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.

 

Fun and games with UK's big brother

page: 7
0
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 21 2006 @ 03:20 AM
link   
Oh, and to quote Columbo - "just one more thing..."; vicious circles? Take a good look at your posts and try and spot the circular patterns there, ape. Your coming back again and again to the same weak arguments and attacks on my character seems a bit, well, circular doesn't it?




posted on Jun, 21 2006 @ 03:31 AM
link   
And here is a couple of links to info on arms industry investments by universities, and as I have said before, the annual financial reports for the UK universities in question (specifically, get hold of UCL's 2005 report) are free and available on request if you want even more definitive proof:

www.spinwatch.org...

www.caat.org.uk...

An excellent report summarising the mechanics of these investments is available as a pdf here:

www.missendencentre.co.uk...

This investment in arms is not limited to London Uni's - Oxford and Cambridge, predictably, are among the worst offenders:

Link

www.caat.org.uk...

And there is far more out there for you to look up.

Fulcanelli

Mod Edit: Truncated Link Of Great Length.


[edit on 21/6/2006 by Mirthful Me]



posted on Jun, 21 2006 @ 04:42 AM
link   
screw this -- i am through here

first an apology of sorts the " arms dealing " quote was actually by you , but i misread it as your quoting style and point / counter points are soo damed hard to follow -- i picked up on the wrong end of the sentence

but i will ask , do you have someting against using [ quote ] ..........quoted text ..........[ / quote ] tags the way other members do ??

getting back to misrepresentations : i did not call you a moslem , so do not lie and say that i did ..... talk about hypocracy :flame;

nor have i attacked you -- i have attacked what you claim to have done , there is a difference

you totally failed to adress the issues of your tube behaviour / phone calls -- but instead truncated the arguments to delete the most important bits :toche:

at the risk of being branded circular once more -- i will re interate :

you carried out [ or claimed to ] a series of actions which you knew full well were detrimental to public saftey and security -- for your oun ends .

further your actions DELIBERATLY serve only to alienate and antagonise

that sir is why i asked about outrach and building bridges -- your reply that your conduct on ATS consitutes " outreach " is laughable -- as a majority of replies indicates


now you are claiming [ to paraphrase ] " it was a joke " well my bad --- maybe i lost my sense of humour sometime back in the 80s

my arguments have not been cicular , so stop claiming they were -- but your abject failure to adress issues has meant that some points NEEDED revisiting

APE OUT --



posted on Jun, 21 2006 @ 04:43 AM
link   
Now to speak to someone who clearly is interested in discussion - rich23, I had no idea of the suspicions concerning the Lockerbie flight, though I remember the event well. It's something that I clearly need to do some digging around on.


Originally posted by rich23

You mentioned David Shayler earlier on. I saw him speak last year and he was adamant that 7/7 was a false flag op run by the security services. For those reading who think that the West has nothing to do with terrorism: Shayler was a whistleblower who came to prominence for revealing that - I'm going to put this in bold here -

MI6 paid AlQaeda £100,000 to assassinate Colonel Gadaffi -

which mission they cocked up, killing 3 innocent people.

He came across as a bit of a dick, actually, very arrogant about what he knows... but he did know about the AQ thing and the unacknowledged evidence about 7/7 suggests he's right there too.



You're lucky to have seen Shayler in the flesh - I would love to hear him speak live and maybe ask him a few questions. I've read his writings (done with the input of his other half who also, if I remember correctly, was in the MI agencies, and heard recordings and watched videos of him giving presentations. His facts are impeccably presented but you're right, he did strike me as a bit loudmouthed (and thank god - we need more loudmouthed and fearless whistleblowers), but then I guess that his treatment at thehands of Her Majesty's government gives him every right to be. I know I would.



posted on Jun, 21 2006 @ 04:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by rich23
As far as Western involvement with terrorism goes, there's also a lot of evidence to suggest that many, many people knew that there was a bomb aboard the Lockerbie flight but that it was allowed to fly anyway. A friend of mine was actually on that plane. He flew from Frankfurt to Heathrow sitting next to a US soldier who was pale, sweating, and terrified because he'd heard rumours that there was a bomb on the plane but this was the flight he'd been assigned to go on leave so he didn't have much choice. If an ordinary US soldier had heard about that, how many others must have known? Then there was plenty of talk from the Scottish police about US officials (CIA?) turning up VERY quickly at the scene and searching the wreckage, even removing items from the crime scene.

