even John Reid accepts 'did not run'. Therefore I based my statement on the facts as they were known at that time. I must admit though to being gullible in believing that the HO were going to produce an accurate narrative.

So on what basis did you choose to ignore every other piece of evidence available at the time, and place your complete faith in the amateur findings of a pair of woefully unqualified, totally biased, partisan conspiraloons please?

I keep asking and you won't answer. Again.

And the fact that you reached a firm conclusion of their total innocence and a charge that it was all a "travesty of justice" at such an early stage of the investigation speaks volumes of your laughably conspiracy-tastic crusade.

 

[tarannau]

Why do you still hark on about the names of the researchers? They have now been proved correct, even the man with the talking dog, so what is your problem? I stated that I had no permission from them to give names to you or your fellow travellers. So what if they are ordinary people, don't they count? Or do you just snear at us common folk for having the guile to question and do research ourselves. What snobs you are.

Because you made a big deal about their independence of their research and their findings had been verified. You were shown to be a big fat liar on both counts - the findings were not verified in any effective sense, nor could these 'researchers' be considered anywhere near 'independent' or unbiased given their habitual love of conspiracies of all kinds. You can only call them 'independent' by a mealy-mouthed technicality - the sort of thing you would (rightly) find laughable from the Govt. You've been exposed as someone all too willing to lie and exagerrate to suit your campaign Prole, your repeated evasiveness all too obvious.

It's not about 'ordinary people' vs paid experts, it's about honesty and impartiality. I may not be a paid professional reseacher, but I could put together a solid, plausible and impartial research methodology. Your two seemed to do none of the same - any decent researcher would have considered the possibility that the time given by the train timetable may have been wrong and investigated further. They have not been proved correct - they've been shown to do jack all: the bombers could clearly have reached London by taking another train, as most of us have suggested. Your 'researchers' seemed to do little other than look at an email header and nod in conspiratorial agreement that things didn't seem to add up. That's not research, that's laughable - even showing a lack of common sense. What did they do? Tell us Prole. Why support such crap 'research' and lack of information when you want accuracy and openness from the Govt?

 

[detective-boy]

Um... Are you trying to insult the Editor by saying he is a traveller...? Ie, are yoiu trying to make out that travellers are bad people...? I think this could backfire on you...!

I think the old biddy is using the word in it's 50's / 60's incarnation - meaning people of similar political, etc. beliefs.

Not that I'm old enough (quite) to remember this usage, of course, my grandpa told me ...

 

[Prole]

So on what basis did you choose to ignore every other piece of evidence available at the time, and place your complete faith in the findings of a pair of woefully unqualified, totally biased, partisan conspiraloons please?

I keep asking and you won't answer. Again.

And the fact that you reached a firm conclusion of their total innocence and a charge that it was all a "travesty of justice" at such an early stage of the investigation speaks volumes of your laughably conspiracy-tastic crusade.

Oh the unqualified charge again. Guilty, move on. (We were right btw).

"Early stage of the investigation" mmm dishonest, 12/5/06 the day after the narrative which stated 7.40, which 'unqualified researchers' had already proved didn't run.

'Every other piece of evidence' such as? Hasib's own father has stated publicly he has seen no evidence.

What evidence have any of us actually 'seen'? One cctv image outside Luton with unidentifiable faces? What else have you actually 'seen' or do you just believe what you are told by the PTB? It is about time we see the actual evidence that supports the narrative. Until them some of us will continue to question and have doubts. I take it that that's OK? We haven't quite reached a level of authoritarianism in this country that swallowing any official report and keeping our mouths shut is considered the duty of a good citizen?

At one time, before the days of dna, actual evidence was required. What would Sherlock have made of all this I wonder?

 

[Prole]

Because you made a big deal about their independence of their research and their findings had been verified. You were shown to be a big fat liar on both counts - the findings were not verified in any effective sense, nor could these 'researchers' be considered anywhere near 'independent' or unbiased given their habitual love of conspiracies of all kinds. You can only call them 'independent' by a mealy-mouthed technicality - the sort of thing you would (rightly) find laughable from the Govt. You've been exposed as someone all too willing to lie and exagerrate to suit your campaign Prole, your repeated evasiveness all too obvious.

It's not about 'ordinary people' vs paid experts, it's about honesty and impartiality. I may not be a paid professional reseacher, but I could put together a solid, plausible and impartial research methodology. Your two seemed to do none of the same - any decent researcher would have considered the possibility that the time given by the train timetable may have been wrong and investigated further. They have not been proved correct - they've been shown to do jack all: the bombers could clearly have reached London by taking another train, as most of us have suggested. Your 'researchers' seemed to do little other than look at an email header and nod in conspiratorial agreement that things didn't seem to add up. That's not research, that's laughable - even showing a lack of common sense. What did they do? Tell us Prole. Why support such crap 'research' and lack of information when you want accuracy and openness from the Govt?

Unbiased and impartial, such as governement dossiers and reports?

 

[editor]

What evidence have any of us actually 'seen'? One cctv image outside Luton with unidentifiable faces? What else have you actually 'seen' or do you just believe what you are told by the PTB?

So you're definitely not going to give a straight answer as to why you reached your conclusion of their absolute innocence based on the unqualified opinion of two loons or why you chose to ignore every other piece of evidence available at the time?

Your dishonesty and hypocrisy continues to amaze me.

