It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Why I think the London bombings were fake.

page: 1
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:
Rit

posted on Jul, 18 2005 @ 01:57 AM
link   
First let me say that this post means no disrespect to the people who could of been potentially killed or wounded in the supposed bombing attack on London. This is just my personal opinion of why I think the London bombings were staged.

First thing I want to say is that noone can prove anything they didnt see with their own eyes. Conspiracists and normal people all seem to have this idea that all video, audio, and media they read is true. Just because you see a video of some suicide bombers setting off an explosive device, it doesnt mean it ever happened. Everything can be faked like a hollywood movie. So please keep this in mind when you read my ideas on why I think the bombing was staged.

1) What is the easiest place to blow something up and cover it up? An underground tunnel. It is very easy for the conspirators to seal it off afterwords. Noone can see what happened. A foreign government cant fly a spy sattelite overhead and asses the damage. Therefore if you stage a "terrorist bombing" on the subway system, you can seal it off, control the information by denying access to the site. In short, there is no better place to get away with a staged bombing then in a subway.

2) About six to eight months before these supposed bombings Britain conducted a drill where a bus and their transit system as a whole was attacked. They gauged how people reacted by blowing up a bus, yes they actually blew it up. They assed the emergency response, how the system would flow, how all the peices would fall into place to respond. It was the same type of bus that was bombed in the supposed terrorist attack. I beleive that this gave them the information they needed on how the emergency system, the people, and the police would respond. They had the means to write their script now, put the pawns in place, and play out their stage show.

3) Misinformation. Noone had a clue what was going on when it happened. Three bombs, 10 bombs, 5 buses exploded, 1 bus exploded, 7 subways blew up, only 3 subways blew up, cell phones were shut off, cell phones overloaded. The media had NO INFORMATION. This possibly proves the stage show and how it was all executed with Britains idea in mind and to play out their role as puppetmasters. Obviously the people in London had no idea what was going on.

4) How do you explain all the wounded and killed? There are inventions called 'fake blood', 'stick on leg wound', 'bloody wound tatoo' etc.

6) All of the people in the hospital. This is where I think the conspiracy can be proven true or false. Surely hundreds of wounded people cant be staged as wounded in a public hospital. The hospitals and workers would know. I am just going to assume that the majority of the wounded in the attack was due to smoke inhalation, or possible chemical weapon exposure. It might even be proven that the government setup hospitals to treat the wounded because of risk of spreading chemical weapons. Or the whole scene was contained in decontamination. Which is exactly what they did.

7) The state of England. From what I read and heard here in the United States was that the opinion on the war was at an unprecedented low. People were starting to protest. The people wanted their soldiers home, they wanted Blair out of office, they were up in arms over their government. And then, a terrorist attack happens. Not very conveinent for the terrorists, very conveinent for England.


There are many many things that to me prove that this is most likely a staged fake attack carried out by the British government to bolster support for the war, the government, and to change the way of thinking for the British people.

Id like to rebuttal anyone who thinks that my theory doesnt hold water. So if you have an opinion, post it here.

[edit on 18-7-2005 by Rit]




posted on Jul, 18 2005 @ 02:21 AM
link   
If this is a conspiracy, I'm sure that the people who have enough power to perpetrate it don't care about people's safety enough to go through all this effort to put on a hollywood sideshow.

Why don't you ask the people who went to the morgues to identify the bodies of their loved ones.

The blood is real, we are pawns in the biggest game ever.

I wouldn't ask people not to be offended when you write something like this. I'm not personally, I view life and death a little differently than your average person. But you know they will be, so just accept that if you really need to write it.



posted on Jul, 18 2005 @ 02:36 AM
link   
I personally would say that if someone was able to rationalise the need for this type of event - meaning they see their own reasons for it as legitimate - that they would find it easy to extend that rationalisation far enough to see the need for it to be "real". Ergo the bombs and victims are most likely real whether the attack was real or "staged" by insiders.

Hope that makes sense. I am just saying that life isn't that precious to a lot of people so they would most likely "keep the whole thing real". Fake injuries risk an easy or accidental exposure of the whole plot.

You make some good points there, but for me, they most likely happened.


