It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 9
<< 6  7  8    10  11 >>

log in


posted on Jun, 22 2006 @ 05:10 PM

Originally posted by Strangerous
I have seen footage of the bus bomber getting on the bus.

Haven't looked at this for a while, but I heard that the CCTV camera on the bus was out of action and that the last guy to come and mend it was not the usual contractor. I can't remember where I saw this information - possibly on one of the sites already posted on this thread.

Can you give a link for this footage for the bus bomber? If not, no probs, but I'd be interested.

posted on Jun, 22 2006 @ 09:15 PM

Originally posted by Knights
...I was quoting a Mr. Biddle. Your link although interesting still changes nothing in my eyes. The consistent element
in each of the sources is he saw Khan pull a cord in his rucksack and then the train exploded. That factor remains

Yes, it would seem that the ONLY important aspect of Danny Biddle's whole testimony that remains consistent in his retellings of it is that Khan pulled a cord. His identification of Khan and his testimony that he "pulled a cord" HINGES on his distance from Khan (if it is to be believed Khan was even on the train - there is no proof that I have seen so far that would suggest that he was actually on the carriage), and if this crucial element to his account changes every time he tells his story I would much rather rely upon the testimony of others whose recollections contain no such contradictions.

Never mind the fact that, if Mr. Biddle is to be believed, conspicuously absent from his testimony is the observation that the suicide bomber relinquished his life to Allah with the cry "Allahu Aqbar!" - this being the protocol for any such misguided "martyr". Surely the single "witness" who claims to have been looking at the bomber when he detonated the device would not have left out this rather important detail, and surely such a fanatic as appears on the video laughably alluded to in the media as his "confession" would not forget this not insignificant point of religious doctrine?

How much do you actually KNOW about how suicide bombers operate other than what we have allowed ourselves to be spoon-fed so far? Allow me to raise another point you may not have been made aware of - suicide bombers generally STRAP THEIR EXPLOSIVES TO THEIR BODIES, and do not carry them in bags. The reasons for this are obvious - to facilitate quick detonation and impede removal of he device in case of their being discovered, and to ensure as quick a death and as complete destruction of their body and all traceable evidence on it. If we are to believe that these men were bombers trained in these techniques by such old hands at these matters as the associates of Mr. bin Laden, would they have been so atypical in their execution of their act?

It also seems conspicuous to me that Mr. Biddle, of the witnesses whose testimony have found their way to mainstream media, is the ONLY testimony that appears to have these contradictions in its retelling AND contains a claim of positive ID of the bomber on the train AND an account of his witnessing the suspect trigger the detonation. If Mr. Biddle saw this, and there were, as he put it, many others on the train, where are the other corroborating accounts from other surviving passengers from that coach? Why does his stand alone in this respect?
The many other witnesses I have cited make no such assertions - quite the opposite, in fact. No, if I were a betting man I'd put my money on where the numbers are, and the weight of numbers in terms of reliable witness testimony as far as I can tell is with those who have attested to witnessing the events in such a way that would seem to contradict central aspects of the official theory (because without PROOF that's all it is).

continued in next post...

posted on Jun, 22 2006 @ 09:18 PM

Originally posted by Knights
Yes, several reports also state it could have easily been placed on the floor by a bomber/ detonated under a seat. Take Mr.Lait as an example (I know its like addind 2 and 2 and getting 10 but this is my theory on the hole in the floor scenario), he stated an Asian man was sitting across from him, say he was a bomber the chances are his rucksack would be on the floor near him meaning the logical thing would be to ignite it on the floor and thus blowing a hole in the floor. As for the inward metal theory, that was from one sole source was it not?

The bold items (my highlighting) in the quote above are the items I take exception to for reasons that should be obvious and require no explanation.

