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: 2
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:
DAF

posted on Jul, 18 2005 @ 06:57 AM
link   
Hi guys.

This theory is not as far fetched as we might think. I do not agree nor do I disagree with this theory.

www.prisonplanet.com...

I posted an article last week on a thread relating to the video were the Iraqis spoke to the public. The article stated that before the bombings took place some task force or security force was practising some bombing exercise in the exact same location and time that the bombings took place. So what better way to cover up out of place agents standing around the subway at that particular time. They could easily say that they are there because of a training exercise. Visit the link mentioned above. There's even a video of the dude that was in charge of this exercise. He talks about the events of that day and he goes into some other information.

The injuries were surely real. I mean a few dead and injured people were a small price to pay for the billions in support that Blair and the government would receive in support of the war. My intentions are not to disrespect those have lossed loved ones but mereley to point out that this maybe be more than a bombing. Wouldn't you like to know the truth of someone that you have lossed through a tradegy like this - I would surely like to know if were placed in this horrific tradegy.

So I say that there are no certainties about this until proven. Oh, by the way before the 9/11 disaster pilots were also performing these types of exercises at exactly the same time that "they" crashed into the towers, creating confusion on the radar scopes because all the planes were of the same type. Weird I know!!



Rit

posted on Jul, 18 2005 @ 06:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Tinkleflower

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.






I cant prove that MI6 were directly involved.

I cant prove the victims were fake because I wasnt there, nor do I have any reliable intel that can prove it so.

I cant prove the bus was setup. Because I wasnt a witness. I have no intel that proves it was.

What I do have is facts that I presented here that could possibly make one draw their own conclusions that it is a conspiracy. And that is how I feel, that it was.

I am not a professional intelligence agency. I dont have live video from a satellite, I dont have an international network of agents sending me validated intel. I dont have electronic espionage against MI6. I dont have plain espionage on MI6 or Britain.

So as far as me proving it was in fact MI6, I couldnt. Not without help of the NSA.

But I still have public knowledge, and I am attempting to put what pieces I do have together. And it was my beleif that there is a possible conspiracy here. Maybe I said it to strongly.

So ill say it over again, this is a possible conspiracy. Maybe ill take the time to reedit my entire post to be more correct or to find out where you could possibly get confused.

[edit on 18-7-2005 by Rit]



posted on Jul, 18 2005 @ 07:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Rit

He was late for work. He wasnt a witness.


You've already implied several times that you wouldn't believe any witness - so....exactly who would you believe?

What we're getting from this thread is:

You've made up your mind that it's a conspiracy.
You will not believe anyone who says they witnessed certain things.
You believe it's up to everyone else to disprove your theory.

Curiosity begs me to ask, have you closed off your mind to the idea that it may have indeed been a "real" terrorist attack?


Rit

posted on Jul, 18 2005 @ 07:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Tinkleflower

Originally posted by Rit

He was late for work. He wasnt a witness.


You've already implied several times that you wouldn't believe any witness - so....exactly who would you believe?

What we're getting from this thread is:

You've made up your mind that it's a conspiracy.
You will not believe anyone who says they witnessed certain things.
You believe it's up to everyone else to disprove your theory.

Curiosity begs me to ask, have you closed off your mind to the idea that it may have indeed been a "real" terrorist attack?



Yes I have made up my mind that it is a conspiracy until proven otherwise.
No, I will not beleive any witnesses.
I dont expect you to disprove anything, why would I expect you to disprove something that is fact? You said I presented false facts. Which you havent said which.

You can have your own opinion on wether or not you beleive the conspiracy to be true. I am not saying the conspiracy is true, and never in my post did I say that. I said there was a possible conspiracy and this is why I thought so.

Sometimes I wonder if I am the only one who speaks the same language as I do.

The only people I would beleive is the National Security Agency of The United States of America or maybe another credible foreign intelligence agency that isnt an enemy of The United States of America or England.

[edit on 18-7-2005 by Rit]



posted on Jul, 18 2005 @ 07:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Rit
Sometimes I wonder if I am the only one who speaks the same language as I do.

The only people I would beleive is the National Security Agency of The United States of America or maybe another credible foreign intelligence agency that isnt an enemy of The United States of America or England.

[edit on 18-7-2005 by Rit]


Not to worry Rit Shelock Holmes is on the case now, and as soon as this fog clears the case will be as good as solved.

Long live the King.........


Tell me, what was your take on 9/11, was that a Dreamworks production aswell?