Rit

posted on Jul, 18 2005 @ 03:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by benign
If this is a conspiracy, I'm sure that the people who have enough power to perpetrate it don't care about people's safety enough to go through all this effort to put on a hollywood sideshow.

Why don't you ask the people who went to the morgues to identify the bodies of their loved ones.

The blood is real, we are pawns in the biggest game ever.

I wouldn't ask people not to be offended when you write something like this. I'm not personally, I view life and death a little differently than your average person. But you know they will be, so just accept that if you really need to write it.


I personally dont know anyone who went to any morgue to indentify any body or bodies. For all I know they are conspirators themselves.

As for the blood being real, I cant prove it was.

If you take offense, you to me would come off as a conspirator. I explicitely said I meant no disrespect to anyone who could of been potentially harmed in this ordeal. You to me are spreading propaganda to mold people into having compassion and automatically beleiving that this could of happened on the pretense that people could of been hurt, and that would somehow automatically deserve our respect with no questions asked. Which is a wrong way of thinking, because it leaves you open to exploitation.

The people who supposedly carried out the attack are already dead and captured. So no more justice can come out of this for the non conspiracy theorists.

I would rather have it a conspiracy, then for it to be a real attack in which seemingly innocent people gave their lives.



Originally posted by whita
I personally would say that if someone was able to rationalise the need for this type of event - meaning they see their own reasons for it as legitimate - that they would find it easy to extend that rationalisation far enough to see the need for it to be "real". Ergo the bombs and victims are most likely real whether the attack was real or "staged" by insiders.

Hope that makes sense. I am just saying that life isn't that precious to a lot of people so they would most likely "keep the whole thing real". Fake injuries risk an easy or accidental exposure of the whole plot.

You make some good points there, but for me, they most likely happened.


Not too too long ago Britain executed anyone who didnt pledge allegiance to the King or didnt agree with the monarchy, and even in recent history. I tend to agree with you on it being unbeleivable, but it isnt. They are very much in the business of murder to preserve power, or in this case, their support.

Im not saying that I think this was a staged attack with real bombs in where real people were hurt. I am saying I think this is a staged attack where there were staged bombs with fake wounded and fake dead people. In other words, a stage show.

Please remain open minded and do not speak like these things havent all come true in the past. We dont live in wonder wonder land where there isnt the potential for evil or conspiracy.

[edit on 18-7-2005 by Rit]



posted on Jul, 18 2005 @ 03:42 AM
link   
Yeah, I got what you were saying, conceded you made some good points, but I just didn't happen to agree with your overall premise. It's allowed they tell me



posted on Jul, 18 2005 @ 03:57 AM
link   
So what are you going to do when someone comes on this thread saying that they had relatives or they themselves were harmed in the explosion? You wont have anything to say will you?



posted on Jul, 18 2005 @ 03:57 AM
link   
So you have no evidence at all that is was faked?


Originally posted by Rit
1) What is the easiest place to blow something up and cover it up? An underground tunnel. It is very easy for the conspirators to seal it off afterwords. Noone can see what happened. A foreign government cant fly a spy sattelite overhead and asses the damage. Therefore if you stage a "terrorist bombing" on the subway system, you can seal it off, control the information by denying access to the site. In short, there is no better place to get away with a staged bombing then in a subway.

You appear to be conveniantly forgetting the bomb that went off on a bus - the picture of which was all over the front pages of all the papers.



2) About six to eight months before these supposed bombings Britain conducted a drill where a bus and their transit system as a whole was attacked. They gauged how people reacted by blowing up a bus, yes they actually blew it up. They assed the emergency response, how the system would flow, how all the peices would fall into place to respond.

I work at a central London hospital and they actually conduct these drills all the time. That is why the emergency services reacted so fantastically on the day. According to your theory all the thousands of brave men and women who saved so many lives that day must all have been in on the conspiricy. What a pathetic accusation.



3) Misinformation. Noone had a clue what was going on when it happened. Three bombs, 10 bombs, 5 buses exploded, 1 bus exploded, 7 subways blew up, only 3 subways blew up, cell phones were shut off, cell phones overloaded. The media had NO INFORMATION. This possibly proves the stage show and how it was all executed with Britains idea in mind and to play out their role as puppetmasters. Obviously the people in London had no idea what was going on.