And I'm sorry, but even IF there are as you say several reports that suggest it COULD have been placed on the floor or under a seat (Which reports specifically? Where? By Whom?) you certainly CANNOT count Mr. Lait's amongst these since he makes no such suggestion and in fact asserts the opposite - that there was NO PERSON OR BAG NEAR WHERE THE BOMB WENT OFF. Also, the SEVERAL witnesses I have cited that describe phenomena suggesting the explosive was detonated UNDER the floor do not simply amount to the bomb having "blown a hole in the floor" - the metal was bent upwards, the tiles and the covers on the floor of the train flew upward - these are among the things said again and again by SEVERAL eyewitnesses and CANNOT be accounted for by the bomb being anywhere but BELOW the surface of the floor of the carriage.
This among many other inconsistencies must be accounted for and cannot be ignored, but as far as which witnesses are credible or not, this is simply a matter on which we shall have to agree to disagree since beyond providing the justifications I have for my own views on this issue, neither I nor you can do more.

Originally posted by Knights[/]
Well it depends what you class as 'conclusive evidence'. Alot of information has been obtained 'suggesting' they were to blame, but again i'm sure you will suggest everyone is making assumptions based on lies. I don't think you will ever find the conclusive evidence you are looking for.

You are, of course, correct. It appears that my standards of what constitutes "conclusive evidence" are far higher than those of some in our government and security services - specifically, I DO NOT consider it conclusive proof of the culpability of these four men simply to "say" that they were the bombers based on the articles of so-called evidence presented thus far; namely, a few blurred photos which show nothing more than four men of asian descent with rucksacks in an underground station, and a video showing a misguided, radicalised British Muslim espousing vague and laughably (and all too conveniently) stereotypical polital rhetoric against the West.

continued in next post...

[edit on 22-6-2006 by fulcanelli]

posted on Jun, 22 2006 @ 09:20 PM
This is of course not even addressing the problems with that supposed admission of responsibility from Al Qaeda (a glaring error in the quotation from the Qur'an used in the video - a mistakes no Islamist organisation would allow themselves to make):

MSNBC: MSNBC TV translator Jacob Keryakes, who said that a copy of the message was later posted on a secular Web site, noted that the claim of responsibility contained an error in one of the Quranic verses it cited. That suggests that the claim may be phony, he said. "This is not something al-Qaida would do," he said.

All else I have seen presented so far either from official organs of government or from its unofficial but no less controlled media mouthpieces has been unsupported conjecture, speculation and a complete unwillingness to face the mounting and clearly contradictory information that indicates we are the very least not being told everything and at the most we are being deceived by the REAL culprits, some of whom are embedded within our government and/or security services. This includes the extremely dubious (and somewhat reminiscent of 9/11) "discovery" of "documents and papers" identifying the bombers at the sites of the explosions used in the COMPLETE ABSENCE OF DNA evidence to place the suspects at the scene of the crime. Again this is completely uncharacteristic of suicide bombers in general (especially those who have made so-called videotape "confessions"), to say nothing of the fact of the vanishingly small chances that such documents would survive explosions which were capable of so eviscerating the bombers that NO DETECTABLE OR USABLE DNA TRACES WERE LEFT. (Shades of Mohammed Atta's indestructible passport, anyone?)

If such DNA evidence WAS present, then the assertion that the police "had no need" of such evidence to make an identification because these documents were found is, frankly, ridiculous to the point of being offensive to anyone with more than two grey cells to rub together between their ears.

Surely in the case of an incident of a magnitude such as this, it would be simply a matter of forensic procedure to examine DNA evidence if such evidence exists - purely from a logical perspective, finding documents on a carriage that had supposedly been packed with people (all with documents of their own far more likely to survive than any the supposed bombers were carrying) would not be proof positive that these men were present nor is it proof of their culpability, and DNA evidence would be used to confirm or deny this as a matter of procedure, again, if it existed.

Here is a reference to this in the Times, and there are many others you can find:

Police had no need of DNA evidence to identify the bombers as the men were all carrying personal documents.