[edit on 18-7-2005 by Koka]


Rit

posted on Jul, 18 2005 @ 07:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Koka

Originally posted by Rit
Sometimes I wonder if I am the only one who speaks the same language as I do.

The only people I would beleive is the National Security Agency of The United States of America or maybe another credible foreign intelligence agency that isnt an enemy of The United States of America or England.

[edit on 18-7-2005 by Rit]


Not to worry Rit Shelock Holmes is on the case now, and as soon as this fog clears the case will be as good as solved.

Long live the King.........


Tell me, what was your take on 9/11, was that a Dreamworks production aswell?

[edit on 18-7-2005 by Koka]


If Sherlock Holmes would start an investigation I would pay attention.

This post is not about 9/11.



posted on Jul, 18 2005 @ 07:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Rit

Yes I have made up my mind that it is a conspiracy until proven otherwise.
No, I will not beleive any witnesses.
I dont expect you to disprove anything, why would I expect you to disprove something that is fact?
You can have your own opinion on wether or not you beleive the conspiracy to be true. I am not saying the conspiracy is true, and never in my post did I say that. I said there was a possible conspiracy and this is why I thought so.



Ok, which is it? First you said....that you've decided it is a conspiracy. Then you said...that you're not saying the conspiracy is true. Logic would suggest that you can't have it both ways....

More to the point though - which facts support a conspiracy, exactly?



The only people I would beleive is the National Security Agency of The United States of America or maybe another credible foreign intelligence agency that isnt an enemy of The United States of America or England.

[edit on 18-7-2005 by Rit]


Am I the only one seeing a huge slice of Irony Pie there?!



posted on Jul, 18 2005 @ 07:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Rit
If Sherlock Holmes would start an investigation I would pay attention.

This post is not about 9/11.


No, it's about being controversial.

I mention 9/11 as I haven't actually been to NY since 9/11, so, based on your theory, I would be well within my right to claim the same of those attacks, yes/no?

I advise you to get at least a snippet of speculative evidence on which you can base your theory other than paranoia.



posted on Jul, 18 2005 @ 07:36 AM
link   
This is worse than the worst 9/11 conspiracy nutcase.

Rit, I have a theory that you might like, it involves aliens, reptiles, talking garden gnomes and my sisters hair brush, oh but wait, its nor your theory so it cant be right since nothing anyone else says is correct/believable because its on the internet and everyone might be a CIA/MI6/SIS/NSA/Mossad/evil-infiltrators-of-dewm agent.

The problem with your theory (apart from it being deeply disrespectful to the 50+ dead people) is that its so incredibly outlandish. For every theory you can conceive I can conceive 10 more that are equally ridiculous and unprovable and equally as likely as yours.



posted on Jul, 18 2005 @ 07:39 AM
link   




Am I the only one seeing a huge slice of Irony Pie there?!



No, but what you are seeing is someone setting you up... My brother, the slow one who used to take lots of drugs, had a surmise that I often thought interesting. He said, "Last night while I was asleep, someone snuck into my apartment, stole all my furniture and clothing, and replaced it all with exact duplicates! Now prove me wrong"...

How can you argue with that? Other than put up the facts like folks are doing on this thread. You will not change Rits mind, nor should you try. I suspect he will one day end up having one of those websites that people who need to have that kind of thrill in their lives (fringe types) will go to on a regular basis and salivate over....

Lots of drugs? Hmmmm ....

Rit... You do a very large disservice to a large number of people, but it's ok.
You just continue on with this silliness. You don't even have to argue with me. I don't care other than to post the obvious here.


Rit

posted on Jul, 18 2005 @ 07:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Tinkleflower

Originally posted by Rit

Yes I have made up my mind that it is a conspiracy until proven otherwise.
No, I will not beleive any witnesses.
I dont expect you to disprove anything, why would I expect you to disprove something that is fact?
You can have your own opinion on wether or not you beleive the conspiracy to be true. I am not saying the conspiracy is true, and never in my post did I say that. I said there was a possible conspiracy and this is why I thought so.



Ok, which is it? First you said....that you've decided it is a conspiracy. Then you said...that you're not saying the conspiracy is true. Logic would suggest that you can't have it both ways....

More to the point though - which facts support a conspiracy, exactly?



The only people I would beleive is the National Security Agency of The United States of America or maybe another credible foreign intelligence agency that isnt an enemy of The United States of America or England.

[edit on 18-7-2005 by Rit]


Am I the only one seeing a huge slice of Irony Pie there?!



Yes I am not saying I can prove the conspiracy true, but I am saying that this is what I beleive.