But the West doesn't support terrorism. OH no...


can you cite any of these " facts"

at the risk of sounding calous -- the aleged soldier was a dumbass , there are 1001 ways to get off a plane IF you really think it is at risk :

apes #1 plan would be go into the toilets at frankfurt airport -- fluch my cash and creditcards down the loo , along with my warrant card -- come out , walk to the german federal police desk and tell them i have been pick pocketed

the plane will leave without me , and the worst " punishment " i believe i can face is something along the lines of " negligent loss of mod property " -- an issue which would be handled by administrative pinishemet , at the hands of my company commander

in plain english -- you stooopid little gobshiite , how the feck did you loose your ID -- fined 2 days pay , confined to barracks for 1 week and several unpleasant and pointless taks like cleaning a 150 square meter floor with a toothbrush


it sure beats being blown out of the sky at 30k feet

as for CIA policing up the evidence -- i know 2 crews who were sent to lockerbie in the immediate aftermath of PA103 -- and neither mentioned any such thing



posted on Jun, 21 2006 @ 05:03 AM
link   
ape,

You clearly are sitting there hoping against hope with your fingers crossed that others here will be as cursory and as innattentive to detail in their reading of this thread as you clearly have been - EVERY ONE of your objections has been answered, and at length and in great detail, either as my reply to others of a like mind to yours or as rebuttals of your own objections. All it requires is that one reads what I have written throughout this thread. If you find my arguments too hard to follow, that is not my concern, it is YOURS. Clearly many others here have had no trouble at all following my arguments.

Your assertion that my rather poor use of quotes here so far is part of my learning curve here - I am new not only to this forum but also new to discussion in this medium in general, and I HAVE made use of the quote button - again, look at previous posts.


Originally posted by ignorant_ape

getting back to misrepresentations : i did not call you a moslem , so do not lie and say that i did ..... talk about hypocracy :flame;

nor have i attacked you -- i have attacked what you claim to have done , there is a difference

you totally failed to adress the issues of your tube behaviour / phone calls -- but instead truncated the arguments to delete the most important bits :toche:

at the risk of being branded circular once more -- i will re interate :

you carried out [ or claimed to ] a series of actions which you knew full well were detrimental to public saftey and security -- for your oun ends .

further your actions DELIBERATLY serve only to alienate and antagonise

that sir is why i asked about outrach and building bridges -- your reply that your conduct on ATS consitutes " outreach " is laughable -- as a majority of replies indicates

now you are claiming [ to paraphrase ] " it was a joke " well my bad --- maybe i lost my sense of humour sometime back in the 80s


Here we go again:

1) I never claimed you DID call me a muslim - READ, dammit! I reminded you that I am not Muslim simply because I could not fathom why you seem to think it necessary that I "build bridges" with other communities and faiths, and I made this reminder as an illustration that I have not confined myself to discussion or fraternisation with particular cultures or communities - quite the opposite.

2) You wouldn't call labelling me a hypocrite a personal attack? You wouldn't call your claim that I am cynically manipulating the fears of others (by again, for the umpteenth time, simply BEING BROWN, BEARDED, and carrying a BAG on a train - point out where I have indicated any other activity in this context to support this assertion?) a personal attack? These would not be personal attacks if you justified them by more than just your INTERPRETATION of these actions, but since you have done no such thing, they DO constitute attacks.

3) "you totally failed to adress the issues of your tube behaviour / phone calls -- but instead truncated the arguments to delete the most important bits :toche:" how about YOU make use of the quote button or otherwise show where I have done this? The ONLY edit I have made was an ADDITION to one of my posts, not a deletion. The "snips" from my initial 4 posts were actually done by the mods since I was at the time unaware of the rules concerning profanity here. NOWHERE have I deleted ANYTHING from my posts. I do not need to resort to such tactics to fend off such spurious and easily deconstructed arguments as yours, matey.

