who is responsible for the London attacks?

[maomao]

(Edit: Thus we can see that it's not proven that the detonators were electrical timers, but the odds are so heavily stacked for them it would be rather foolish to say that they weren't or to work on any other basis)

Are you in charge of the investigation now?

Plonker.

 

[slaar]

That's about the FIFTH time you've asked that utterly tedious question as to Senator Pimentel's account of the Michael Meiring affair! I do hope it's the last time, or you will start to annoy me. I do not consider it worthy of reply, and I'm sure you wouldn't deny it's a loaded prelude.

But actually, there is something I should alert you to. Just as the CIA/FBI asset Meiring was obviously implicated with bombing in the Phillipines (by blowing his own legs off), it seems we have a CIA/MI6 asset implicated as a possible mastermind in the London bombings. Check out
this thread

So you haven't read laptop's posts 30, 36 and 39 on that thread? I suggest you do.

It's been a mildly entertaining excursion into new fields of conspiranoiditude. That's the only value of this thread. Larry, if you're so keen to make connections that you don't do this basic sceptical reasearch into sources, you are on the brink of losing it big time.

 

[bigfish]

So you haven't read laptop's posts 30, 36 and 39 on that thread? I suggest you do.

Has laptop read those "conspiraloonies" in the Times, do you think?

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,22989-1715867,00.html

t appears that several calls from Aswat’s mobile telephone were made to the bombers in the days before the attacks. It is likely that the American National Security Agency — which has a powerful eavesdropping network — was monitoring the calls. If contacts between the bombers and Aswat are proved, it could be a painful blow for British security officials.
...
In the weeks before the London attacks a man said to be Aswat may have entered the UK, though British security officials think this may be a case of mistaken identity.
...
As a potential mastermind of the London attacks, Aswat has connections and a past that are almost too neat a fit. Now 31, he was brought up in Dewsbury, near Leeds, where Mohammad Sidique Khan, one of the London bombers, lived. He left the area 10 years ago and is believed to have travelled to training camps in Pakistan and Afghanistan. He is said to have told investigators in Zambia that he was once a bodyguard for Osama Bin Laden.

When Aswat returned to Britain he attended the Finsbury Park mosque in north London, which was a hotbed of radicalism in the late 1990s and early 2000s.

 

[editor]

That's about the FIFTH time you've asked that utterly tedious question as to Senator Pimentel's account of the Michael Meiring affair! I do hope it's the last time, or you will start to annoy me. I do not consider it worthy of reply, and I'm sure you wouldn't deny it's a loaded prelude.

I asked because I failed to see its relevance to a thread about the London bombings, so quite reasonably asked you to explain: something you continued to refuse to do.

Why is that?

Please answer my question now.

 

[Jazzz]

I've already gone over my reference to the Meiring affair. Take what you want from it. Allow me to add - you never feel any obligation to answer my questions.

 

[Jazzz]

from the Evening Standard today

BOMB SUSPECTS AMAZING CLAIM

Shepherd's Bush bombing suspect Hussain Osman today claimed that the 21 July "bombs" contained only flour.

He claimed they were not intended to hurt anybody - only to make a "bang".

The astonishing defence was revealed by his Italian lawyer as she continued her fight to stop him being returned to Britain.

It was immediately dismissed by Scotland Yard who said "These devices were designed to kill and maim on a devastating scale."
...

 

[slaar]

Has laptop read those "conspiraloonies" in the Times, do you think?

The man's movements, well documented, have sweet FA to do with him being an MI6 asset. What exactly is your point?

 

[slaar]

from the Evening Standard today

Presumably there's a fairly easy way of checking that at trial, namely looking at the bomb.

 

[kyser_soze]

So a suspect in a terrorist invetgation is claiming that his 'bomb' contained flour...we were expecting he was going to fess up and say C4 or something?

 

[editor]

from the Evening Standard today

So do you believe him then?

 

[editor]

I've already gone over my reference to the Meiring affair. Take what you want from it.

So it's another of your pathetic wriggles because you can't back it up with anything meaningful.

 

[Jazzz]

Presumably there's a fairly easy way of checking that at trial, namely looking at the bomb.

