who is responsible for the London attacks?

[editor]

Why would they think it was a bomb if they thought it was drugs, and had already done a run or two?

You have not a single atom of proof to support any 'theory' that they all arrived in London and started travelling around the underground system (a place well noted for its high police levels, immense CCTV and random sniffer dog checks) loaded with rucksacks stuffed full of unknown drugs.

As usual, you've got nothing to back up your wild speculation, just your undying deluded belief that any event that attracts your attention simply must have an exciting conspiracy attached to it.

 

[TeeJay]

Dr Jazzz, if you leant the difference between saying "I think it is *possible* that X happened" and saying "I know that X happened" you would save yourself a whole world of grief.

For example: I think it is *possible* that at least one or more of the bombers either didn't know they had a bomb or thought they would plant/prime it and get away.

I don't know this to be true. I am not going to claim it is true. If evidence appears that contradicts this possibility then I won't persist in arguing that it is possible. And while I am willing to consider a range of possibilities, I will tend to either reserve judgement (ie I don't know which one is true) or I will opt for the most likely and the one with the most evidence and consistency. This doesn't mean I need 100% "proof" or that every single detail will tie up neatly - but there is no reason why I am going to invent a team of psychotic ninja elephants who brainwashed the four 'patsies' using secret 'elephant rays' and made them bomb the tube...

While concrete evidence about the bombers intentions and plans is still not in the public domain, there is far more evidence pointing to an Al Qaeda linked operation - and none whatsoever to suggest MI6/CIA/Mossad/Lizards.

 

[laptop]

drugs

I believe this is known as "projection".

Meanwhile... I Have A Theory.

They were told the rucksacks were full of Top Sikrit documents proving beyond all doubt that Elvis killed JFK on the orders of Marilyn Monroe and is now living a quiet life in Cuba, where he occasionally plays at local bars.

It's incontrovertible

Acknowledgements are due to the authors of the original Conspiranoid Nonsense, the Nugget File.

 

[kyser_soze]

I believe this is known as "projection".

Meanwhile... I Have A Theory.

They were told the rucksacks were full of Top Sikrit documents proving beyond all doubt that Elvis killed JFK on the orders of Marilyn Monroe and is now living a quiet life in Cuba, where he occasionally plays at local bars.

It's incontrovertible

Acknowledgements are due to the authors of the original Conspiranoid Nonsense, the Nugget File.

Only one thing wrong there mate - he's not in Cube he's in Bhutan and occassionally gives renditions of Love Me Tender to the 10,000 tourists who are allowed in each year but are sworn to secrecy afterwards.

And there's an old Apollo moon lander parked in his backyard...

 

[bigfish]

You have not a single atom of proof to support any 'theory' that they all arrived in London and started travelling around the underground system (a place well noted for its high police levels, immense CCTV and random sniffer dog checks) loaded with rucksacks stuffed full of unknown drugs.

As usual, you've got nothing to back up your wild speculation, just your undying deluded belief that any event that attracts your attention simply must have an exciting conspiracy attached to it.

You have not a single atom of proof to support any 'theory' that they all arrived in London and started travelling around the underground system (a place well noted for its high police levels, immense CCTV and random sniffer dog checks) loaded with rucksacks stuffed full of explosives.

As usual, you've got nothing to back up your wild speculation, just your undying deluded belief that any event that attracts your attention simply must be the work of al-Qaeda.

 

[laptop]

he's not in Cube he's in Bhutan

But your subtle coded message to your Pythagorean mates demonstrates Quit Clearly that you're an Illuminatus and everything you say is a lie designed only to conceal the location of your nest of leathery eggs.

They're in the underground quarry at Corsham. Everyone Knows. Next to Arkle's stable.

 

[editor]

You have not a single atom of proof to support any 'theory' that they all arrived in London and started travelling around the underground system (a place well noted for its high police levels, immense CCTV and random sniffer dog checks) loaded with rucksacks stuffed full explosives.

Well, there was the slight matter of the fucking great explosions, no?

Or do you think that was some sort of giant spliff going off?

