Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Maud Dib of 7/7 ripple effect acquitted on charges of subverting the course of justice

page: 1
14
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 07:58 PM
link   
I did a search and found no relevant threads.


Of course very little has been heard from the MSM but this seeker of truth, hounded and
persecuted by the real perpetrators of 7/7, was cleared last month of the fabricated charges
of attempting to subvert the course of justice.
terroronthetube.co.uk...


Maud dib aka Anthony Hill produced the documentary 7/7 ripple effect which effectively
demolished the official government fairy story surrounding the 'terrorist' events
in London of july 7th 2005.



Blamed on the actions of 4 muslims, Maud dib's documentary shows beyond reasonable doubt
that the events of that day were in fact another inside job, contrived to further incriminate
muslims and justify the illegal middle eastern wars on terror.
Sound familiar?

Listen to Maud Dib interview with Jim Fetzer-May 2005


Compelling evidence also exists to indicate photographic and victim fakery.
Out of the 52 reported deaths on 7/7, not one autopsy was carried out.
Evidence for 7/7 Fakery


It has also been reported that the 4 muslim patsies set up to take the fall for the
terror events, missed their train to London where they were under the understanding
that they were participating in an exercise, arrived at the scene after the commotion, realised
that they were being set up, fled to canary wharf to expose the con to the
media and were shot and killed later that same day.
7/7 Canary Wharf Shootings


The media silence on the real truths behind 9/11 and 7/7 is deafening and is an
unmistakable indication of their contemptible complicity.
The whole system is corrupt from the top down.

Maud dib is now a free man and the proceedings of the trial are now a matter
of public record.
We can only hope that more people can wake up, without the help of main stream
media, and recognise the frauds and deceptions being continuously perpetrated against us.




posted on Jun, 2 2011 @ 06:50 AM
link   
I cant believe they would take him to court. Im glad he didnt goto jail. Its funny how UK brings those who challenge the OS to court, but the US wont allow any case to goto court regarding 911



posted on Jun, 2 2011 @ 07:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Myendica
I cant believe they would take him to court. Im glad he didnt goto jail. Its funny how UK brings those who challenge the OS to court, but the US wont allow any case to goto court regarding 911


He was plagued for years and spend over 6 mths. in jail
I think they shot themselves in both feet with this course of action.
The jury were only too delighted to acquit him and now all his evidence is in the
public records. Major backfire.
The UK system has not quite the same stranglehold as the US but both systems
are corrupt and rotten to the very core.
All main stream media are sold out entities and need shooting.



posted on Jun, 2 2011 @ 08:16 AM
link   
I remember the reports about Canary Wharf, and it does seem odd. What I can say is that it's very unlikely that anyone was shot there and nigh on impossible that "bullets were sprayed at lorries" as some of the reports suggest. I also don't believe that workers were kept inside for six hours.

For a start any shooting there would be witnessed by hundreds of people. The towers are really close together and the area is always very busy. There are bars and a big shopping centre. I used to work in 1 Canada Square and there are a lot more than 8000 people in Canary Wharf - there are about 10000 alone in 1 Canada Square iirc.

If it was locked down for any length of time this would be a national news story and frankly I'd know about it because I still know several people who work there. There's no evidence that the tube station was shut or anything like that as far as I know, and if they were locking down the offices they would definitely shut the tube.

An interesting side note: a few days before 9/11 I had an argument with a colleague. He said that the tower was designed to withstand an aeroplane impact. Oddly enough, and rather grotesquely, this was proved likely incorrect days later.



posted on Jun, 2 2011 @ 08:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Myendica
I cant believe they would take him to court. Im glad he didnt goto jail. Its funny how UK brings those who challenge the OS to court, but the US wont allow any case to goto court regarding 911


April Gallop ring a bell? Or are you trying to ignore that embarassment?



posted on Jun, 2 2011 @ 08:45 AM
link   
Ah yes, Anthony Hill, the self-proclaimed King of Britain and Israel


I have a slight feeling that the court decided that he was of no mental state to stand trial, and so was let off.

I've seen Ripple Effect, and pardon my french, but it's a crock of ****. Comparing it to Loose Change, I'd say we're around the 1st edition. Stuffed with rumours, myths, and the usual outright lies.
edit on 2-6-2011 by roboe because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 2 2011 @ 09:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
I remember the reports about Canary Wharf, and it does seem odd. What I can say is that it's very unlikely that anyone was shot there and nigh on impossible that "bullets were sprayed at lorries" as some of the reports suggest. I also don't believe that workers were kept inside for six hours.

For a start any shooting there would be witnessed by hundreds of people. The towers are really close together and the area is always very busy. There are bars and a big shopping centre. I used to work in 1 Canada Square and there are a lot more than 8000 people in Canary Wharf - there are about 10000 alone in 1 Canada Square iirc.

If it was locked down for any length of time this would be a national news story and frankly I'd know about it because I still know several people who work there. There's no evidence that the tube station was shut or anything like that as far as I know, and if they were locking down the offices they would definitely shut the tube.