Well yes. It would seem an extraordinary thing to attempt to claim if not true. The rebuttal by Scotland Yard begs the question - why have they not told us what the explosive was? After all, it should be very easy to identify, as it didn't explode.

 

[editor]

Well yes. It would seem an extraordinary thing to attempt to claim if not true.

What's extraordinary about it?

That's exactly the sort if claim I'd expect from someone trying to construct an argument that they supposedly didn't mean to harm anyone/

By the way, you're sounding exactly the same way in this thread as you did when you were pointing out your (ahem) 'suspicions' about the Soham murde cases, displaying the same desperate willingness to believe anything the accused trots out.

 

[gurrier]

Well yes. It would seem an extraordinary thing to attempt to claim if not true. The rebuttal by Scotland Yard begs the question - why have they not told us what the explosive was? After all, it should be very easy to identify, as it didn't explode.

Let's imagine that there is some merit to their claims. Do you think those claims are likely to have been made more or less credible by the fact that lots of people had spent a fair bit of time on the internet coming up with various wild speculations about the facts, all of which (bar one at most) will be proven to be bullshit?

There's this fascinating work of literature called the 'boy who cried wolf' I think your ready to read it now Dr. J.

Note: in your own little way, directly contradictory to your narcissistic imaginings of being a brave truth seeker et al, you are helping to ensure that, if there was something dodgy going on, the spooks and politicians will have no problems in covering it up.

 

[laptop]

Note: in your own little way, directly contradictory to your narcissistic imaginings of being a brave truth seeker et al, you are helping to ensure that, if there was something dodgy going on, the spooks and politicians will have no problems in covering it up.

Indeedy. If I were a spook, the very first thing I'd do to give myself cover would be to make strenuous efforts to arrange for a denunciation by by DrJ and other posters here.

The fact that I have already been all-but-denounced by at least one with practically no effort does not of course, prove that I am a spook. In fact, now that I have revealed my cunning idea for a hiding-in-plain-sight bluff, it is reasonable to conclude that anyone who makes strenuous efforts to display their conspiranoia is actually engaged in double-bluff to conceal their own spookdom.

Then again... but triple-bluffs always make my head hurt. Conspiranoids, however, don't do irony, let alone recursive irony, so I look forward to the sibilant sound of exploding tinfoil hats...

 

[editor]

Indeedy. If I were a spook, the very first thing I'd do to give myself cover would be to make strenuous efforts to arrange for a denounciation by by DrJ and other posters here.

That is the deepest irony of the lot.

By repeatedly posting up an endless stream of research-untroubled bonkers 'theories' and throwing up a smokescreen of fruitcake yarns, DrJazzz actively helps those actually engaged in nefarious govt activity.

 

[bigfish]

The man's movements, well documented, have sweet FA to do with him being an MI6 asset.

How do you know that, like?

 

[TeeJay]

...Anyway, the 12 you mention were all in 2003...

You are wrong again: 4 of them were in 2004. In any case two years ago = August 2003, which brings the number "in the last two years" up to 5. In any case the poll series in question only goes up to October 2004 so you are simply guessing at polling results since then. How about you stop making stuff up and present some facts?

 

[laptop]

The man's movements, well documented, have sweet FA to do with him being an MI6 asset.

My understanding of the Times piece is that a literal reading will do quite nicely, thanks:

To some, British intelligence is too willing to let terrorist suspects run in the hope of gathering useful leads and other information.

I'd not be surprised if the writer had Jean Charles's shooting in mind - it seems as likely as anything that someone was keen to "let him run" whan they followed him onto a bus.

Anyway, even if he were a 6 contact of some kind - and even if he was involved in the London bombs - that would prove nothing either way about 6 being involved in the bombs. It is not, for crying out loud, unheard of for people to exploit the situaton of being (labelled as) a 6 "asset" for their own nefarious ends - see for example Marks, Howard

But here I'm forgetting the Central Dogma of conspiranoids: they and only they are omniscient, but nevertheless the alleged conspirators somehow manage to be omnipotent

 

[bigfish]

...But here I'm forgetting the Central Dogma of conspiranoids: they and only they are omniscient...