4) And finally, in a glaring example of YOUR truncation of my words in an effort to take them out of context and detract from their weight in argument, your comment "that sir is why i asked about outrach and building bridges -- your reply that your conduct on ATS consitutes " outreach " is laughable -- as a majority of replies indicates" fails to include the other ways I have listed that I engage in reaching out to others... here are my words again, in FULL:



posted on Jun, 21 2006 @ 05:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by fulcanelli
...In my own case, there are hundreds of my friends and relatives and acquaintances who are very well aware of my views because I have been extremely vocal about them for years...

...I would say that my having BEEN vocal about these issues, my own personal forays into activism and my discussing these issues here with you and others constitutes "outreach and education"



So, what more, other than having been lodly vocal to anyone who will listen, putting myself in harm's way and having been arrested several times for protest, civil disobedience and other forms of activism I have been engaged in, would you have me do to justify the fact that I HAVE reached out, that I HAVE tried to educate? Oh, and do you feel that having had over 2000 views of this thread already DOESNT constitute spreading information and educating others in this way?

Finally, what do you think YOU have contributed so far in this thread that I haven't? In fact, you have DETRACTED from the education of others by persistently redirecting the flow of this discussion into a petty slanging match. How about you explain for all here what YOU have done that gives you the right to judge MY actions in this respect? Exactly what have YOU done to educate others and reach out?

Consider that a rhetorical question - I have absolutely no interest in you beyond giving you even more rope with which you can further twist yourself up into knots, so please don't feel as though you need to justify yourself to me. I'm pretty sure everyone here has your number by now, ignorant_ape.

Fulcanelli



posted on Jun, 21 2006 @ 06:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by ignorant_ape

now you are claiming [ to paraphrase ] " it was a joke " well my bad --- maybe i lost my sense of humour sometime back in the 80s



Where? where did I cop out and claim what I had done or said was a "joke"? NOWHERE, which is why you resort to MISREPRESENTING (not, as you put it, "paraphrasing") my words yet again.

I'm glad you've had enough, ape. I could go on all day, but frankly, I'd much rather converse with others with something of value to contribute. Please take your vitriol elsewhere.



posted on Jun, 21 2006 @ 06:22 AM
link   
I was trying to post something long but the quote system is messed up as I try to delete certin things insted of reposting a whole post, it deletes the whole post including what I WANTED to quote. If that doesn't make sense I'll just say that the ATS forums are being a pain in the bum.
Anyways, if I can maby clear something up, and please excuse me if you've already adressed this as it's 5am for me now and I'm still trying to figure out which way is up without reading 6 pages. But I think you may have ruffeled some feathers with your first post when you said,
"Until recently, purely for my own personal entertainment, I had taken to growing a beard and fumbling with my bag while on the train, taking special care to be sitting in amongst and make eye contact with the pinstriped yuppies, reading yet another story in the Metro with a headline title such as "Fanatics A Threat To Us All", until the novelty of finally securing my own seat with BOTH armrests had worn off and the frightened looks on the faces of these sleepwalking, gibbering automatons lost its mirth value. Not to mention that after repeated and highly entertaining conversations with the jack-booted monkeys being employed these days by the Metropolitan Transport Police, I had finally realised that even my not insignificant powers of Socratic argument would suffice, no matter how embarrassingly loudly argued, to convince even one of these drooling crypto-fascists that perhaps they are being exploited every bit as much as the thousands of innocents they victimise at the order of the unaccountable alphabet-agencies that feed them their laughable "intelligence".

Some may see that as terrorism in it's own form. My self? I'm on the fence with just about every issue, but like helping people out with their conversations. Keep up the good posts.


[edit on 21-6-2006 by Slash] Tried editing with quotes but it didn't work, guess it's not me after all heheh.

[edit on 21-6-2006 by Slash] dam quotes WORK! Screw it I give up.


[edit on 21-6-2006 by Slash]



posted on Jun, 21 2006 @ 06:41 AM
link   
Hey slash - don't worry too much about the quote system; I've been having trouble with that myself.