Documents from one of the group were found on both the bombed-out train at Aldgate and the one at Edgeware Road. Police will not say why

Nor do I consider it at all consequential to the issues at hand that "Al Qaeda", itself a creation (in ideology and in reality) of the American and British intelligence services and funded, as with all such organisations, heavily through intermediaries such the Pakistani ISI (another admitted CIA creation), has come forward and claimed responsibility for the event - whether this is true or not, the use of transparent tactics such as playing videos of Osama and co. back to back with Khan's supposed confession video (which it is plain for all to see is nothing of the sort) constitutes proof of a connection between the two - this may convince some, but it won't wash with me. Not for a second.

continued in next post...

posted on Jun, 22 2006 @ 09:22 PM
It has even been admitted (although the point avoided, needless to say, in the mainstream) that the police have DRAWN NO CONCLUSIVE LINK AS YET on the basis of that video between Al Qaeda and Khan or any of the other supposed bombers. In fact, it has been stated in clear terms several times by both police and other security services that the four men, whether taking orders from "handlers" (Al Qaeda or other) or not, may well have been "duped" into killing themselves, which would go a long way to answering why there was no cry of Allahu Aqbar, why they had documents on them, why the bombs wre not strapped to them, why they all had return tickets, etc.

Of course, if you ascribe to that theory, you must then ask the question - who were their handlers? If Al Qaeda, then ultimately we come back again to the question of the PROVEN but ignored fact that person we have been told is the Al Qaeda mastermind behind the attacks, Harun Rashid Aswat, was an MI6 asset. If you need further and succinct confirmation of this, I don't suppose you think FOX News of all networks, with their political proclivities, would have aired the story summarising this shameful little nugget of information (viewable on the following link) were it not based on rock solid foundations? With Rupert Murdoch as it's owner?!

Aswat is, as far as anyone has been able to determine, is currently in Belmarsh prison (where he was hastily rushed after being outed as an MI6 asset) awaiting prosecution and possible extradition, but no mention has been made of him in the UK media since he was last mentioned on FOX, to my knowledge, other than to again reiterate his involvement in a very vague way.

You are mistaken in your assumption that I will point the finger and claim that everyone who takes the position that the official story holds water are "making assumptions based on lies" - I am not so foolhardy or so ignorant as to make that claim. I simply am suggesting that there is more than enough by way of verifiable and pertinent fact
and testimony left OUTSIDE the official story (and meticulously avoided by its proponents) and glaring inconsistency, contradiction and near impossibility WITHIN the official story to warrant further enquiry, and that due to these indications it is contingent on all those who feel motivated to investigate this to QUESTION EVERY FACET of what we have been told, why we have been told it, and what the motivations of the sources of that (dis)information have been and are. I assert nothing more, but this is my position.

continued in next post...

[edit on 22-6-2006 by fulcanelli]

posted on Jun, 22 2006 @ 09:22 PM
Answering Rich23's question

I'll try but thinking about it I'm sure it was on the news and was low-res stills (4/5) rather than moving video.

Thinking about it more (it's me age!) it may have been a picture of him getting the first bus before he got the one that blew up.

I'll get searching - do you have a link to the video maintainance thing you mentioned?

[edit on 23-6-2006 by Strangerous]

posted on Jun, 22 2006 @ 09:23 PM

Originally posted by Knights
I completely refute your claim. Mr. Lait claimed the metal was twisted upwards, perhaps the force of the seat being ripped up created the hole upwards, IF this was the case. Many of your reports just mention the hole in the floor not the direction the metal was bent in.

I'm not sure I understand the mechanics of the phenomenon you are describing. At the risk of quoting him AGAIN, his testimony specifically states that he was warned after the explosion by a policeman to

"mind that hole - that's where the bomb was"

and that

"The metal was pushed upwards as if the bomb was underneath the train."

The other witnesses who state that the floor tiles and panels flew upwards at the moment of the explosion (see previous posts for citations) imply the same location for the device - under the floor.