The facts that support a conspiracy are the following:

1) The bombing took place underground where noone can confirm wether it happened in the form of a real tragedy, noone can confirm that there were casualties, and noone can confirm that the witnesses close enough to see anything significant arent MI6.

2) There was a terror drill that happened 6+ months before that exactly mimicked the London bombings.

3) The bus explosion happened nearly an hour later in a sealed off section of downtown London.

4) That the entire scene afterwords was sealed off. Noone can confirm anything that was in the sealed off area because they were very likely MI6. And anything someone legit seen was possibly irrelavant, as in already "cleaned" of the deed and conspiracy.

5) That emergency first responders were prohibited from responding due to possible booby traps and secondary explosions *here is a new fact for you*. Makes it easier for MI6 correct?


[edit on 18-7-2005 by Rit]


Rit

posted on Jul, 18 2005 @ 07:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by cmdrpaddy
This is worse than the worst 9/11 conspiracy nutcase.

Rit, I have a theory that you might like, it involves aliens, reptiles, talking garden gnomes and my sisters hair brush, oh but wait, its nor your theory so it cant be right since nothing anyone else says is correct/believable because its on the internet and everyone might be a CIA/MI6/SIS/NSA/Mossad/evil-infiltrators-of-dewm agent.

The problem with your theory (apart from it being deeply disrespectful to the 50+ dead people) is that its so incredibly outlandish. For every theory you can conceive I can conceive 10 more that are equally ridiculous and unprovable and equally as likely as yours.



What did you post constructive to this thread? What did you disprove with my conspiracy? Nothing. Draw your own conclusions in your head. This is for discussion.

My theory is outlandish? Not really, this is what a conspiracy is. Are all conspiracies outlandish to you?


originally posted by sigung86
No, but what you are seeing is someone setting you up... My brother, the slow one who used to take lots of drugs, had a surmise that I often thought interesting. He said, "Last night while I was asleep, someone snuck into my apartment, stole all my furniture and clothing, and replaced it all with exact duplicates! Now prove me wrong"...

How can you argue with that? Other than put up the facts like folks are doing on this thread. You will not change Rits mind, nor should you try. I suspect he will one day end up having one of those websites that people who need to have that kind of thrill in their lives (fringe types) will go to on a regular basis and salivate over....

Lots of drugs? Hmmmm ....

Rit... You do a very large disservice to a large number of people, but it's ok.
You just continue on with this silliness. You don't even have to argue with me. I don't care other than to post the obvious here.


So yes it is possible someone can replace all your furniture. It is possible. Unless you had a CCTV that you designed yourself and you could trust, you wouldnt know. Or an ingenious booby trap setup.

I have presented my facts that made me formulate my conspiracy. There is alot of people that says I am wrong, but noone can prove it. Noone can prove anything I posted is false.

[edit on 18-7-2005 by Rit]



posted on Jul, 18 2005 @ 07:59 AM
link   



The facts that support a conspiracy are the following:

1) The bombing took place underground where noone can confirm wether it happened in the form of a real tragedy, noone can confirm that there were casualties, and noone can confirm that the witnesses close enough to see anything significant arent MI6.



So...you either missed or ignored the images taken by those who were on the trains? Gotcha. You're saying either the witnesses are MI6, or there are no witnesses. That logic is so flawed it's virtually...mind-boggling!




2) There was a terror drill that happened 6+ months before that exactly mimicked the London bombings.



Why yes, yes there was. And there were terror drills happening elsewhere in the country, at various times during the entire period since 9/11. This proves...nothing, other than a dedication to improving emergency responses.



3) The bus explosion happened nearly an hour later in a sealed off section of downtown London.



No, it really didn't happen in a sealed-off section




4) That the entire scene afterwords was sealed off. Noone can confirm anything that was in the sealed off area because they were very likely MI6.



Alright - now I really do think the other poster might be right. Are you trolling? Baiting? Of course the entire scene was sealed off. But from your previous posts, if they hadn't have sealed off the area, that would indicate a conspiracy too, right? Because "the evidence was allowed to be removed, because they didn't seal off the area!".


Rit, your posts seem to be nothing more than a very vivid imagination, a large helping of rhetoric, and a huge slice of paranoia - which is fine! But for the love of all things good and debate-worthy, please try to provide something - anything - in the way of evidence, other than illogical supposition?

Please?



posted on Jul, 18 2005 @ 08:06 AM
link   


1) The bombing took place underground where noone can confirm wether it happened in the form of a real tragedy, noone can confirm that there were casualties, and noone can confirm that the witnesses close enough to see anything significant arent MI6.


but you dont believe witnesses anyway so what difference would that make? for you to be satisfied some one (you most probably) would have to build a timemachine for you to go back and see the explosions for yourself.