It's called the fog of war. Utter confusion reigned for an hour after the attacks. This was especially so because 3 of the bombs went off deep underground and the only intelligence coming out was from actual witnesses who were confused and scared. If the bombings were faked then surely the information would have been perfect.



4) How do you explain all the wounded and killed? There are inventions called 'fake blood', 'stick on leg wound', 'bloody wound tatoo' etc.

You are kidding aren't you?



6) All of the people in the hospital. This is where I think the conspiracy can be proven true or false. Surely hundreds of wounded people cant be staged as wounded in a public hospital.

No they can't, and they weren't. I work at the Royal London hospital (where they took the majority of the victims) and was there that day. I watched with my own eyes as they rushed in people covered in blood and soot. I personally know many of the doctors and nurses who stayed in that unit, some of them in there as long as 36 hours straight saving lives. I would like to see you talk to some of these people and explain your pathetic theories to them.



The hospitals and workers would know. I am just going to assume that the majority of the wounded in the attack was due to smoke inhalation, or possible chemical weapon exposure. It might even be proven that the government setup hospitals to treat the wounded because of risk of spreading chemical weapons. Or the whole scene was contained in decontamination. Which is exactly what they did.

Now you aren't even making any sense.



7) The state of England. From what I read and heard here in the United States was that the opinion on the war was at an unprecedented low. People were starting to protest. The people wanted their soldiers home, they wanted Blair out of office, they were up in arms over their government. And then, a terrorist attack happens. Not very conveinent for the terrorists, very conveinent for England.

Your ignorance is complete. Blair was actually having his best period in office for years and we had just won the bid to host the Olympics. If you did any research you would know that Blair is actually resigning before the next election over here, so in many ways isn't bothered by his poll ratings (which were actaully on the way up).

For your stupid theory to work do you know how many tens of thousands of people must be in on it? All of the firemen and paramedics and police and the London Underground workers and journalists and..... Are the weeping relatives keeping vigil while they wait for their loved ones to be dug up from the rubble fake?

You say you don't mean any disrespect - then withdraw your "theory", as it is disrespectful.

A "faked" blown up bus:



A "fake" burns victim:



Rit

posted on Jul, 18 2005 @ 05:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by whita
Yeah, I got what you were saying, conceded you made some good points, but I just didn't happen to agree with your overall premise. It's allowed they tell me


I also said I would like to rebuttal some opinions. That is also allowed they tell me.


Originally posted by Zanzibar
So what are you going to do when someone comes on this thread saying that they had relatives or they themselves were harmed in the explosion? You wont have anything to say will you?

I wouldnt immediatly beleive them. Anyone can make a statement on the internet. And this is a place that the conspirators would be lingering around in to drop propaganda to shun conspiracy theorists.


Originally posted by FatherLukeDuke
So you have no evidence at all that is was faked?




quote: Originally posted by Rit
1) What is the easiest place to blow something up and cover it up? An underground tunnel. It is very easy for the conspirators to seal it off afterwords. Noone can see what happened. A foreign government cant fly a spy sattelite overhead and asses the damage. Therefore if you stage a "terrorist bombing" on the subway system, you can seal it off, control the information by denying access to the site. In short, there is no better place to get away with a staged bombing then in a subway.


You appear to be conveniantly forgetting the bomb that went off on a bus - the picture of which was all over the front pages of all the papers.


Yes one of the bombs went off on a bus. This is where the fake burn victim picture comes in. No reliable witnesses. All by design. This was in a sealed off area nearly an hour after the subway explosions. Bus explosion never happened, was a part of the stage show.


originally posted by Ritquote:
2) About six to eight months before these supposed bombings Britain conducted a drill where a bus and their transit system as a whole was attacked. They gauged how people reacted by blowing up a bus, yes they actually blew it up. They assed the emergency response, how the system would flow, how all the peices would fall into place to respond.



originally posted by FatherLukeDuke
I work at a central London hospital and they actually conduct these drills all the time. That is why the emergency services reacted so fantastically on the day. According to your theory all the thousands of brave men and women who saved so many lives that day must all have been in on the conspiricy. What a pathetic accusation.