Where does a seat being ripped out come into this? And how would a seat (the trains running on that line do not have spaces under them, they line the sides of the carriage) be ripped UP from the floor unless the bomb was beneath the floor? And the fact that many reports simply mention a hole in the floor does not negate the fact that these other accounts imply the hole to have been blasted though from underneath. That is no refutation, I’m afraid.

Originally posted by Knights
I would also like your opinion on the fact that all bombers visited Pakistan shortly before the attacks in February 2005. Although there is no evidence claiming they were linked to al-Qaida while visiting, there is a high possibility (in my opinion). The teaching of bomb making and the such I feel is extremely likely and the fact that al-Qaida accepted responsibilty fails to surprise me.

Again, the portion of the quote above I have made bold I believe speaks for itself and requires no rebuttal.
I will however make comment on the fact that a trip to Pakistan alone, in my humble view, certainly does NOT warrant even the suspicion of terrorist activity to fall upon ANYONE having made such a trip. I'm sure I need not remind you that there is a significant Pakistani minority in this country and they have as much right to visit their homeland as anyone else without automatically being branded with suspicion of the crimes of the worst exponents of their respective countries.

As far as the likelihood of their having been taught bomb-making there is concerned,
it is expedient here to quote the statements of the police shortly after the incident (and therefore at a time where the, in my view, HIGH PROBABILITY of a cover-up is less likely to have distorted the facts);

"Technical data and witness accounts suggest the bombs contained synchronized timing devices and were probably not triggered by suicide bombers, police said, adding that the bombs were composed of "high explosives" and probably not homemade material." - former Metropolitan Police chief John Stevens (Iain Blair's predecessor)

This aspect of the official story, like so many other facets, was changed to the view now propounded by the police that the devices were home made TATP bombs - highly unlikely for anyone who knows anything about the nature and synthesis of explosive peroxides, and doubly unlikely in the face of the witness testimonies cited that mention a flash and fireball, and the burn damage to the trains and burn injuries to the victims.

continued in next post...

Mod Edit: Fixed BB Code.

[edit on 22/6/2006 by Mirthful Me]

[edit on 22-6-2006 by fulcanelli]

posted on Jun, 22 2006 @ 09:26 PM
As far as the information concerning the known train departure and arrival times on the routes the "bombers" took on the day in question and their incompatibility with the official conspiracy theory, I promised I would post the information, so here goes...

To put it succinctly before getting down to cases, on 7/7 it was physically impossible for the "bombers" to have been filmed at 7.22AM at Luton Station and also catch a train which arrived at King's Cross prior to being filmed at 8.26AM, as is the assertion made in the official account.

It was impossible because the 7.40AM train was CANCELLED on that day.The 7.30 AM train that left at 7.42 AM did not arrive in Kings Cross until 8.39 AM - some 13 minutes after the 'supposed bombers' were supposedly caught on CCTV at Kings Cross at 8.26 AM. Here is the official police statement to the effect that the "bombers" were photographed at King's Cross at 8.26AM:

Here is Chris Hudson's (Communications Manager, Thameslink Rail Limited) reply to an email sent to him requesting the actual arrival and departure times for the line in question on the day of the incident, and below it is a link to a page where the same information is represented in table form for added clarity:

A good summary of the information and it's implications is on the pdf produced by, available here:

In the face of all this (and more), how can one seriously still entertain the notion that the story we are being told by the authorities and in the mainstream media is a truly exhaustive true accounts of what actually happened, and who was behind it? My personal feeling on the basis of the information presented thus far and all the other facets to this event we have not yet discussed is that the official story is invalid.

