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: 3
0
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:
Rit

posted on Jul, 18 2005 @ 08:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
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.


I have no desire to goto London. Ireland maybe, Scotland maybe. England doesnt interest me.

This is a political conspiracy forum. If you dont beleive in such things then visit some of the other forums.

And if you think that anything involving death and injury has to never be questioned leaves you open to alot of exploitation by whoever ever tells you a story about someone dying or getting hurt.

Here is one "Yesterday 12 people were shot and killed by killer purple monkeys with laser beam guns from outer space". Is it your duty to immediatly beleive this because 12 people were shot and killed? If so your beyond my immediate help I can give you in this forum without banging my head into the desk repeatedly again and again.

[edit on 18-7-2005 by Rit]



Rit

posted on Jul, 18 2005 @ 08:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Tinkleflower
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.




To use the phrase you cant prove anything is simply illogical and nonsensical. Yes that is what you said to me.

I have presented my facts, it is up to your to draw your own conclusion. I already said I dont have the capability of the CIA, FBI, NSA, NRO etc.

As far as me directly linking MI6 , that is for the professionals. I dont have the time or the motive as of right now.

I can see enormous flaws in your mindset. Your dragging me into a "you smell" "No you smell" "no you smell" argument.

Please post something constructive or dont post at all. Bt hopefully a moderator will be here to set you in the appropiate track.

[edit on 18-7-2005 by Rit]



posted on Jul, 18 2005 @ 08:39 AM
link   
it is one person saying what he/she thinks, and then disregarding anything anyone says against his/her theory.

What is the point to it?

Don't get upset with the original poster, he/she is feeding off your emotions and is getting their kicks out of upsetting you. I have had dealings with this type of poster before and you cannot reason with them at all.

Bottom line is the idea of the London bombings being fake is absurd. A conspiracy it may be, but smoke mirrors and hollywood magic it is not.


Rit

posted on Jul, 18 2005 @ 08:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheObserver
it is one person saying what he/she thinks, and then disregarding anything anyone says against his/her theory.

What is the point to it?

Don't get upset with the original poster, he/she is feeding off your emotions and is getting their kicks out of upsetting you. I have had dealings with this type of poster before and you cannot reason with them at all.

Bottom line is the idea of the London bombings being fake is absurd. A conspiracy it may be, but smoke mirrors and hollywood magic it is not.


Prove that the conspiracy is fake. Any intelligent person can see that you just wasted our bandwith.

If you are so above the idea of it being a conspiracy, point out something I posted that you beleive to be false so we can have a constructive argument.

Im not trying to rebuttal everyone who disagrees with me, but please disagree with me with proof, not slandering my character.

[edit on 18-7-2005 by Rit]



posted on Jul, 18 2005 @ 08:42 AM
link   
LOL no, you didn't actually give any facts.

Just supposition.

Supposition is not evidence.

Now...you're the one who mentioned MI6. If you cannot - or will not - clarify how you "know" MI6 are/were involved, perhaps it would have been more prudent not to dangle the carrot, so to speak.

Again - you have proven nothing.

And again - challenging us to "disprove" what you allege, is an oft-heard call by folk who have no evidence of their own to support their claims.



posted on Jul, 18 2005 @ 08:43 AM
link   
This is nonsense, everything in either direction is supposedly strengthening the case of the conspiracy no matter what anyone posts.



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.


It also shows that the people in charge were able to do their jobs.



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


How do you know?
Australia has been running drills for years (and has one arranged for October) as have Germany and France and youve just admitted that the US has them so what makes that one particular drill in London special?
Also, drills arent staged everyday so i really dont know what youre talking about.



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.

No it wasnt, and no they werent. if they were please prove it. Also the bus had taken a different route to its normal one why would they divert traffic down a 'sealed' off part of the city?



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

Yes I can because if they didnt do it they wouldnt be doing their jobs. if they didnt seal off the scene you would be equally vociferous in your claims of conspiracy.



posted on Jul, 18 2005 @ 08:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Rit
But I dont beleive you had a friend who had a friend who died in the attack. I think your friend has some misinformation.

I'll be sure to pass that along when she gets back


"Your friend really didn't just die. You really didn't attend any funerals or memorials or anything. It's all a joke. You're on a TV show or something."



posted on Jul, 18 2005 @ 08:48 AM
link   
This is a forum, not a blog. So How's that head banging going? Seeing those purple monkeys yet?


Rit

posted on Jul, 18 2005 @ 08:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Tinkleflower
LOL no, you didn't actually give any facts.

Just supposition.

Supposition is not evidence.