Wether or not the emergency personnel reacted so fantastically is irrelevant. The fact is the emergency personnel that did respond initially to the scene, were MI6. And that no real emergency personnel never got close to any wounded or the scene right after.


originally posted by FatherLukeDuke

originally posted by Ritquote:
3) Misinformation. Noone had a clue what was going on when it happened. Three bombs, 10 bombs, 5 buses exploded, 1 bus exploded, 7 subways blew up, only 3 subways blew up, cell phones were shut off, cell phones overloaded. The media had NO INFORMATION. This possibly proves the stage show and how it was all executed with Britains idea in mind and to play out their role as puppetmasters. Obviously the people in London had no idea what was going on.


It's called the fog of war. Utter confusion reigned for an hour after the attacks. This was especially so because 3 of the bombs went off deep underground and the only intelligence coming out was from actual witnesses who were confused and scared. If the bombings were faked then surely the information would have been perfect.


Exactly, this was by design. Britain set the stage for an environment where the only information and first hand accounts would of come from themselves. And anyone who did have a first hand account, was being deceived so they would testify. A type of optical illusion. You set off a staged explosion, followed by darkness, some smoke, and of course people are going to come out of there beleiving something catastrophic happened. Its like a ride at MGM in Orlando.


originally posted by FatherLukeDuke

originally posted by Ritquote:
4) How do you explain all the wounded and killed? There are inventions called 'fake blood', 'stick on leg wound', 'bloody wound tatoo' etc.


You are kidding aren't you?


No, look at your own picture of the burned lady. What does this show? Some lady wearing a mask. Even if the mask was removed and I seen burns, it is very easily faked with makeup. Watch any hollywood horror movie.


originally posted by FatherLukeDuke

originally posted by Ritquote:
6) All of the people in the hospital. This is where I think the conspiracy can be proven true or false. Surely hundreds of wounded people cant be staged as wounded in a public hospital.


No they can't, and they weren't. I work at the Royal London hospital (where they took the majority of the victims) and was there that day. I watched with my own eyes as they rushed in people covered in blood and soot. I personally know many of the doctors and nurses who stayed in that unit, some of them in there as long as 36 hours straight saving lives. I would like to see you talk to some of these people and explain your pathetic theories to them.


I dont beleive you. Give me your name and I will verify it with the Royal London Hospital through family friends who live in England.


originally posted by FatherLukeDuke

originally posted by Ritquote:
The hospitals and workers would know. I am just going to assume that the majority of the wounded in the attack was due to smoke inhalation, or possible chemical weapon exposure. It might even be proven that the government setup hospitals to treat the wounded because of risk of spreading chemical weapons. Or the whole scene was contained in decontamination. Which is exactly what they did.


Now you aren't even making any sense.


Did you see the decontamination tents they had set up? It was posted as a picture here in the United States. Im sure BBC posted the picture too.


orignally posted by FatherLukeDuke

originally posted by Ritquote:
7) The state of England. From what I read and heard here in the United States was that the opinion on the war was at an unprecedented low. People were starting to protest. The people wanted their soldiers home, they wanted Blair out of office, they were up in arms over their government. And then, a terrorist attack happens. Not very conveinent for the terrorists, very conveinent for England.


Your ignorance is complete. Blair was actually having his best period in office for years and we had just won the bid to host the Olympics. If you did any research you would know that Blair is actually resigning before the next election over here, so in many ways isn't bothered by his poll ratings (which were actaully on the way up).

For your stupid theory to work do you know how many tens of thousands of people must be in on it? All of the firemen and paramedics and police and the London Underground workers and journalists and..... Are the weeping relatives keeping vigil while they wait for their loved ones to be dug up from the rubble fake?

You say you don't mean any disrespect - then withdraw your "theory", as it is disrespectful.


Ok so take Blair out of the equation. His ratings were on the way up but they were at a low. Blair is not important. He is a pawn for the Quenn and the King. The support for the war was at a low, which is more important then Blair.

As far as the thousands of emergency personnel and police. I am not saying they werent there. Im saying they werent at the immediate scene. They werent in contact with any wounded besides unharmed shaken civilians. The police would of been the one's to seal London, because they did. It would of been the big wigs who were the the first responders, the ones responsible for being at ground zero, and the one's telling everyone where to go and what to do.

The real emergency personnel and police were the same people being deceived as the civilians.