This leads us to the other questions hanging over the official version of the events; I'll be brief (because I'm knackered, hung over, and want to go to bed - I'll address these tomorrow in detail);

1 - anomalies about the bus explosion at (Wouldn't you just know it, TAVISTOCK SQUARE ! home of the Tavistock Institute and most visible manifestation of arguably the UK's least talked about intelligence agency - MI4 - you know, where they engage in social engineering projects, plan and micromanage psy-ops, among other things),

2 - insider trading on the pound in the immediate period leading up to the event

3 - indications of government prior knowledge,

4 - ancillary psy-ops and "drills" conducted by crisis management entities, corporate or governmental, which mirrored the exact conditions of the events simultaneously to the events

5 - active measures taken by powerful parties to impede investigation

6 - links between intelligence services and parties named by authorities as being culpable of the event

7 - and.... well let's just deal with those first shall we ?

continued in next post...

[edit on 22-6-2006 by fulcanelli]

posted on Jun, 22 2006 @ 09:28 PM
All of which parallel 9/11, I might add - I mention the parallels with 9/11 purely to illustrate that there is immediate historical precedent, and that perhaps the same MO indicates that they are BOTH part of a greater overall tapestry, and ultimately have the same individuals behind them

Does this smell to anyone else like another shade of 9/11? On 9/11 the one building that was NOT hit by a plane and had no feasible reason to fall whatsoever just HAPPENED to house the covert New York branch office of, among many other suspicious parties, THE C.I.A. ! If, as many here justifiably believe, 9/11 was an "inside job", where better to have the command and control centre for the whole operation than right next door to where the incident was to take place? And in yet another parallel to the atrocity our american cousins faced on that day, the group most likely to be responsible for our own little 9/11 appears to have used the same modus operandi.

Originally posted by Knights
It basically appears to me you are overlooking various sources all indicating there were bombers present, even quoting one source and providing a shaky website as a possible counter attack. Being a conspiracy theorist, you have to draw a line between possible and impossible.. only looking at one side of the situation and dismissing others on pure opinion or a source or two seems quite ignorant. You are looking for one side to a story and i'm sure you are guaranteed to find a source or two for most things.. i'm more convinced now than I was previously, the official story is correct.

[edit on 22-6-2006 by Knights]

Well Knights, I'm too tired at this point to go back through my posts and indicate to you again all the myriad sources (most of which are either mainstream media sites or sites summarising the material by providing links to mainstream media sites, and one or two of which happen to express some of the same views I have expressed so far), none of which you have SHOWN in any way to be shaky (which sites are shaky? how are they shaky? I get the feeling I've been through this before somewhere way back...) which support my case, but you can point and click as well as anyone else viewing this, so be my guest and explain which of the links you take issue with specifically and why. I stand by my sources, and if proven wrong on their suitability for the purposes I have quoted them then I will admit so, and seek other information. Ball's in your court on that one.

As far as being a conspiracy theorist, I'm glad you see that I am indeed, implying conspiracy. But then of course, the official story is a conspiracy theory (it's a theory, with not much supporting evidence that stands up to scrutiny and overwhelming amounts that strongly suggest that it is a fabrication, about a conspiracy between several young Muslim men to blow themselves and others up because they hate our freedoms) and therefore you, having admitted you now are more firm in your belief of the official story than ever (which, frankly, I find both pleasingly humorous at this time of night an also impossible to believe) are therefore a conspiracy theorist too. Welcome to the family, son. I'm glad we've got at least that in common

continued in next post...

posted on Jun, 22 2006 @ 09:30 PM
If you feel that to be labelled a conspiracy theorist is in some way derogatory then consider this; history, even the limited and truncated form taught these days in our educational institutions, is a history of conspiracies. Read a book or two. You won't find a single war, revolution, empire, or nation in history that isn't associated with some form of conspiracy. Conspiracy is more than “possible” matey, it’s the way of the world and has been forever and a day.

I would submit that it is a sorry human being indeed who is so conditioned against the idea of conspiracy in his beloved government that he does the equivalent in debate of stick his fingers in his ears and yell "lalalalalalalalala!" every time someone makes an assertion that challenges their paradigm, in the face of all the historical precedent. Should you wish to count yourself among those I've heard called, quite amusingly and very aptly, coincidence theorists then this is your choice. But it does amuse me. Mightily.