Have you really no idea how your squirming, wriggling antics here have turned you into a laughing stock?

 

[detective-boy]

At one time, before the days of dna, actual evidence was required. What would Sherlock have made of all this I wonder?

DNA is fucking evidence. You really ARE as stupid as you appear, aren't you?

In the days before witchcraft was outlawed, a ducking stool would be employed. What would the Witchfinder-General have made of you I wonder?

 

[jæd]

What would Sherlock have made of all this I wonder?

You would have a known coke-head, and an amateur, running the investigation...?

 

[Prole]

So you're definitely not going to give a straight answer as to why you reached your conclusion of their absolute innocence based on the unqualified opinion of two loons or why you choose to ignore every other piece of evidence available at the time?

Your dishonesty and hypocrisy continues to amaze me.

Have you really no idea how your squirming, wriggling antics here have turned you into a laughing stock?

Reached on the basis of the governments's offical report produced by the Home Office.

Does their dishonesty and hypocrisy amaze you?

Home Secretary John Reid told the Commons the published narrative gave the wrong time for the train four suicide bombers took to London to carry them out.

Grahame Russell, whose son Philip died on July 7, said it raised concerns about the accuracy of the rest of the report.

Mr Reid admitted that the error "may be of concern" and had ordered a report from police into how it had gone undetected for so long.

However, Scotland Yard pointed out that the official account had been produced by the Home Office and police had never given it the time for the train.

A spokesman said the mistake may have come from erroneous first-hand witness accounts of the timing it had received and then passed on.
http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_1911660.html?menu=news.royals

Why were erroneous first-hand witness accounts passed on?

 

[Prole]

DNA is fucking evidence. You really ARE as stupid as you appear, aren't you?

In the days before witchcraft was outlawed, a ducking stool would be employed. What would the Witchfinder-General have made of you I wonder?

Of course it is db, Sherlock didn't have the forensic laboratories though did he. Dependence on DNA (IMHO) allows for too much leeway for abuses of the system. In laboratories (some now run by private companies) behind closed doors. Ian Blair's 'largest criminal inquiry' requires something more transparent than this methinks. How about some CCTV with indentifiable faces? Too much to ask for?

 

[tarannau]

Unbiased and impartial, such as governement dossiers and reports?

At least they would tend to state their methodology and the credentials of those involved in the reports, allowing the cynical amongst us to check up on their findings and criticise any potential bias or lack of expertise.

You, on the other hand, have constantly obfuscated the credentials and identities of your researchers, seem to have no idea of what research they undertook and saw fit to lie about their independence

This is the campaign for truth that can't even honestly state its own position or back up its own 'research.' I may not trust the Govt, but I'll have to take their words over your succession of lies and inaccuracies until you get your own house in order.

 

[jæd]

Why were erroneous first-hand witness accounts passed on?

You've just been in the most shocking accurate of terrorism on these shores... Would you be able to say 100% accurately the time of the train (allowing for delays) you just took...? Remember, at some place there are multiple trains at less than 10 min intervals, some running on time, some not...

 

[jæd]

Of course it is db, Sherlock didn't have the forensic laboratories though did he. Dependence on DNA (IMHO) allows for too much leeway for abuses of the system. In laboratories (some now run by private companies) behind closed doors. Ian Blair's 'largest criminal inquiry' requires something more transparent than this methinks. How about some CCTV with indentifiable faces? Too much to ask for?

I thought the reason that dna testing was invented was that cctv, etc was thought too unreliable...

 

[detective-boy]

In laboratories (some now run by private companies) behind closed doors.

What do you want? al fresco forensic science laboratories? Maybe regular coach trips through them, with visitors allowed to prod and poke and point out to scientists that "You've missed a bit there ...".

 

[Prole]

At least they would tend to state their methodology and the credentials of those involved in the reports, allowing the cynical amongst us to check up on their findings and criticise any potential bias or lack of expertise.

You, on the other hand, have constantly obfuscated the credentials and identities of your researchers, seem to have no idea of what research they undertook and saw fit to lie about their independence

This is the campaign for truth that can't even honestly state its own position or back up its own 'research.' I may not trust the Govt, but I'll have to take their words over your succession of lies and inaccuracies until you get your own house in order.

Unnamed author of the offical report. Is that acceptable?

 

[Prole]

Harriet Weistrich, Jean Charles's family solictor, has just demanded that the Inquest is not delayed due to the H&S case due to be brought against the Met (a fine is the most they can expect, paid for out of our taxes) so that all the evidence can be placed in the public domain.

 

[jæd]

Unnamed author of the offical report. Is that acceptable?

The author of an offical report would be the dept that writes it... Or do you want Parmiment Bills to read "The 1967 Housing Act by HM The Queen, aged 16 and three quarters"...?

 

[jæd]

Harriet Weistrich, Jean Charles's family solictor, has just demanded that the Inquest is not delayed due to the H&S case due to be brought against the Met (a fine is the most they can expect, paid for out of our taxes) so that all the evidence can be placed in the public domain.

I think the difference between her and you Prole is that she doesn't rely on one teeny-tiny error to convince herself that Jean wasn't shot...

 

[editor]

Unnamed author of the offical report. Is that acceptable?

You mean like the unnamed 'experts' who supposedly 'verified' the emails, eh, you pathetic fucking hypocrite.