Withdraw my theory? Isnt that what a conspirator would want?

[edit on 18-7-2005 by Rit]



posted on Jul, 18 2005 @ 05:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Rit
In short, there is no better place to get away with a staged bombing then in a subway.


Please explain the bus. Also what better place to cause havoc if you are a bomber than to blow up a subway? Makes it VERY hard for rescuers. Also I suspect that you need less explosive as more people are killed by smoke etc. in confined spaces.


About six to eight months before these supposed bombings Britain conducted a drill where a bus and their transit system as a whole was attacked.


Yup would make sense in these times of heightened likelihood of a terrorist attack to test the system would it not? Where is the conspiracy in this activity???



The media had NO INFORMATION. Obviously the people in London had no idea what was going on.


Well some phones were working and I suspect due to multi bombings that it would be a little disorgansied for a wee while. I also suspect that most wouldn't think that multi attacks would happen. Interestingly enough I was in Singapore and we received excellent coverage of what had happened and was happening. That was very quickly after the event.


Wanted Blair out of office....they were up in arms over their government
Didn't they just vote him back in, in May? It's only July!!!!!!!


Lastly there were Australian's who were caught up in the attacks and in fact one has died. I don't think any of them believe this was staged.



posted on Jul, 18 2005 @ 06:03 AM
link   
As if I'm going to give someone like you my name. I can't actually believe I'm arguing this with you, it's like arguing with someone who believes the earth is flat. But you people make me so angry.

Why don't you actually phone up the Royal London and speak to someone in the Emergency Dept? The number is 020 7377 7000. Ask to speak to anyone in the dept. The lead Dr down there is Dr Alastair Wilson (I can give you his name as he does all the TV interviews, so his name is out there already). You might like to explain to him how his team were all treating "fake" patients on the day of the atrocity and how the people still in intensive care must be government plants. Good luck, as he doesn't suffer fools gladly. Of course you won't do this though will you? It would spoil your sick fantasy.

You could also phone the British Medical Association as the the bus bomb (you still haven't said how they faked this) went off in front of, spaying the victims blood on to the walls. All the Drs who worked there rushed out to treated the wounded - you could ask to speak to one of them. Again, I bet you don't though.

Here is the hospital were I work at and a report on the scores of people who are still being treated:

news.bbc.co.uk...

While you are at it why don't you have a look through the list of "fake" victims:

news.bbc.co.uk...

How can you just say that none of the emergency services were in contact with the wounded and dead when they quite clearly were. Were all the hundreds who have been interviewed all lying about their experiences? Was all the TV footage of them treating patients faked? Are the ones still digging bodies out of the tunnels in hell like conditions lying? Are the victims family members lying?

The tent set up outside the hospital can be used for decontamination, but in an emergency it also is used as an expanded triage area for the nurses to judge the extent of the patients injuries before they enter the main treatment areas. A little research and you might have found this out for yourself.

Why don't you grow up, get a life and stop denying reality.

BTW - you can use "Preview post" to see if your quote tags are in the right place before you post it. Your post might make marginally more sense.


Rit

posted on Jul, 18 2005 @ 06:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lady of the Lake

Originally posted by Rit
In short, there is no better place to get away with a staged bombing then in a subway.


Please explain the bus. Also what better place to cause havoc if you are a bomber than to blow up a subway? Makes it VERY hard for rescuers. Also I suspect that you need less explosive as more people are killed by smoke etc. in confined spaces.


The bus explosion was in an evacuated area nearly an hour after the subway blasts. This is the perfect environment to stage the explosion.


Originally posted by Lady of the Lake

Originally posted by Rit About six to eight months before these supposed bombings Britain conducted a drill where a bus and their transit system as a whole was attacked.


Yup would make sense in these times of heightened likelihood of a terrorist attack to test the system would it not? Where is the conspiracy in this activity???


I am saying the terrorist drill six or so months ago with the same exact circumstances as the london bombings was the perfect oppurtunity for them to write the script for their stage act. They knew how it would of went down as far as who would see what, who would be the first to respond, how the police would seal the area etc etc. They had practiced this so to speak. They had written the protocols on how London would respond and put into position the personnel who would be the first responders. And setup a structure where it would be the government in control of the scene when a terrorist attacked. This was why they had the drill. To iron it out, test and put in place the system.