And yes, I believe the cause of my detractors' ire towards me was indeed primarily the paragraph you quoted, but I think that I have established now for all here (several times in several ways) the fact that this paragraph contained NO DESCRIPTION OF ANY ACTIVITY WHICH IS ILLEGAL OR IN ANY WAY TERRORISM RELATED - barring the obvious (but clearly not obvious enough for some) comic licence taken with the structuring of the paragraph, all I was describing was my mirth at the fact that when I made my daily journeys on the tube with a beard and a rucksack, smiling at the other passengers, some clearly were afraid when I reached into my bag - THAT IS ALL. These people have chosen to read malicious intentions into my acts where there were none.

And, believe me, if these people knew me as a person better or had any inkling how hard I have fought for civil liberties, the sacrifices I have made in the course of my decade or so of activism, and the abuse and victimisation I have been forced to endure because of the prejudices instilled in the British public by the continuing propaganda fallout of the 7/7 event, they would UNDERSTAND why the fear I see in the eyes of commuters when I innocently reach into my bag brings a wry smile to my face.

My reply to all those claiming that I was imitating a suicide bomber, once again to make it plain, was simply that if being brown, having a beard and reaching into a rucksack was enough for these people to define me as a suicide bomber then they not only were clearly LABELLING THEMSELVES as prejudiced, but also demonstrating their ignorance of the facts about the 7/7 incident that point to the involvement of the intelligence agencies and the likely innocence of those actually blamed for the event (see the evidence mentioned in earlier posts regarding the bombs being UNDER the trains, the mastermind of the attacks being outed as an MI6 assett, etc.)

Fulcanelli



posted on Jun, 21 2006 @ 07:33 AM
link   
I know this response is late and the conversation has moved on since, but i'm amazed some users are trying to declare 7/7 was an 'inside' job to gain control over the masses. Various quotes I recall being 'there were no asian men present' and/or 'the carriage was blown apart from the exterior of the carriage blowing the train upwards' (recalling from memory). Comically (in regard to the title of this thread), I would like to point out have people seen the footage of the bombers?

Picture one:


Picture two:


Picture three:


Now where is this conspiracy?

1. Note the clothing of the 'terrorists' and the fact they are ALL wearing rucksacks.

2. This picture is not as clear but shows each of the 'terrorist' boarding the various types of transport. Note the bus camera.

3. The train clearly looks as if it has been blown from the interior, I do not see any evidence of any exterior explosions.



posted on Jun, 21 2006 @ 07:55 AM
link   
Hey Knights,


Originally posted by Knights
Comically (in regard to the title of this thread), I would like to point out have people seen the footage of the bombers?...

...Now where is this conspiracy?

1. Note the clothing of the 'terrorists' and the fact they are ALL wearing rucksacks.

2. This picture is not as clear but shows each of the 'terrorist' boarding the various types of transport. Note the bus camera.

3. The train clearly looks as if it has been blown from the interior, I do not see any evidence of any exterior explosions.



You are of course assuming that the people in the photographs are in fact the bombers - where is your proof for this? NONE has been issued to the public except the hearsay expounded by the organs of officialdom and duly parrotted by the media here. I repeat - NO EVIDENCE has been presented that stands up to even the most cursory scrutiny that these people are anything more than they appear on the photographs - four asian men with rucksacks. Do you see any indication on the photos themselves that they are terrorists? What are you seeing there that I am not?

An idependant enquiry would of course go some way as to determine this definitively one way or the other - oops, I forget, TONY BLAIR REFUSED TO ALLOW such an investigation.