Allow me to educate you further about the word conspiracy, my friend. It is generally accepted that the word "conspire" comes from the Latin roots "con", with, and "spirare", to breathe—so to conspire literally means "to breathe together". In the most technical sense, we all conspire all the time. One dictionary definition of the word conspiracy is available here:

I am proud to be what you call a conspiracy theorist. I'm proud that I question what I'm told and speak truth to power. I’m proud I know my history. I'm proud that I care enough about my fellow human beings to care what and whom the causes and the cuplrits of atrocities like 9/11 and 7/7 really are. I'm not looking for one side of the argument as you put it - believe me I would much rather have the faith you seem to have in officialdom and be JUSTIFIED in having it.

I'm just following the crumbs where they lead me. And when a cookie this big crumbles, there are an awful lot of crumbs.

Anyway, time for some downtime. Goodnight, y'all


[edit on 22-6-2006 by fulcanelli]

[edit on 22-6-2006 by fulcanelli]

posted on Jun, 23 2006 @ 12:52 AM
Fulcanelli your posts are unlikely to convince anyone if you continue posting in this bizarre fashion - you need to provide evidence and links for all these 'facts' you keep posting.

For example:

All I can find for MI4 is that it was reponsible for aerial reconnaisance and was abandoned when this responsibility was aborbed into other govt departments - you state the complete opposite.

Here's my link to support what I'm saying - one of only 3 google hits for 'MI4'

No mention on Wiki either beyond a re-hash of this info

Where's your link to support your MI4 claim?

And the rest of the points you're so certain of.

Please try harder


JIC anyone wants to read the UK Govt side of the story here's a link to the official House of Commons report from May

[edit on 23-6-2006 by Strangerous]

posted on Jun, 23 2006 @ 07:30 AM
Strangerous, if you have links showing CCTV footage of any of the bombers boarding their final carriage/bus please pass on the links. So far as I know, none exist.

It's strange how the human mind works as so far I've seen no real evidence that the accused 4 were guilty of detonating the explosions. All I've seen are lots of dots joined by very suspicious lines. It smacks of building up a legend that neatly falls into place.

[edit on 23-6-2006 by uknumpty]

posted on Jun, 23 2006 @ 08:24 AM
My mistake (a genuine one).

It's possible that I'm thinking of pics of the failed bombing a few weeks later - I'm adamant there were pics of the guys with a rucsac on a bus screened on the news but I'll concede they're not on the web so I must be wrong.

Having spent a long time (too long!) trawling the conspiracy sites there are a lot of wierd things about the whole event.

Some of it, like the train times from Luton is relatively easily explained, other stuff like the almost complete lack of CCTV images is very odd.

posted on Jun, 23 2006 @ 09:31 AM
Well we're watching them closely now. To quote a great American:

You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time.

posted on Jun, 24 2006 @ 04:02 AM
Hey All,

Just a little fact here that may raise a few eyebrows in light of everything we've mentioned so far. In a and of itself of course it PROVES nothing, but again when taken in context it is extremely suggestive (and highly amusing), andit is this:

The man with overall responsibility for public transport in London, the Commissioner and Chairman of London Transport, Bob Kiley, is a former CIA operative and is known to have worked directly for the Director of US Intelligence.

The man responsible for London Underground, Managing Director Tim O'Toole, another wealthy American executive, reports directly to ex-CIA man Bob Kiley. There is an old addage in the intelligence community "once CIA, always CIA."

This can be verified by going to London Transport's page own page detailing the prior roles and experience of its chief officers:

The Commissioner Bob Kiley (chair)

"Early in his career, he was with the CIA, where he served as Manager of Intelligence Operations and then as Executive Assistant to the Director."

Robert Kiley is a Member of the Council on Foreign Relations, Board Member of the Salzburg International Seminar, the American Repertory Theater, MONY Group Inc, the Princeton Review Inc and Edison Schools, Inc. He is also on the Advisory Board of the Harvard University Center for State and Local Government."

