The 7/7 Report
- Thread starter TAE
- Start date
Bob_the_lost
Elsewhere
Like hell you will.Prole said:
http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=4807200&postcount=2849
http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=4807218&postcount=2850
There's one, you don't think i can find more?
Are you aware that the MPS have never changed that statement? And it doesn't change the point that I was making about why they indentified all the wrong sites of the explosions.Bob_the_lost said:
You may or may not be aware that the Edgware Rd survivors are concerned that the official report stated that Khan was sitting by the first set of doors, whereas they believe he was standing by the second set.
This letter is dated 24/8/06, over a year later and the forensics have not produced a definitive report!
http://rachelnorthlondon.blogspot.com/2006/09/77-cctv-question.html
Bob_the_lost
Elsewhere
See, told you. Non stop dissemination and bullshit from Prole. You lied by implication, ommision and overall deception, but you won't admit to it.
What sort of double-think is this? The MPS state a tunnel wall was blasted through at Edgware Rd and I've proved that one wasn't. Who is the liar?Bob_the_lost said:
They state the third carriage on the Aldgate train, the official report says the second.
They state the first set of double doors on the Piccadilly Line train, BK says the second set.
Yet in the strange mind of Bob whose Lost, I am the liar?
Bob_the_lost
Elsewhere
You really are fucking stupid aren't you.Prole said:
http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=4806569&postcount=2836
That's where, you misrepresented a year old doccument as a current statement.
editor
hiraethified
You've got that wrong. Nafeez is the person currently censoring comments from a host of sources just because he doesn't like their words, not me.Prole said:
You seem to have got that arse about tit too.Prole said:
The 'mistake' was made by Nafeez who couldn't be arsed to read the rules (or wilfully ignored them) and chose to put the site at risk by posting up legally contentious material, as well as plugging his site with every post.
And instead of apologising for his foolish mistake, he went on to post up a laughably spun version of events on his blog, while censoring any comment he didn't personally agree with.
Badger Kitten
oof
Prole,can you stop stirring it. Nafeez was not banned for being Muslim, or a writer, he was banned for breaking the site rules.
Badger Kitten
oof
And not everything is a feverish conspiracy. Though I don't know why I bother telling you this.
Donna Ferentes
jubliado
He's let through, though, as you can seeeditor said:
Comments from Kitten and me.
Bob_the_lost
Elsewhere
Because you don't flat out tell him he's wrong. That his censorship was due to his own error.Donna Ferentes said:
editor
hiraethified
Really? He steadfastly censored all comments from me, MrsM and FridgeMagnet and even deleted the trackback from his blog ever since he was banned.Donna Ferentes said:
Maybe he's waking up to the fact that his hypocritical conduct would have made for an entertaining Private Eye article!
Oh, and Prole - exactly how has he "exposed" me, please? And you are aware that it wasn't me who banned him, yes?
That is the last statement made by the MPS and clearly states: One week on from the four explosions in central London that killed more than 50 people and injured hundreds, the Metropolitan Police Service is renewing its appeals for witnesses and information.Bob_the_lost said:
Whether it was one week or one year it was still WRONG.
Why was it wrong, why did the Met have their facts so woefully wrong? That's the real question Bob the very Lost.
No I wasn't aware that it wasn't you who had personally banned him (who are YOU anyway, it just says editor, so I assume you are M***, are you not?)editor said:
Who else has the authority, and do you think whoever it was made a mistake?
Reading FAQ's is like reading the instruction booklet, no one ever does it until the 'small print' is needed (in this case to censor).
Bob_the_lost
Elsewhere
No you jibbering idiot:Prole said:
You used a year old link to try and answer a request clearly asking for current informantion.
No matter how much bold text you use you can't avoid the fact that you were either shockingly incompetent when you searched for the information you used (as well as lazy) or you deliberatly tried to mislead people.
Badger Kitten
oof
It seems to be unfortunate as Nafeez could have made an interesting contributor, which is why it is a great shame that he didn't check the site rules, and an even greater shame that he thinks he is being censored on spurious grounds. Which he patently isn't, and it is poor form to say so.
You can't expect mods to check the background of everyone who pops up with reams of C&P text, and particularly as it was putting u75 in legal hot water to circulate it on a public board. Nafeez is a nice, sincere, well-read guy, I have met him, but it was a rubbish start to an u75 posting career, and Prole, you are just flipping well stirring.
YOU, Prole aren't censored on u75. You are aware of the site's general attitude to conspiracy theories because it very sensibly guards itself against the boards being taken over by people with bonkers agendas, C&P odysseys etc etc - and yet you continue to post here. Well, you know what you can expect, so it is your call. The ''9/11 Truth critics'' on the 9/11 boards ( on which you post) are given just as robust treatment by your fellow ''truth seekers'' for disagreeing with their conspiracy theories, and I have been subject to some vicious personal attacks for disagreeing with them on their boards, as you know ( for daring to turn up and say what I thought on a thread devoted to discussing me and speculating about what I thought) . I don't really know what you expect by coming here and carrying on wth your blatant promotion of your site and your ''7/7/ bombers were innocent theories''? Which many people find deeply offensive.
I mean, wake up, there are plenty of places where you can post about all this stuff and be met by wild eyed acclaim by fellow ''Truthseekers'' so there seems to be no point in coming here, apart from a masochistic desire for ''martyrdom'', and transparent attempts to push your site, in which you are patently indulged.
However, if you expect posters to roll over and swallow all your madcap theories as to how ''7/7 was an inside job'' just because there have been some errors, confusion and contradiction in some of the accounts sharted with some of the media some of the time, then you are tilting at windmills.