2) There was a terror drill that happened 6+ months before that exactly mimicked the London bombings.


There is also more than likely terror drills going on now, somewhere in the USA, the UK, Germany, France, Australia, and they probably have been doing them for years, where are all the MI6 backed operations from all these drills?




3) The bus explosion happened nearly an hour later in a sealed off section of downtown London.


id love to know how people were driving down the road behind and infront of the bus, and other buses were on the road aswell if the road was sealed off.



4) That the entire scene afterwords was sealed off. Noone can confirm anything that was in the sealed off area because they were very likely MI6.


BWAAAAHAHA
, what do you expect to happen? they set up a fun fair and let everybody in? Of course they sealed off the area (but I thought they had done that already?) so they could preserve evidence.



5) That emergency first responders were prohibited from responding due to possible booby traps and secondary explosions *here is a new fact for you*. Makes it easier for MI6 correct?

The emergency services themselves decided not to go in until the scene was secure because if anything happened when they were in there it would have amde things much worse.

And again I have to say, for every theory that you think up I can make up ten even more ridiculous but just as likely as yours.

[edit on 18/7/05 by cmdrpaddy]


Rit

posted on Jul, 18 2005 @ 08:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Tinkleflower

originally posted by Rit

The facts that support a conspiracy are the following:

1) The bombing took place underground where noone can confirm wether it happened in the form of a real tragedy, noone can confirm that there were casualties, and noone can confirm that the witnesses close enough to see anything significant arent MI6.



So...you either missed or ignored the images taken by those who were on the trains? Gotcha. You're saying either the witnesses are MI6, or there are no witnesses. That logic is so flawed it's virtually...mind-boggling!


What did the images show? Nothing. A little smoke, a little dust, alot of darkness. All setup to deceive the people taking the picture, if he wasnt an MI6 himself. Which you cannot prove.




originally posted by Rit

2) There was a terror drill that happened 6+ months before that exactly mimicked the London bombings.



Why yes, yes there was. And there were terror drills happening elsewhere in the country, at various times during the entire period since 9/11. This proves...nothing, other than a dedication to improving emergency responses.


Maybe so, but what relevance does your point have in disproving my conspiracy? The fact was that in the past Britain had conducted a drill in London where they blew up a bus and had simulated subway explosions. In the same area I beleive. Possibly nothing, possibly proof of the conspiracy. Especially for a real intelligence analyst. Because I would look at what came out of the drill, like what procedures were set in place after that drill that would of supported MI6 to more easily coverup a future staged attack etc.




originally posted by Rit
3) The bus explosion happened nearly an hour later in a sealed off section of downtown London.



No, it really didn't happen in a sealed-off section


Yes it did This article proves nothing. It only highlights where the debris was, not what was sealed off already from the previous subway bombings.




originally posted by Rit

4) That the entire scene afterwords was sealed off. Noone can confirm anything that was in the sealed off area because they were very likely MI6.



Alright - now I really do think the other poster might be right. Are you trolling? Baiting? Of course the entire scene was sealed off. But from your previous posts, if they hadn't have sealed off the area, that would indicate a conspiracy too, right? Because "the evidence was allowed to be removed, because they didn't seal off the area!".


Rit, your posts seem to be nothing more than a very vivid imagination, a large helping of rhetoric, and a huge slice of paranoia - which is fine! But for the love of all things good and debate-worthy, please try to provide something - anything - in the way of evidence, other than illogical supposition?

Please?






Who is trolling or baiting here? You or me?

Since you think that sealing off a crime scene wouldnt help the conspirators if the conspirators were the one's that sealed off the crime scene themselves please explain.

Do you deny that it is logical to think it would support a potential conspiracy? Or do you think all conspiracy theory's are nut's?

Maybe you shouldnt be here in this forum section if you dont beleive in conspiracies.

[edit on 18-7-2005 by Rit]



posted on Jul, 18 2005 @ 08:15 AM
link   
Playing Devils Advicate in a debate about abortion or politics or sports is fine, but not the deaths of 50+ plus people. It was nice for you to apologize toi the people in the beginning of your first statement, which shows a bit of sympathy/empathy with the victims that shows us, beyond a doubt, that you associate and believe there were people injured, yet you continue on your rant about conspiracy/non-conspiracy and MI-6 .

You want proof you little atomic crackhead, buy a ticket and go look at the carnage your self. Take a trip to London and see if it was faked.