So, a CIA man AND a member of the CFR too? Makes you think, doesn't it?


[edit on 24-6-2006 by fulcanelli]

posted on Jun, 24 2006 @ 07:27 AM

If I've been remiss in responding to your post for a while it's because I hit the ignore button waaaay back for reasons that should be obvious to anyone who has read the first four pages of this thread, and judging by the impotent and circular nature of your continued arguments, I was correct to do so.

This morning however I noticed the option on my settings page to delete you from my ignore list, and so I have done so in the hope that you have something of substance to contribute to the discussion now that you have at least expressed some doubt as to the official version of events:

Originally posted by Strangerous

Having spent a long time (too long!) trawling the conspiracy sites there are a lot of wierd things about the whole event.

Some of it, like the train times from Luton is relatively easily explained, other stuff like the almost complete lack of CCTV images is very odd.

Let's not hope I'm wrong.

As far as my "bizarre" way of posting is concerned, I'm at a loss as to what you find so bizarre about the way I post, other than the bizarre way you have somehow managed to overlook the way that I've so far supported my assertions with facts that I have provided abundant references and links to in the course of this rather long thread. Some others here have actually complimented me on my style of writing. If you don't like it, this is a BIG forum, so I'm sure you'll find someone somewhere in here whose literary style is more to your taste.

I have also on at least two occasions stated my exact position on this event several times so as not to be misunderstood, deliberately or otherwise, and your repeated attempts to misrepresent this position therefore need no further repudiation.

Where I have engaged in speculation should be obvious by context, not to mention the fact that numerous times yourself and others have required me to delineate fact and speculation in nice, easy to understand language

Some of the most pertinent FACTS that you seem so sure I have all but fabricated, are listed below, and they have been extensively referenced in previous posts. Please do not continue to deny that I have provided links to them and other souces, as this is patently untrue and is easily disproven by a cursory examination by any member here of previous posts by myself and others, and this does an extreme disservice to your arguments.

1 - There are numerous witness testimonies to the effect that the explosive devices were UNDER the train, and the testimony also contains many indications to suggest that the explosive could not have been TATP. Last night I watched Alex Jones' latest documentary, the imaginatively titled "Terror Storm", which actually contains footage of one of the explosions caught on camera, in which a flash and flames can clearly be seen, which TATP does not produce. I'll look for the exact frames and post up the time to forward to in the film.

(In a side note, I dont necessarily agree with everything AJ (or any other source - if I quote a source I am very specific about the information I am quoting from that source and why I feel it is valid if this is in any way ambiguous) says, but this film in particular I found to be an excellent summary of governemnt sponsored terrorism and its place in today's society, using the Madrid Bombings, 7/7 and 9/11 as illustrative cases and making a powerful argument)

The link to the film on google video is here:

Another film neatly summarising the unanswered qustions about the event is viewable here:


[edit on 24-6-2006 by fulcanelli]

posted on Jun, 24 2006 @ 07:31 AM
2 - There is NO EVIDENCE that has been presented to prove that the four "bombers" actually carried out the event, and NO EVIDENCE to connect them causally to Al Qaeda, as has been admitted by the security services. In fact, some of the evidence presented thus far by the police has been self-contradictory (identification papers found at TWO locations for one of the suspect).

3 - The "mastermind" has been outed as an MI6 asset. MI6 actively took measures to prevent the Justice Department fully investigating Aswat.

4 - The intelligence services, MI6 and the CIA chief among them, have numerous times been implicated in false flag operations using Al Qaeda, WHICH THEY THEMSELVES CREATED, FUNDED, TRAINED, HARBOURED, and PROTECTED.

5 - The train departure and arrival times as given by the RAIL OPERATOR THEMSELVES (regardless of the site the information appears on - there are many, all expounding different views, and again, not all that I necessarily wholly agree with) makes it impossible for the suspects to have been photographed at the times the police say they were. The onus is upon you to prove this otherwise, and you cannot do so by speculation alone.