For someone whose every second post amounts to a self-reaffirmation of your own genius, I suppose the "omniscience" projection was only a matter of time.

 

[Jazzz]

Indeedy. If I were a spook, the very first thing I'd do to give myself cover would be to make strenuous efforts to arrange for a denunciation by by DrJ and other posters here.

I don't think so. But even if this were the case, what's the solution for you? The only one is to treat arguments on their own merit, and not base your opinions on personality. Yes spooks engage in misinformation. Yes genuine people can fall victim to such misinformation. That's the way it is. So you shouldn't trust anyone. The only way to beat them is to accept the minefield, but keep listening and not seeking to censor anyone. That's why it pains me to find such anger around when it comes to questioning the official line.

And already there are so many holes in the July attacks. There is more of a link with MI6/CIA than Al-Quaida. We have a plethora of CCTV images for the 21/7 attacks, yet for 7/7 we have one shot in which three faces are entirely invisible. Why? We are not asked for motive; in fact the group with by far the most to gain from the attacks are Bush & Blair. Why? The attacks on 21/7 are held as an attempt to cause murder, yet one of them involved an empty bus, and we aren't told what was in the bombs, if not flour. Why?

And most importantly of all, a fact which practically everyone has ignored, suicide bombers only commit suicide as a reluctant necessity where it is not possible to commit the attack another way.

 

[gurrier]

I don't think so. But even if this were the case, what's the solution for you? ...

SHUT UP UNLESS YOU HAVE REAL EVIDENCE!!!!

It's not fucking rocket science (cf above reference to the boy who cried wolf)

 

[Jazzz]

oh cut out the stupid font size. And I have no such burden of proof.

 

[editor]

The attacks on 21/7 are held as an attempt to cause murder, yet one of them involved an empty bus, and we aren't told what was in the bombs, if not flour. Why?

Possibly because the investigation is still ongoing and the police/forensics have got far better things to do than try to satisfy the wildly speculative paranoid musings of conspiraloons by rushing through information before they're ready.

How's that?

 

[Jazzz]

Possibly because the investigation is still ongoing and the police/forensics have got far better things to do than try to satisfy the wildly speculative paranoid musings of conspiraloons by rushing through information before they're ready.

How's that?

Not out!

 

[Jazzz]

seriously though editor, do you really think they aren't sure what the leftover explosive was? And if so, don't you think they should hold back on 'clearly the intention was to kill' until they've eliminated the flour possibility?

 

[TeeJay]

There is more of a link with MI6/CIA than Al-Quaida.

Bollocks

We have a plethora of CCTV images for the 21/7 attacks, yet for 7/7 we have one shot in which three faces are entirely invisible. Why?

Because it is under investigation and evidence is only broadcast if necessary

...the group with by far the most to gain from the attacks are Bush & Blair.

Bollocks

we aren't told what was in the bombs, if not flour. Why?

Because it is under investigation and evidence is only broadcast if necessary

And most importantly of all, a fact which practically everyone has ignored, suicide bombers only commit suicide as a reluctant necessity where it is not possible to commit the attack another way.

Bollocks.

 

[editor]

seriously though editor, do you really think they aren't sure what the leftover explosive was? And if so, don't you think they should hold back on 'clearly the intention was to kill' until they've eliminated the flour possibility?

I think you should hold back on your wild, evidence-free conspiracy-tastic speculation until the facts emerge, myself

 

[Jazzz]

I think you should hold back on your wild, evidence-free conspiracy-tastic speculation until the facts emerge, myself

Right. What facts do you want to emerge before you conclude that all the July bombers were suicide terrorists? I bet you can't name a single one.

 

[editor]

Right. What facts do you want to emerge before you conclude that all the July bombers were suicide terrorists? I bet you can't name a single one.

I understand that in your world, evidence, testimony and hard evidence are mere trifles to be discarded on a whim when a thrilling, complex and exciting conspiracy theory comes along, but I'll hold on for crazy reckless things like waiting to hear all the suspected bombers' testimony and for the results of forensic tests and the CCTV footage analysis to be published.