 

[pk]

xymphora

Wanker.

You have not a single atom of proof to support any 'theory' that they all arrived in London and started travelling around the underground system (a place well noted for its high police levels, immense CCTV and random sniffer dog checks) loaded with rucksacks stuffed full explosives.

Have you ever actually been to London, Bigfish?

You don't see many sniffer dogs - and even if you do - they're trained to sniff drugs.

Cops and CCTV wil only pick up explosives if they have a suspicion they're already there.

Fuck your theories, you're a twat mate.

 

[pk]

As usual, you've got nothing to back up your wild speculation, just your undying deluded belief that any event that attracts your attention simply must be the work of al-Qaeda.

As usual, you've got nothing to back up your wild speculation, just your undying deluded belief that any event that attracts your attention simply must be the work of MI6.

 

[kyser_soze]

BF, what exactly would you describe as 'high levels of police'. Yes it has random sniffer dogs but only at specific times of the year - about the only thing you've got there is CCTV...something that shows the 4 suspects meeting and so on before getting on the trains that then blew up...

 

[Jazzz]

1. They were commiting suicide for a reason.

2. See answer 1. They were killing themselves for a cause.

Even the police and Daily Mirror are now questioning this. And there was no need for them to make the 'great sacrifice' in order to carry out the attack.

 

[Jazzz]

Well, there was the slight matter of the fucking great explosions, no?

Or do you think that was some sort of giant spliff going off?

yes, there was a huge bong...

(errr... I assume that bigfish meant 'atom of proof that they knew their bags contained explosives' )

 

[kyser_soze]

The Mirror - that well known newspaper that has NEVER made up a story in order to sell copies, defrauded spot the ball contestants so it doesn't have to pay out prizes etc...yeah, good reliable source there.

More intrigued by the OB theory on them not being aware they were carrying bombs, but that doesn't mean that it was some kind of black op thing by MI5, the CIA, DHS, DoD, MoD, NSA or any othee TLA you care to name.

There are quite a few people out there with a genuine greivance against the UK - well that's what I'm told anyway. Maybe there aren't any groups that dislike the Iraq invasion etc - I can't find a quote but I'd be very surprised if on at least one of the pre-war threads, you, BF or both pointed out that in doing so the UK was marking itself out as a target.

 

[TeeJay]

You have not a single atom of proof to support any 'theory' that they all arrived in London and started travelling around the underground system (a place well noted for its high police levels, immense CCTV and random sniffer dog checks) loaded with rucksacks stuffed full of explosives.

There are pictures of the four suspects arriving in London. There bodies were found at the blast scenes. Explosives were found in Leeds. And so on and so on ... there is tons of evidence which supports the theory that these four people travelled to london with explosives. Are you really trying to deny this?

 

[Jazzz]

More intrigued by the OB theory on them not being aware they were carrying bombs

Well, that was the very point and I'm glad you are intrigued too kyser. The 'drugs courier' scenario is the best one I can see, whichever shadowy group was behind it.

If you were the fourth guy, after you hear of multiple explosions, and you had a mystery bag, wouldn't you want to check it? However if you thought you were running a big drugs deal, you wouldn't. You had a job to do and that included strictly no peeking. It would be a very strong deception.

 

[TeeJay]

But Dr Jazzz - you do understand the difference between saying that it is *possible* that one or more of the bombers wasn't clued up about the real plan, and claiming that this is actually true?

Do you understand that suggesting that it is possible that one or more of the bombers wasn't fully clued up doesn't lead in any logical or automatic way to the conclusion that the whole thing was done by the CIA/MI6/Mossad/Lizards?

Also, you never really go into what constitutes the criteria for deciding what your "best" theory is. How is your 'theory' going to stand up to all the facts about these people going to madrassas/pakistan, the houses & explosives in Leeds and details re. where/what/who/when they had done stuff over the last year or so.

In comparison your speculation about drugs packages is just that - speculation: something you have invented and have no actual evidence for at all.