Added to which is the frank impossibility that the explosive used according to the official story was TATP - I can say with some authority here that if you or I was to carry around ten pounds or more of this substance in a rucksack through any underground station we would be in for a nasty surprise the second we shifted weight from one foot to the other too heavily or bumped into anyone else even slightly - and anyone who has used the London Underground at that time of morning knows that weaving through the other passengers without bumping into anyone (far less with a heavy rucksack on and without the ability to change direction quickly to avoid collisions with others) is the equivalent in terms of difficulty to running through the rain without getting a single drop on you. NO chance.
Also, the obvious fire damage to the interior of the carriages and burns infliced on hundreds of victims would strongly suggest that whatever caused the explosions was NOT TATP - TATP is an "entropic" explosive and generates no heat, flames or light flash (which almost ALL of the surviving eyewitnesses have attested to having seen when the explosions went off ). Added to which they could not POSSIBLY have taken the train mentioned in the official story that day. The list goes on, and on, and on.

And as far as it being obvious that the explosions came from within the train - perhaps you'd like to explain how such a thing can be obvious when the train was in a tunnel with a foot or so of clearance around its edges (nowhere for it to move in the event of an explosion either under or anywhere else in or outside the train) - also, if the explosion came from under the train (as several witnesses have attested in their statements), would you see evidence of this clearly from the side view of the carriage shown in the picture at the bottom? I think not. All you would likely see are the windows blown out at the sides, and the other damage visible on the photo could have just as easily been caused also by an explosion under the train.

Fulcanelli



posted on Jun, 21 2006 @ 08:00 AM
link   
Nice pics, but I seem to notice something odd, it seems that none of the guys in the first pic are in the second pic. Are they supposed to be the same people or were there accually 7 involved?



posted on Jun, 21 2006 @ 08:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Knights
Various quotes I recall being 'there were no asian men present' and/or 'the carriage was blown apart from the exterior of the carriage blowing the train upwards' (recalling from memory).


You are misquoting me I'm afraid, and doing so from memory is probably inadvisable considering the length of some of my posts, so here is the comment you are misrepresenting (either intentionally or otherwise);


Originally posted by fulcanelli

there were the numerous eyewitness reports from survivors of the explosions who had been within the carriages themselves indicating that the bombs were indeed under the trains - Bruce Lait, a dance instructor from Cambridge, and his partner were practically sitting next to where there was an explosion, and reported to the cambridge news paper I believe that he saw the metal of the floor of the carriage bent upwards, as if the bomb was beneath the train. This was also attested to by numerous others, among whom there were several who were present in the carriages who assert that they so NO ASIAN LOOKING MEN, with or without the rucksacks, on the carriages before the explosions went off.



Get that? I have made the relevant phrases in the above paragraph bold for you to make it clearer what I ACTUALLY said.

And if there's any doubt over Bruce Lait's testimony, here's the link again:


www.cambridge-news.co.uk...

"'The policeman said 'mind that hole, that's where the bomb was'. The metal was pushed upwards as if the bomb was underneath the train. They seem to think the bomb was left in a bag, but I don't remember anybody being where the bomb was, or any bag"


If you happen to have some other proof of their involvement in terrorism of ANY SORT I would love to see it. But so far, you're doing the same thing as the likes of ISJ and strangerous, and I have been trying to explain again and again that being asian and carrying a rucksack on a train in NO WAY constitutes proof of terrorism unless supported with verifiable EVIDENCE. Anyone who would pass that judgement on the strangth of these photos ALONE is, again, speaking from prejudice and/or ignorance and/or blind faith in authority.

I'm sure the police would also love to see some actually INCRIMINATING photo or video evidence if you have it, because if they are to be believed, despite the HUNDREDS of cameras along the route these people supposedly took, the few photos released that you seem so sure defines these people as the culprits are the ONLY ONES IN EXISTENCE. Seems a bit unlikely doesn't it? Not least of which because if the police actually DID have photographic or video evidence (taken from these hundreds of cameras that all miraculously happened to malfunction along that route on that particular day) of these people that actually proved their culpability, it would be ENTIRELY in their interests to release it to the public by way of proof. They have not done so. WHY?