Originally posted by Lady of the Lake

Originally posted by RitThe media had NO INFORMATION. Obviously the people in London had no idea what was going on.


Well some phones were working and I suspect due to multi bombings that it would be a little disorgansied for a wee while. I also suspect that most wouldn't think that multi attacks would happen. Interestingly enough I was in Singapore and we received excellent coverage of what had happened and was happening. That was very quickly after the event.


The government didnt have the story straight until almost 4PM. The bombings ended at 10AM. They had already sealed off the scenes. They would of knew by then what was going on. And this was only 4 bombs, not total carnage. London is big. It takes ALOT more then 4 bombs to cause total panic and carnage. This was a drop in the bucket as far as what it would take. Traffic jams yeah, alot of police yeah. Not total pandemonium where noone would be able to asses the situation.



Originally posted by Lady of the Lake

Originally posted by RitWanted Blair out of office....they were up in arms over their government
Didn't they just vote him back in, in May? It's only July!!!!!!!


Lastly there were Australian's who were caught up in the attacks and in fact one has died. I don't think any of them believe this was staged.


Like I said, Blair is just a pawn to the British government. He is Prime Minister, not the King.

Australia has troops committed to Iraq and Afghanistan just like Britain. So does the US. It is not their business to uncover conspiracies that work in their favor. This is for NWO conspiracists I suppose. From what I know of US policy, even if they knew this was a conspiracy would not say anything publically.

Supposedly Americans were injured too, or was it killed? A big conspiracy pow wow of the strong allies.

[edit on 18-7-2005 by Rit]



posted on Jul, 18 2005 @ 06:24 AM
link   
Rit, please do everyone a favour and check your use of quotes. Your replies are far too hard to read.

Also there is no point in debating further with you as you have no real proof to support your theory just a lot of conjecture. I think FatherLukeDuke summed it up perfectly.

Also you keep referring to the King - who for heavens sake is the King??? I wasn't aware the Queen had died...'said tongue in cheek '




[edit on 18/7/2005 by Lady of the Lake]


Rit

posted on Jul, 18 2005 @ 06:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by FatherLukeDuke
As if I'm going to give someone like you my name. I can't actually believe I'm arguing this with you, it's like arguing with someone who believes the earth is flat. But you people make me so angry.

Why don't you actually phone up the Royal London and speak to someone in the Emergency Dept? The number is 020 7377 7000. Ask to speak to anyone in the dept. The lead Dr down there is Dr Alastair Wilson (I can give you his name as he does all the TV interviews, so his name is out there already). You might like to explain to him how his team were all treating "fake" patients on the day of the atrocity and how the people still in intensive care must be government plants. Good luck, as he doesn't suffer fools gladly. Of course you won't do this though will you? It would spoil your sick fantasy.

You could also phone the British Medical Association as the the bus bomb (you still haven't said how they faked this) went off in front of, spaying the victims blood on to the walls. All the Drs who worked there rushed out to treated the wounded - you could ask to speak to one of them. Again, I bet you don't though.

Here is the hospital were I work at and a report on the scores of people who are still being treated:

news.bbc.co.uk...

While you are at it why don't you have a look through the list of "fake" victims:

news.bbc.co.uk...

How can you just say that none of the emergency services were in contact with the wounded and dead when they quite clearly were. Were all the hundreds who have been interviewed all lying about their experiences? Was all the TV footage of them treating patients faked? Are the ones still digging bodies out of the tunnels in hell like conditions lying? Are the victims family members lying?

The tent set up outside the hospital can be used for decontamination, but in an emergency it also is used as an expanded triage area for the nurses to judge the extent of the patients injuries before they enter the main treatment areas. A little research and you might have found this out for yourself.

Why don't you grow up, get a life and stop denying reality.

BTW - you can use "Preview post" to see if your quote tags are in the right place before you post it. Your post might make marginally more sense.



Give me your name then if you feel so strongly about this. I have distant family in England. You arent doing a good job of proving your point when you cant back up anything you say.

If I were to dial 020 7377 7000 it is very easy for Echelon to reroute me to a MI6 telephone operator.

Who said they seen blood on the wall? A government agent who was spreading their misinformation?