I am constantly amazed at the way you don't actually start with the available facts and then try and construct a reasonable account from them - you always start from the CIA/FBI/MI6/Lizards and construct theories from that, rejecting any details that conflict with your pet theory and inventing any details that don't actually exist.

 

[kyser_soze]

OK, not necessarily running with this, but has that bus eyewitness changed his statement about the guy being nervous, sweaty and fiddling with his bag?

Now that could be because...

1. He wasn't on the tube and knew the bomb wasn't going off in the right place
2. He'd been told it was drugs., looked in the bag and freaked (altho why didn;t he run or try and confess to someone?)
3. He knew it was a bomb and was pissed that he wasn't in the right place.

However, this still doesn't support the idea that it's a govt, or even 'rogue element' backed situation, IMV anyway.

 

[editor]

Well, that was the very point and I'm glad you are intrigued too kyser. The 'drugs courier' scenario is the best one I can see, whichever shadowy group was behind it.

That''s about par for one of your beliefs: i.e. one completely unblemished with any passing contact with hard facts or evidence and one that involves considerable wild projection on your part.

So far, you've shunted up a whole load of idiotic, half-baked and utterly unresearched theories and one by one they've been ripped apart (Mossad /"new Mercedes" posts being just two prime examples), and I wonder what drives you to immediately reach for the Big Book of Bonkers Conspiracies every time a major event happens.

But please note: if you continue to post you any more fact-free theories where you haven't even troubled to undertake the most basic of research, the posts will be deleted on sight.

 

[fela fan]

If I were you I'd be more concerned about Shinawatra being given 'Emergency powers' that include direct control of the Army and security services in your adopted nation than pissant efforts at building an MI6 conspiracy out of the London stuff mate. Like 'When's the next plane out of here'

Who says i'm not, and i'm building no such thing, and have never even thought about MI fucking 6. Fuck, i don't even know what MI6 do.

I'm just simply always a suspicious man when it comes to the manipulations and crimes carried out by agents of the state. I don't really care who did it, shit like this goes on all the time all over the world. Once the leaders do the job their publics expect of them, then the publics might get some semblance of peace.

The US and UK leaders are responsible for much of the shit that goes on. To deny it is to deny the chance at a long-term solution to all this killing shit.

 

[XerxesVargas]

But Dr Jazzz - you do understand the difference between saying that it is *possible* that one or more of the bombers wasn't clued up about the real plan, and claiming that this is actually true?.

<snip>

I am constantly amazed at the way you don't actually start with the available facts and then try and construct a reasonable account from them - you always start from the CIA/FBI/MI6/Lizards and construct theories from that, rejecting any details that conflict with your pet theory and inventing any details that don't actually exist.

But this is the whole way that conspiracy theoriesd work. I've read a fair few books on them, the actual theories that is, and they all work in exactly the same way.

1)Take supposition and show how this could be true, maybe with a nod to other theories, for a chapter.
2) New chapter. Supposition in chapter 1 is now taken to be fact. Another suppostion is added, expanding on the fact from the first chapter. This supposition's veracity rests on accepting the suppostion in chapter one.
3)Repeat until you have a whole book. Print it. Wait for idiots to give you money.

Its the transition of supposition into fact that is the meat for conspiracy theorists.

 

[editor]

Its the transition of supposition into fact that is the meat for conspiracy theorists.

Got it in a nutshell, squire!

The web makes things worse because once a bonkers theory is 'published' on some author-untroubled, fact-unhindered site or another, it's immediately seen as being a 'fact' that can be used to construct the next ludicrous conclusion.

Joe Vialls' seriously deluded site is perhaps the most extreme example of this divorce between reality and fact.

Tragically, some conspiraloons here still refer to sites where his idiotic ramblings are published/linked, despite the guy having as much credibility as an investigative journalist as an ant.

 

[q_w_e_r_t_y]

I have no truck with Lizards, pods or UFOs, but what people dont seem to get is that some conspiracy theories are privileged over others - not on the basis of evidence, but because Bush, Blair and Fox News propounds them.