You can't expect mods to check the background of everyone who pops up with reams of C&P text, and particularly as it was putting u75 in legal hot water to circulate it on a public board. Nafeez is a nice, sincere, well-read guy, I have met him, but it was a rubbish start to an u75 posting career, and Prole, you are just flipping well stirring.
YOU, Prole aren't censored on u75. You are aware of the site's general attitude to conspiracy theories because it very sensibly guards itself against the boards being taken over by people with bonkers agendas, C&P odysseys etc etc - and yet you continue to post here. Well, you know what you can expect, so it is your call. The ''9/11 Truth critics'' on the 9/11 boards ( on which you post) are given just as robust treatment by your fellow ''truth seekers'' for disagreeing with their conspiracy theories, and I have been subject to some vicious personal attacks for disagreeing with them on their boards, as you know ( for daring to turn up and say what I thought on a thread devoted to discussing me and speculating about what I thought) . I don't really know what you expect by coming here and carrying on wth your blatant promotion of your site and your ''7/7/ bombers were innocent theories''? Which many people find deeply offensive.
I mean, wake up, there are plenty of places where you can post about all this stuff and be met by wild eyed acclaim by fellow ''Truthseekers'' so there seems to be no point in coming here, apart from a masochistic desire for ''martyrdom'', and transparent attempts to push your site, in which you are patently indulged.
However, if you expect posters to roll over and swallow all your madcap theories as to how ''7/7 was an inside job'' just because there have been some errors, confusion and contradiction in some of the accounts sharted with some of the media some of the time, then you are tilting at windmills.
I think banning a new poster, especially with such an important post as censorship of information that should be available to all, the NY Times article, is crass, insensitive and unnecessary.Badger Kitten said:
Talk about rules is rubbish, let's face it, you can interpret rules to mean anything you want if you wish. Nafeez had no idea he was breaking any rules, it was the content of his post that mattered, not etiquette. Being a British Muslim is crucial to what he writes, and his voice needs to be heard.
Certainly there was no need for banning him.
editor
hiraethified
I'm getting bored with your bullshit now and I don't take too kindly to you posting slurs up elsewhere, or using my real name.Prole said:
The mods did not make a mistake
I've bothered to explain the reasons why he was banned - not censored - but you seem unable to understand them.
So I'll try one last time: he posted up material that he knew could have caused very serious legal implications for urban75. That was his first post.
That post contained a page full of FAQ-trashin', copyright-bustin' cut and paste - potentially more trouble for the boards there too - as well as advert forhis won site.
And then he came back and ore or less did the same all over again.
And when he was (rightfully) banned, he immediately posted up a highly spun version of events and censored any attempt by the mods to give their side of the story (you see, we even bothered - all three of us - to explain to him the reasons for his ban).
Badger Kitten
oof
Oh, will you give it a rest.
The mods do not have time to trawl through the background of every new poster, especially when they pop up and break several rules on their first post.
Nafeez was disseminating information far and wide about the NTY times thing, fair enough, but the fact remains that you don't join a talk board to post without taking the time to find out where you are, what the policy is and to introiduce yourself; it's just good manners. He should have checked, and having been banned, he could have asked why.
However, as usual, Prole seizes upon whatever she wants to see and sees a conspiracy, censorship and all the rest of it. He broke rules with his first post, he broke them again, nobody knew why or who he was or had time to research it ( and why should they? It's a posters responsibilty to play by the rules. Not doing so, or not checking, is bad form.)
It has got shag all to do with his religion, ethnicity, or starsign. Give it a rest, you are being incredibly tiresome. I note yet again that you make no effort to contribute to any other parts of the board, just pop up on this thread to promote your site and to chunter on about your misguided foolish theories, for which you have little evidence and even less sympathy or awareness as to the offence they cause.
The mods do not have time to trawl through the background of every new poster, especially when they pop up and break several rules on their first post.
Nafeez was disseminating information far and wide about the NTY times thing, fair enough, but the fact remains that you don't join a talk board to post without taking the time to find out where you are, what the policy is and to introiduce yourself; it's just good manners. He should have checked, and having been banned, he could have asked why.
However, as usual, Prole seizes upon whatever she wants to see and sees a conspiracy, censorship and all the rest of it. He broke rules with his first post, he broke them again, nobody knew why or who he was or had time to research it ( and why should they? It's a posters responsibilty to play by the rules. Not doing so, or not checking, is bad form.)
It has got shag all to do with his religion, ethnicity, or starsign. Give it a rest, you are being incredibly tiresome. I note yet again that you make no effort to contribute to any other parts of the board, just pop up on this thread to promote your site and to chunter on about your misguided foolish theories, for which you have little evidence and even less sympathy or awareness as to the offence they cause.
Bob_the_lost
Elsewhere
You used a year old link to try and answer a request clearly asking for current informantion.Prole said:
No matter how much bold text you use you can't avoid the fact that you were either shockingly incompetent when you searched for the information you used (as well as lazy) or you deliberatly tried to mislead people.
BK: I had no idea I should contribute to other threads other than those that interest me, such as the 7/7 threads.
We should always be grateful and interested in other opinions and views, IMO, whether we agree with them or not. As long as they don't just descend to unwarranted personal abuse as has often happened to me and others here.
I admire your post re: the lack of July 7th CCTV images, btw.
http://rachelnorthlondon.blogspot.com/2006/09/77-cctv-question.html
BBC's 'Crimewatch' must be in serious trouble then.
We should always be grateful and interested in other opinions and views, IMO, whether we agree with them or not. As long as they don't just descend to unwarranted personal abuse as has often happened to me and others here.
I admire your post re: the lack of July 7th CCTV images, btw.
http://rachelnorthlondon.blogspot.com/2006/09/77-cctv-question.html
BBC's 'Crimewatch' must be in serious trouble then.
Similar threads
- Locked