Fulcanelli


[edit on 21-6-2006 by fulcanelli]

[edit on 21-6-2006 by fulcanelli]

[edit on 21-6-2006 by fulcanelli]

[edit on 21-6-2006 by fulcanelli]

[edit on 21-6-2006 by fulcanelli]



posted on Jun, 21 2006 @ 09:33 AM
link   
Firstly I would like to state this is NOT a competition. Please do not use patronising comments such as 'get that?' and 'I have made the relevant phrases in the above paragraph bold for you to make it clearer what I ACTUALLY said'. Hope you understand



there were the numerous eyewitness reports from survivors of the explosions who had been within the carriages themselves indicating that the bombs were indeed under the trains


Please, please be my guest and post further sources, I am intrigued. The only relative explanation I can evaluate from the one source you have provided is the bomber would of most likely put his bag on the floor when sitting down and thus when the explosion went off it appeared to be originating from the floor. As you have stated the carriages were busy and most of the people were probably carrying bags or something similar. It would have been easy to misinterpret such detail.


- Bruce Lait, a dance instructor from Cambridge, and his partner were practically sitting next to where there was an explosion, and reported to the cambridge news paper I believe that he saw the metal of the floor of the carriage bent upwards, as if the bomb was beneath the train. This was also attested to by numerous others, among whom there were several who were present in the carriages who assert that they so NO ASIAN LOOKING MEN, with or without the rucksacks, on the carriages before the explosions went off


The site also mentions the following: "I remember an Asian guy, there was a white guy with tracksuit trousers and a baseball cap, and there were two old ladies sitting opposite me," he said. . The link you provided mentions NOTHING of any statements declaring there were no asian men on the carriage. I would be ever so greatful if you could provide a link for this to validate your story.The plot thickens.


If you happen to have some other proof of their involvement in terrorism of ANY SORT I would love to see it.


I would love to see proof against what I am saying. If there was enough proof it wouldn't be on a conspiracy website!



posted on Jun, 21 2006 @ 09:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Knights

Please, please be my guest and post further sources, I am intrigued. The only relative explanation I can evaluate from the one source you have provided is the bomber would of most likely put his bag on the floor when sitting down and thus when the explosion went off it appeared to be originating from the floor. As you have stated the carriages were busy and most of the people were probably carrying bags or something similar. It would have been easy to misinterpret such detail.


- Bruce Lait, a dance instructor from Cambridge, and his partner were practically sitting next to where there was an explosion, and reported to the cambridge news paper I believe that he saw the metal of the floor of the carriage bent upwards, as if the bomb was beneath the train. This was also attested to by numerous others, among whom there were several who were present in the carriages who assert that they so NO ASIAN LOOKING MEN, with or without the rucksacks, on the carriages before the explosions went off


The site also mentions the following: "I remember an Asian guy, there was a white guy with tracksuit trousers and a baseball cap, and there were two old ladies sitting opposite me," he said. . The link you provided mentions NOTHING of any statements declaring there were no asian men on the carriage. I would be ever so greatful if you could provide a link for this to validate your story.The plot thickens.



Your explanation, aside from being speculation against an EYEWITNESS account, does not account at all for the fact that the metal was bent UPWARDS from the floor of the carriage, nor does it account for any of the other points which I have listed which makes it unlikely in the extreme that the four supposed bombers were the culprits.

I don't believe I asserted that there was no asian man on the carriage - I simply stated that in his testimony, Bruce Lait clearly stated that there was nobody standing anywhere near where the explosion happened and the resulting hole appeared in the carriage, and no bag either. The fact that he mentions the presence of an asian guy (as well as two old ladies and a white man) on the carriage is of no relevance at all on this point.

As far as links to other testimony, here you'll find not only testimony from various sources with detailed references, but also testimony to corroborate my assertion that the characteristics of the damage caused both to the trains and to the passengers was completely inconsistent with the explosive used being TATP, as officially claimed. Also on the page is an mp3 link to the testimony of the guardian reporter I mentioned earlier, lots there for you to get your teeth into:

www.infowars.net...

Let me know what you think after you have waded through it all.

Fulcanelli




Mark Honingsbaum



posted on Jun, 21 2006 @ 09:59 AM
link   
PS - Bruce Lait's testimony stated that there were 20-25 people on the carriage. On any given day, at least a few of these are likely to be asian.