This, however, is by no means an exhaustive list. consider what we have yet to discuss:

6 - highly suspicious insider trading leading up to the event

7 - the bus bombing and unanswered questions associated with it - why was that bus, of all the hundreds of buses serving that area, specifically diverted by the police to Tavistock Square where it exploded? Why was an outside contractor hired to service the bus surveillance cameras the day before the bombing who took far too long to do so and why did the surveillance camera supposedly then malfunction on that day? There is more here.

8 - The impedance of the investigation by Mr. Blair and others,

9 - The De Menezes shooting and the anomalies surrounding that event,

10 - The simultaneous "drill" IDENTICAL to the event being conducted in the area at the time

And there are many other areas yet to be discussed. I don't think it's a tenable position to consider the official versionof events as being true and exhaustive given these and other questions hanging over it.

As far as the Tavistock Institute is concerned, it shouldn't be too hard even for you look into their background and find out for yoursel that they have indeed been the arguably the premier organisation in the field of politically motivated social engineering in the world for some time. As far as the MI4 thing is concerned, tut tut, there I HAVE been a little remiss in providing corroboration - for this I do apologise, but I believe that the link between MI4 as it stands today (the MIX agencies have historically, I understand, shifted responsibilities from one area of intelligence to another over the years between themselves) and the Tavistock Institute was mentioned in David Shayler's book, Spies, Lies and Whistleblowers which he wrote with his partner Annie Machon, and which led eventually to the trouble he had with the Government's "official secrets act".

And may I just point out that it is my considered opinion that if you truly believe the wikipedia will turn up viable information that will be of any use here concerning intelligence agencies or their activities, I'm afraid your naiivete is surpassed only by your ignorance of what these organisations actually DO.

So for "MI4" read "Tavistock", the point stands, but it is of only passing significance in comparison to the other unanswered questions hanging over this event alluded to above. How about YOU try harder, Strangerous - what exactly do you consider proof that the official story is true? What facts have I cited in particular that you take exception to? Couch your statements in more specific language and maybe you'll be worthy of a reply. Maybe.


posted on Jun, 24 2006 @ 10:03 AM
Terror leader in our sights before 7/7, say US police - London Times

POLICE in New York have confirmed that more than two years before the July 7 bombings in London they had carried out an investigation into the activities of a British-born extremist who went on to lead the attacks.

Mohammad Sidique Khan was implicated in a plot to blow up synagogues on the American East Coast in March 2003 and US officials who took part in the inquiry into his activities insist that British intelligence was aware of the operation.

Was Mohammed Sidique Khan allowed to build up a legend before becoming a disposable asset?

[edit on 24-6-2006 by uknumpty]

posted on Jun, 24 2006 @ 07:01 PM
Good link there uknumpy. It is well known that MI6 and other intelligence organisations in the UK have historically not only been implicated in false flag operations involving terrorists from the middle east and elsewhere but also harboured members of terrorist Islamist groups in the UK as somewhat of a mode of appeasement, with the agreement that they did not conduct attacks within the UK (cf - Shayler's work, which sums this up nicely, and is replete with references).

It was also mentioned several times in passing, but not really discussed, on the BBC during the trial of Abu Hamza thathe had met on several occasions with intelligence service agents during the time he had been preaching his bastardised verion of Islam at Finsbury Park Mosque.

This at the very least appears to have been a rather foolhardy policy on the part of the British intelligence services, with the benefit of hindsight.


posted on Jun, 25 2006 @ 06:16 AM
Police tracking bug found in 7/7 mastermind’s car

AN electronic tracking device of the type used by police to monitor suspected terrorists was recovered from a car belonging to the leader of the London suicide bombers in the days following July 7, a senior security official has claimed.

The device is thought to have been placed inside Mohammad Sidique Khan’s car by Special Branch officers in a surveillance operation aimed at Islamic extremists in West Yorkshire.

The tale gets queerer and queerer by the day...

top topics

<< 6  7  8    10  11 >>

log in