I agree there is not a shred of evidence to suggest that they thought that they were carrying drugs (Dr J's CT) - but there is exactly the same amount of evidence to suggest that they all knew they were carrying explosives. (government conspiracy theory) - so I would not argue as fact that they thought that they were carrying drugs but neither will I simply accept the g'ment hypothesis on the basis of no evidence.

In 911 the situation is different - the official CT is riddled with holes. If you want to see a fact-free conspiratoid document that could rival anything* that Joe Viall's has produced, read the official government investigation into 911. Yet people denounce me when I point this out.

Why is this? Because everything the US government says is the gospel truth? 100,000 people are dead in Iraq on the basis of a lie conciously told to the people of the UK and US to further these governments interests. Is it really out of all possibility that they could lie about other things for their own benefit?

*well nearly

 

[exosculate]

Speculation is not fact.

However there is nothing whatever wrong with reasoned speculation as long as one does appreciate it is not fact.

 

[q_w_e_r_t_y]

Speculation is not fact.

However there is nothing whatever wrong with reasoned speculation as long as one does appreciate it is not fact.

I entirely agree, and I never claim that I know what happened with 911 nor with the London bombs, but it concerns me that speculation - such as the 4 young British men who were carrying the bombs were suicide bombers - is being presented as accepted fact.

 

[exosculate]

I entirely agree, and I never claim that I know what happened with 911 nor with the London bombs, but it concerns me that speculation - such as the 4 young British men who were carrying the bombs were suicide bombers - is being presented as accepted fact.

Agreed - it is reasonable to speculate that they were not.

 

[TeeJay]

I agree there is not a shred of evidence to suggest that they thought that they were carrying drugs (Dr J's CT) - but there is exactly the same amount of evidence to suggest that they all knew they were carrying explosives. (government conspiracy theory) - so I would not argue as fact that they thought that they were carrying drugs but neither will I simply accept the g'ment hypothesis on the basis of no evidence.

What kind of evidence are you demanding?

 

[Bob_the_lost]

What kind of evidence are you demanding?

Signed confessions would have been nice, better yet witnessed ones with video evidence...

 

[oi2002]

I don't think the US could have got away with it without British support...

Oh please behave. Post 9-11 it didn't matter much how many vassals groveled before imperial DC they were in a 'lets fuck Carthage' mode.

 

[bigfish]

1. They were commiting suicide for a reason.

So why are the Met reluctant to use the term 'suicide bombing' at this time kyser and you're not. What information do you have that the Met doesn't?

LONDON (Reuters) - Police have not yet definitively established that four men who carried bombs on to London's transport network intended to die in last week's blasts, a Scotland Yard spokesman said on Saturday.
...
The Daily Mirror report said several factors cast doubt on the suicide theory -- two of the men had pregnant wives, they did not carry the explosives strapped to their bodies, and they bought return rail tickets from Luton to London.

It quoted unnamed security sources as suggesting the bombers may have been duped into believing they could escape unscathed.

The four men are uncharacteristic candidates for suicide bombers. Pakistan - visited apparently by one of the suspects - is a known transit point for Afghan heroin bound for Britain. Beeston itself has a large Pakistani community and is a known heroin hotspot. Obviously, it would be a lot less time consuming and more economical to simply recruit men that could be duped into thinking they were doing something else, rather than go to all the trouble of finding four diehard Islamic maniacs perfectly willing to suicide themselves for some nebulous cause.

Far fetched? Show me a fact that doesn't fit.

They were killing themselves for a cause.

You're imagining it kyzer - you have no proof, only a crumbling hypothesis that is more convoluted than the one I've outlined above. Occam will be spinning in his grave.

 

[editor]

So why are the Met reluctant to use the term 'suicide bombing' at this time kyser and you're not.

Possibly because, unlike you, they choose to proceed cautiously and not pump out a series of wild speculative statements until they've thoroughly examined the facts and gathered the evidence.

Maybe you should try that approach?

Pakistan - visited apparently by one of the suspects - is a known transit point for Afghan heroin bound for Britain.

Woooargh! Now there's an incredible leap!

Is every visitor to Pakistan to be suspected of trafficking heroin then?