As far as the wounded in these hospitals. I cant confirm them. In a hospital it is very easy to seal off a patient from the staff. And again, it is not out of bounds to have an actor faking injury. And from past intelligence operations I have read about of the MI6, they have used doctors before, alot.

How were the vast majority of the people injured if you were treating them? Kind of ironic you are here in a conspiracy site as a doctor who treated injured patients. Who posted within an hour of me posting this.

Your not doing a very good job at the whole conspirator job, or just a coincidence and your horribly deceived.



[edit on 18-7-2005 by Rit]


Rit

posted on Jul, 18 2005 @ 06:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lady of the Lake
Rit, please do everyone a favour and check your use of quotes. Your replies are far too hard to read.

Also there is no point in debating further with you as you have no real proof to support your theory just a lot of conjecture. I think FatherLukeDuke summed it up perfectly.

Also you keep referring to the King - who for heavens sake is the King??? I wasn't aware the Queen had died...'said tongue in cheek '




[edit on 18/7/2005 by Lady of the Lake]


I have posted nothing but truth besides the conspiracy itself which is my opinion. All of the things I said I thought proved a conspiracy is true. It is your job to disprove anything I have posted, else it remains valid. And when you do, I will rebuttal.

Im sorry im not hip to the monarchy system. Whatever Blair is a puppet for the Quenn then and is irrelevant.

[edit on 18-7-2005 by Rit]



posted on Jul, 18 2005 @ 06:34 AM
link   
In fact I think most of what you have posted is well short of truth and as for your theory delusional springs to mind.

Also please put me out of my misery and tell me who the King is? I am intrigued.



posted on Jul, 18 2005 @ 06:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Rit

I have posted nothing but truth besides the conspiracy itself which is my opinion. All of the things I said I thought proved a conspiracy is true. It is your job to disprove anything I have posted, else it remains valid. And when you do, I will rebuttal.

[edit on 18-7-2005 by Rit]


Actually...no. It's your job to prove your claims - it's not anyone else's job to disprove you.

So far, you haven't proven anything, other than a very vivid imagination


Edit: One other thing - exactly what is your proof that MI6 were/are involved?

All I'm seeing is conjecture and rhetoric.

[edit on 18-7-2005 by Tinkleflower]


Rit

posted on Jul, 18 2005 @ 06:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lady of the Lake
In fact I think most of what you have posted is well short of truth and as for your theory delusional springs to mind.

Also please put me out of my misery and tell me who the King is? I am intrigued.


Well it would be easier if you would point out something you beleive to be false.

I guess the King is the Quenn, if that makes any sense.


originally posted by Tinkleflower
Actually...no. It's your job to prove your claims - it's not anyone else's job to disprove you.

So far, you haven't proven anything, other than a very vivid imagination


Edit: One other thing - exactly what is your proof that MI6 were/are involved?

All I'm seeing is conjecture and rhetoric.


It would be easier if you told me what information you think I presented as fact is false. Then I will post my "sources". The conspiracy itself is my opinion, but everything I talked about as proving a conspiracy is true.

I dont have any proof MI6 are directly involved. If I did, I would be a super spook, which is not my profession. Maybe US Intelligence can step in here, else another foreign countries intelligence agency can.

[edit on 18-7-2005 by Rit]



posted on Jul, 18 2005 @ 06:45 AM
link   
I can vouch for it being real


My uncle lives/works in London, near to where the bus bomb was, was late for work because of the trains etc...



posted on Jul, 18 2005 @ 06:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Rit

First thing I want to say is that noone can prove anything they didnt see with their own eyes.


Now that's absolutely true. YOU can't prove it, can you?
In the course of a discussion, or debate, the burden of proof falls upon the person making the claims. So...with that in mind...

Again - where is YOUR proof that a) there was a conspiracy, b) the victims were fake, c) the bus was "setup" and/or d) MI6 were responsible/involved in the conspiracy.

The leaps in logic are just astonishing.


Rit

posted on Jul, 18 2005 @ 06:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Stuey1221
I can vouch for it being real


My uncle lives/works in London, near to where the bus bomb was, was late for work because of the trains etc...


Well this hardly proves anything.

He was late for work. He wasnt a witness.




top topics



 
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join