Originally posted by fulcanelli

I don't believe I asserted that there was no asian man on the carriage



And at least a partial apology to everyone here - the wording I used was a little poor, and I meant to say there were no asian men or anyone else standing near where the bomb went off and no bag, as Bruce Lait put it. My bad.

But my point stands; Lait contends that;


www.cambridge-news.co.uk...

"The policeman said 'mind that hole, that's where the bomb was'. The metal was pushed upwards as if the bomb was underneath the train. They seem to think the bomb was left in a bag, but I don't remember anybody being where the bomb was, or any bag," he said.


As you will see from the sources on the link above, there are few witnesses that have had their testimony recorded by media who claim to have seen men matching the description of the "bombers" on the carriages or near where the bombs went off, and those that have contended this have changed their story several times and can therefore not be relied upon as witnesses. Could you please reference a witness that makes these claims and has stuck by their story without changing it with every telling?

As far as presenting proof to refute YOUR claims is concerned, how about a little quid pro quo? I have presented much that supports my contention and by extension refutes the opposite (It might help if you could clearly define what it is you ARE contending, so that I can present proof against it additional to that I have already presented? I see no clear, definitive statement of your position on 7/7 and the details of it discussed here as of yet) - could you perhaps state your contention and then show me some conclusive evidence FOR it that you feel stands up to scrutiny?

Fulcanelli



[edit on 21-6-2006 by fulcanelli]

[edit on 21-6-2006 by fulcanelli]

[edit on 21-6-2006 by fulcanelli]

[edit on 21-6-2006 by fulcanelli]



posted on Jun, 21 2006 @ 10:55 AM
link   
I posted a thread some weeks ago about the explosive nature of the TATP peroxide based explosives that we are told were used on 7/7. Apart from being extremely unstable and therefore unwise to transport on backpacks from Leeds to London it produces an entropic explosion.

From Wikipedia:


An entropic explosion is an explosion in which the reactants undergo a large change in volume without releasing a large amount of heat.


Further analysis suggests it actually creates explosions at room temperature. The damage is done by the severe nature of the gas volume expansion. I originally asked did this contradict the many burn injuries recieved on 7/7 (evident in pictures) and also reports by survivors of seeing bright flashes and feeling extreme heat when the bombs went off?

[edit on 21-6-2006 by uknumpty]



posted on Jun, 21 2006 @ 11:12 AM
link   
I think I must have some kind of interpretation problem, I was more than sure earlier you stated as part of an official eyewitness report there were no Asian men on the carriage, then when confronted over the apparent blunder you retracted the so-called comment and modified it to your own perspective. Seems quite dubious to me.


As far as links to other testimony, here you'll find not only testimony from various sources with detailed references, but also testimony to corroborate my assertion that the characteristics of the damage caused both to the trains and to the passengers was completely inconsistent with the explosive used being TATP, as officially claimed. Also on the page is an mp3 link to the testimony of the guardian reporter I mentioned earlier, lots there for you to get your teeth into:

www.infowars.net...


As for the link I really have no interest in reading such material. I do not believe reading 'facts' from a conspiracy theorist to be unbiased. I am not stating it is fiction, often when looking for conspiracys a certain 'look and you will find' theory adopts and the story isn't unbiased or as unbiased as a news article for instance.


It was then that the penny dropped. At the moment the suicide bomber Mohammad Sidique Khan blew himself up a few feet away, killing seven people in the train and injuring 163, Thomas had very likely been laughing.

Link: www.guardian.co.uk...

The quote above regards a survivor from one of the carriages, the article clearly states the bomber blew himself up feet away. The article explores the psychological effects of such a bombing.


Al-Qaida claims responsibility for 7/7 bomings

Last night, a video played on Arab television station al-Jazeera showed al-Qaida's deputy leader claiming the group was responsible for the London attacks.

Ayman al-Zawahri said the group had the "honour" of carrying out the bombings. It is the first time al-Qaida has claimed direct responsibility for the attacks. In previous statements, it simply blamed British foreign policy for the bombings.

The Metropolitan police had no immediate comment about the video.