Now...you're the one who mentioned MI6. If you cannot - or will not - clarify how you "know" MI6 are/were involved, perhaps it would have been more prudent not to dangle the carrot, so to speak.

Again - you have proven nothing.

And again - challenging us to "disprove" what you allege, is an oft-heard call by folk who have no evidence of their own to support their claims.



Tinkle it was proven a few pages back in this thread that I dont have the capability to prove MI6 was directly involved. I am just a plain US Citizen, it would take an enormous effort to infiltrate MI6 operations. And I dont have the financial income to travel to England to start an investigation by interviewing witnesses and determining wether they were legit or not.

This is just my conspiracy theory.

Please look up the definition of theory.



posted on Jul, 18 2005 @ 08:48 AM
link   
What????!!!!!!!!!

They are still trying to get bodies out of the tunnels. Many of them have been eaten by rats now. It's sickening....

....there were bombs, they did go off, they did kill at least 54 people. People that live not far from me, people that share the same train as me sometimes. Luckily i haven't worked in London for a few months, so i wasn't there.... but to suggest that this didn't happen is just naive and wrong.

Get yourself a cheap ticket and come on over. Go look at the British Medical Association building...it's covered in blood spots. Then go and speak to some local shop owners. They felt the blast.

I'm all for questioning the media feed and looking deeper into things that appear to be too convienient, but if you really think they could fake this, then you've obviously never been to London...





Rit

posted on Jul, 18 2005 @ 08:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird

Originally posted by Rit
But I dont beleive you had a friend who had a friend who died in the attack. I think your friend has some misinformation.

I'll be sure to pass that along when she gets back


"Your friend really didn't just die. You really didn't attend any funerals or memorials or anything. It's all a joke. You're on a TV show or something."


Your post just made anyone who read it get an impression of feeling they were touching a touchy subject. Not one to be perhaps be questioned.

Just what a conspirator would want.


Rit

posted on Jul, 18 2005 @ 09:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by cmdrpaddy
This is nonsense, everything in either direction is supposedly strengthening the case of the conspiracy no matter what anyone posts.


originally posted by Rit
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.


It also shows that the people in charge were able to do their jobs.


Yeah as in seal off the scene, Erase any evidence, act out injuries and death, make sure there were no witnesses.





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


How do you know?
Australia has been running drills for years (and has one arranged for October) as have Germany and France and youve just admitted that the US has them so what makes that one particular drill in London special?
Also, drills arent staged everyday so i really dont know what youre talking about.


Because that particular terror drill was a precedent for dictating protocol and procedure for a future terrorist attack. And it just happened to closely mimick the future terrorist attack that did happen. It makes sense to me that this would be the terrorist attack that would most likely be able to be staged.





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.

No it wasnt, and no they werent. if they were please prove it. Also the bus had taken a different route to its normal one why would they divert traffic down a 'sealed' off part of the city?


What does a different route prove one way or the other as in for or against a conspiracy? The fact is the bus originated in a sealed off area. And possible the route direction was into another sealed off location, which I beleive it was.




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

Yes I can because if they didnt do it they wouldnt be doing their jobs. if they didnt seal off the scene you would be equally vociferous in your claims of conspiracy.

Right it doesnt disprove a conspiracy. I would say it supports one more then it disproves one. If you dont have a sealed off area, you have a much lower risk of a coverup and conspiracy. But statistics and logistics in carrying out a conspiracy might be over your head, everything else seems to be.


Rit

posted on Jul, 18 2005 @ 09:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Rapture404
What????!!!!!!!!!

They are still trying to get bodies out of the tunnels. Many of them have been eaten by rats now. It's sickening....

....there were bombs, they did go off, they did kill at least 54 people. People that live not far from me, people that share the same train as me sometimes. Luckily i haven't worked in London for a few months, so i wasn't there.... but to suggest that this didn't happen is just naive and wrong.

Get yourself a cheap ticket and come on over. Go look at the British Medical Association building...it's covered in blood spots. Then go and speak to some local shop owners. They felt the blast.

I'm all for questioning the media feed and looking deeper into things that appear to be too convienient, but if you really think they could fake this, then you've obviously never been to London...





Take a blood sample. Do you have access to a blood database to prove who it belongs to?

Some local shop owners felt the blast? So, Pyrotechnics show? A big loud harmless firecracker going off?

You personnaly know friends who died? How conveinant that this thread would attract 1 doctor who treated wounded civilians, 1 person who knows somebody who knows somebody who died, and 1 person who knows many people who died.