One more question, is Rit, short for ritalin???, if so, it's medication time.



posted on Jul, 18 2005 @ 08:21 AM
link   
By your same logic Rit. I don't exsist. You have never seen me. You've only seen words on a computer screen and words can be faked just as easy as pictures. You can't prove I exsist. I also have a friend who had a friend who died in the attack and since the attack was fake, that would prove even further I'm fake.
I've never been to antartica before either. I've only seen pictures of it. So this whole "antartica" thing is just a myth until proven otherwise.
You know what.....
The tsunami never happened also. Come on now, all those people dying from water?
don't make me laugh. They (the movie producers) easily copied stuff from Deep Impact.


Rit

posted on Jul, 18 2005 @ 08:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by cmdrpaddy


1) The bombing took place underground where noone can confirm wether it happened in the form of a real tragedy, noone can confirm that there were casualties, and noone can confirm that the witnesses close enough to see anything significant arent MI6.


but you dont believe witnesses anyway so what difference would that make? for you to be satisfied some one (you most probably) would have to build a timemachine for you to go back and see the explosions for yourself.

Well this is why we have to hold our own opinions. Even if England released their video, even if England released photo's of the subway it would not prove anything. They are all easily faked.

This is where the system of checks and balance come in. Such as the USA intelligence agencies presenting its own evidence, China presenting its evidence, Russia presenting its evidence.

I as someone who is a conspiracy theorist cant trust a potential conspirator to prove to me that they arent involved in a conspiracy.

And if I had any reason to beleive that the USA, China, Russia might be involved, I wouldnt trust anything they showed me either.

That goes for any person on this planet.




2) There was a terror drill that happened 6+ months before that exactly mimicked the London bombings.


There is also more than likely terror drills going on now, somewhere in the USA, the UK, Germany, France, Australia, and they probably have been doing them for years, where are all the MI6 backed operations from all these drills?

There arent THAT many major terrorist drills. Here in the US we have alot of small ones and only a few large one's.

I dont think it logical to think that England seals off a portion of London everyday to conduct drills as they did that day.





3) The bus explosion happened nearly an hour later in a sealed off section of downtown London.


id love to know how people were driving down the road behind and infront of the bus, and other buses were on the road aswell if the road was sealed off.

It was an evacuated area. The people left were being told to leave. The traffick was slow. The bus that blew up was supposedly full of many people who were on the subways that blew up and were awaiting evacuation on the bus.





4) That the entire scene afterwords was sealed off. Noone can confirm anything that was in the sealed off area because they were very likely MI6.


BWAAAAHAHA
, what do you expect to happen? they set up a fun fair and let everybody in? Of course they sealed off the area (but I thought they had done that already?) so they could preserve evidence.

Ill give you the same response that I gave tinkerbell, can you deny that it would support a conspiracy against them?





5) That emergency first responders were prohibited from responding due to possible booby traps and secondary explosions *here is a new fact for you*. Makes it easier for MI6 correct?

The emergency services themselves decided not to go in until the scene was secure because if anything happened when they were in there it would have amde things much worse.

And again I have to say, for every theory that you think up I can make up ten even more ridiculous but just as likely as yours.

[edit on 18/7/05 by cmdrpaddy]


The emergency services were told not to goto the scene. It wasnt a spontaneous decision on their part. And again like you said "the scene had to be secured before emergency responders could go there". Which strengthens the conspiracy.



posted on Jul, 18 2005 @ 08:26 AM
link   
Rit -

Your posts have proven nothing, I'm afraid.

You keep missing the part where it's not up to us to disprove your claims - it's up to you to prove such. Your claims are based upon the "you can't disprove this" method - can't you see the enormous flaws in that mindset?

To use "well you can't disprove it, either", is simply illogical and nonsensical.


Rit

posted on Jul, 18 2005 @ 08:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird
By your same logic Rit. I don't exsist. You have never seen me. You've only seen words on a computer screen and words can be faked just as easy as pictures. You can't prove I exsist. I also have a friend who had a friend who died in the attack and since the attack was fake, that would prove even further I'm fake.
I've never been to antartica before either. I've only seen pictures of it. So this whole "antartica" thing is just a myth until proven otherwise.
You know what.....
The tsunami never happened also. Come on now, all those people dying from water?
don't make me laugh. They (the movie producers) easily copied stuff from Deep Impact.


What if this website is just an echo back to myself? What if the only people I am talking to are the conspirators.

It is all possible. But I dont beleive you had a friend who had a friend who died in the attack. I think your friend has some misinformation. But I cant prove that, thats just what I think.




top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join