The new report of a practice run for the bombings adds more weight to the theory that all four suicide bombers planned to detonate their rucksack bombs on the tube system. Three of the four bombers detonated their devices on underground trains while the fourth exploded his on a bus.

It is thought that the bus bomber, Hasib Hussain, was prevented from getting on the Northern Line on the day of the attacks because of disruption to the service.

Link: www.guardian.co.uk...

Video
I would also like to see how you counter the suicide bomber
video

Still a conspiracy??

[Note] When posting these eyewitness accounts I would much prefer a valid site. Of course Alex Jones the author of infowars is going to make the story sound attractive, but he also believe in the Illuminati and many other conspiracys.. does that mean he is right? Of course not.

[edit: Damn my coding is bad!]
[edit on 21-6-2006 by Knights]

[edit on 21-6-2006 by Knights]



posted on Jun, 21 2006 @ 11:50 AM
link   
Knights

I gave you that infowars link because it contains many excerpts from eyewitness testimonies given by several people and links to the full testimony of each person at its source, often located at sites belonging to prestigious sources such as;

the guardian
the times
channel 4
the BBC
CNN
the independant

and many others - it is not, as you seem to have implied, simply Alex Jones ranting in the usual way he does. It's simply a convenient page from which to get as many eyewitness testimonies as possible from the above sources, and the fact that these testimonies appear on infowars or anywhere else, conspiracy related or otherwise, has nothing at all to do with the veracity of these sources. If you refuse to read them just because they appear on infowars, then I'm afraid you're just avoiding my rebuttal.

Also, if you feel that NONE of the content of a conspiracy website can be trusted, even if it's links from other websites that are in the MAINSTREAM, then I'm afraid our discussion must end there because, as you've probably noticed, not only is THIS SITE a conspiracy related site, but NO MAINSTREAM SITE PUBLISHES OR DISCUSSES CONSPIRACIES UNLESS IT IS TO DEBUNK THEM. Your refusal to read the testimonies on the basis that they are QUOTED on a site run by Alex Jones is, frankly, a very weak argument and a transparent avoidance of the facts as presented.

Both links you have given are for the guardian newspaper, I have noticed. There are many links to articles in the guardian as well as an mp3 file from a guardian reporter on the page I gave you a link for that corroborate what I have contended, but I guess if you're unwilling to look at these links simply because they are on Alex Jones' page, then it's a case of one set of rules for you and another for me in terms of presenting evidence?

The two links you gave me for your sources, though interesting, have their flaws in terms of their use as arguments against what I have stated; firstly, the first link is to a story that was published over a year after the event and is a treatise on the psychological effects on the survivors, the quote you have used from the article being mere hearsay on the part of the writer made with NO SUPPORTING EVIDENCE IN THE ARTICLE ITSELF - here is the full paragraph:


www.guardian.co.uk...

"While piecing together events before the bomb went off, Thomas told his therapist how he had been sitting on the Circle line train, reading a book by one of his favourite German authors - Wladimir Kaminer, a Russian émigré who writes about absurd and improbable events in a world gone mad. In his "relive", Thomas recalled being in a good mood and finding the book, called Militärmusik, very funny. It was then that the penny dropped. At the moment the suicide bomber Mohammad Sidique Khan blew himself up a few feet away, killing seven people in the train and injuring 163, Thomas had very likely been laughing."


I see no supporting evidence there, do you?

As for your second link, I have watched the video and read the full transcript of the message - NOWHERE does he claim that he will or has explode(d) a bomb on 7/7 or anything SPECIFICALLY implicating him inthat event - all that is seen and heard empirically on that video is a fanatical asian mouthing off at the west in general and defining himself as a "soldier" in the "battle" against the west, something that can be heard being voiced by many a misguided muslim fundamentalist youth in several mosques in this country, followed by a smooth transition to discussion of KNOWN terrorists Osama bin Laden and Ayman al Zwahiri by the presenter as if it has been proven they were in cahoots. This is merely a media ploy, not evidence.
ON the tape, it is admitted that it is unknown when or where the tape was made, and in the article it is stated in no uncertain terms that...



[edit on 21-6-2006 by fulcanelli]



new topics




 
0
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join