And this thread isnt even 3 hours old yet. Im expecting Blair and the Quenn to show up soon.

I would say this proves even more of a conspiracy. You have inspired me to beleive even more.

[edit on 18-7-2005 by Rit]



posted on Jul, 18 2005 @ 09:12 AM
link   
I should have also mentioned that this type of poster doesn't read your posts properly and only sees what they want to see. Also, when they have no valid arguement, they just insult you instead.

Pay no heed to this amateur conspiracy theorist, his/her "theory" (if it can be called that) has so many holes in it you could call it swiss cheese.

Rit you have no proof, so don't make yourself look stupid by asking others for it.



posted on Jul, 18 2005 @ 09:18 AM
link   


Right it doesnt disprove a conspiracy. I would say it supports one more then it disproves one. If you dont have a sealed off area, you have a much lower risk of a coverup and conspiracy. But statistics and logistics in carrying out a conspiracy might be over your head, everything else seems to be.


If you dont have a sealed off area you have people coming in and ruining your chance to catch either the people who bombed the buses and trains or the people who supplied the bombs and trained the bombers.
Also your insult seems to be aimed at someone who believes there is a conspiracy, I dont, so why would I need to know about the logistics of carrying out non-existent conspiracies?


Rit

posted on Jul, 18 2005 @ 09:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheObserver
I should have also mentioned that this type of poster doesn't read your posts properly and only sees what they want to see. Also, when they have no valid arguement, they just insult you instead.

Pay no heed to this amateur conspiracy theorist, his/her "theory" (if it can be called that) has so many holes in it you could call it swiss cheese.

Rit you have no proof, so don't make yourself look stupid by asking others for it.


Say that in the mirror. That would exactly describe your post. You might have to actually think though, might be hard.



posted on Jul, 18 2005 @ 09:19 AM
link   
Exactly, Rit - I'm glad you agree with me!

As you so rightly declared, you cannot prove anything. Even using the most generous definitions, you've failed to offer anything in terms of evidence.

So, it's my view that your theory holds no water, cannot be proven, and thus is about as useful as the proverbial chocolate teapot.

Now, if we can actually start discussing facts, and not blind rhetoric, we might have something to debate, non?


Rit

posted on Jul, 18 2005 @ 09:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by cmdrpaddy


Right it doesnt disprove a conspiracy. I would say it supports one more then it disproves one. If you dont have a sealed off area, you have a much lower risk of a coverup and conspiracy. But statistics and logistics in carrying out a conspiracy might be over your head, everything else seems to be.


If you dont have a sealed off area you have people coming in and ruining your chance to catch either the people who bombed the buses and trains or the people who supplied the bombs and trained the bombers.
Also your insult seems to be aimed at someone who believes there is a conspiracy, I dont, so why would I need to know about the logistics of carrying out non-existent conspiracies?



You seem to be in the business of disproving conspiracies. So if you are going to debunk conspiracies you should first know how a conspirator would carry out a conspiracy.

I am not debating that sealing off an area doesnt hold any logic. I agree with the logic to seal off crime scenes. I am just saying that it sparks a greater chance of a coverup and conspiracy potentially.


Rit

posted on Jul, 18 2005 @ 09:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Tinkleflower
Exactly, Rit - I'm glad you agree with me!

As you so rightly declared, you cannot prove anything. Even using the most generous definitions, you've failed to offer anything in terms of evidence.

So, it's my view that your theory holds no water, cannot be proven, and thus is about as useful as the proverbial chocolate teapot.

Now, if we can actually start discussing facts, and not blind rhetoric, we might have something to debate, non?





Im pretty sure I already did lay out most of the facts to discuss and debate.

But you arent making any debate or discussion. You are just using immature unintelligent unconstructive babble over and over again.

If a mod reads this, please tell twinkle to rebuttal the facts here and not throw out posts without any substance, or to go somewhere else.

[edit on 18-7-2005 by Rit]



posted on Jul, 18 2005 @ 09:33 AM
link   


You seem to be in the business of disproving conspiracies. So if you are going to debunk conspiracies you should first know how a conspirator would carry out a conspiracy.

I am not debating that sealing off an area doesnt hold any logic. I agree with the logic to seal off crime scenes. I am just saying that it sparks a greater chance of a coverup and conspiracy potentially.


Disproving conspiracies? hardly, this isnt even a conspiracy, its complete nonsense unsupported by any actual facts that you have been able to source outside your own imagination.

i think TheObserver had you spot on, Ive also had the misfortune of stumbling upon threads like this before, and basically nobody will be able to do anything to dissuade you from your point of view.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join