An interesting side note: a few days before 9/11 I had an argument with a colleague. He said that the tower was designed to withstand an aeroplane impact. Oddly enough, and rather grotesquely, this was proved likely incorrect days later.


First of all, no airplane took down any tower. 9/11 was an inside demolition job and the
fictional official story was sold to the public by a complicit main stream media using computer
generated images and paid actors. The extensive use of video fakery on 9/11 is
indisputable.www.septemberclues.info

On 7/7 the shootings at canary wharf were reported on the day, and later retracted.
If you believe that the main stream media is not controlled and has the power and the
inclination to report the truth and nothing but truth, keep dreaming.
Like 9/11, the 7/7 official story is complete BS and Maud dib was hounded and
persecuted for simply bringing attention to the vast number of anomalies and
downright fabrications. Justice and freedom of speech my arse.
The media are complicit in both the 9/11 and 7/7 cover-ups.



posted on Jun, 2 2011 @ 09:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by roboe
Ah yes, Anthony Hill, the self-proclaimed King of Britain and Israel


I have a slight feeling that the court decided that he was of no mental state to stand trial, and so was let off.

I've seen Ripple Effect, and pardon my french, but it's a crock of ****. Comparing it to Loose Change, I'd say we're around the 1st edition. Stuffed with rumours, myths, and the usual outright lies.
edit on 2-6-2011 by roboe because: (no reason given)



They ardently tried to get a conviction and failed completely,
I have listened to him being interviewed (see link in the OP) and seen the ripple effect and
i see and hear rational, reasonable and legitimate enquiry
When you talk about rumours, myths and outright lies, are you sure you are not referring
to the official 7/7 story, which has been catagorically shown to be chock full of holes?



posted on Jun, 2 2011 @ 09:22 PM
link   
reply to post by TrickoftheShade
 


An interesting side note: a few days before 9/11 I had an argument with a colleague. He said that the tower was designed to withstand an aeroplane impact. Oddly enough, and rather grotesquely, this was proved likely incorrect days later.


Proved likely incorrect days later? What was proved?
Are you referring the lying NIST report? Fact is airplanes were not responsible for the demise of the WTC and science proves that something else happened.



posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 02:58 AM
link   
reply to post by pshea38
 


If the authorities are capable of faking something like 9/11 along the lines that you suggest, why weren't they able to prevent any stories about Canary Wharf coming out on 7/7? And if the media is "controlled" in the manner you seem to think it is then why did it report the "shootings" at all?



posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 02:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
reply to post by pshea38
 


If the authorities are capable of faking something like 9/11 along the lines that you suggest, why weren't they able to prevent any stories about Canary Wharf coming out on 7/7? And if the media is "controlled" in the manner you seem to think it is then why did it report the "shootings" at all?



The 4 patsies missed their train and arrived late to the carnage. This wasn't part of the script
and the subsequent shootings were not planned, but necessary to the survival of the
OS narrative. News came out prematurely and uncleared and the story was later withdrawn,
obviously due to orders from above.
A big cock-up in other words.



posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 07:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper

Originally posted by Myendica
I cant believe they would take him to court. Im glad he didnt goto jail. Its funny how UK brings those who challenge the OS to court, but the US wont allow any case to goto court regarding 911


April Gallop ring a bell? Or are you trying to ignore that embarassment?


that case was dismissed. so.. was it really a court case? no..

and they're saying the lawyer may get sanctioned... so.. looks like a trifecta of a non court case,.
edit on 3-6-2011 by Myendica because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 04:14 PM
link   
reply to post by pshea38
 


So there are elements of the news which are not "controlled"? I ask because if everything that goes out is subject to censor by TPTB then no story would ever come out regarding Canary Wharf.

And if that's the case why do the honest members of the journalistic and broadcast profession not blow the whistle on the ones that subsequently cover up their stories?



posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 04:37 PM
link   
reply to post by TrickoftheShade
 



And if that's the case why do the honest members of the journalistic and broadcast profession not blow the whistle on the ones that subsequently cover up their stories?


Perhaps, because they want to keep their jobs, it would be career suicide to talk, don’t you think?



posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 04:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
I remember the reports about Canary Wharf, and it does seem odd. What I can say is that it's very unlikely that anyone was shot there and nigh on impossible that "bullets were sprayed at lorries" as some of the reports suggest. I also don't believe that workers were kept inside for six hours.

For a start any shooting there would be witnessed by hundreds of people. The towers are really close together and the area is always very busy. There are bars and a big shopping centre. I used to work in 1 Canada Square and there are a lot more than 8000 people in Canary Wharf - there are about 10000 alone in 1 Canada Square iirc.

If it was locked down for any length of time this would be a national news story and frankly I'd know about it because I still know several people who work there. There's no evidence that the tube station was shut or anything like that as far as I know, and if they were locking down the offices they would definitely shut the tube.

An interesting side note: a few days before 9/11 I had an argument with a colleague. He said that the tower was designed to withstand an aeroplane impact. Oddly enough, and rather grotesquely, this was proved likely incorrect days later.



I watched and heard the report about the shootings in Canary wharf live on BBC or Sky news.
It was before noon.
They actually said two or three suspects had been shot dead.
The same team murdered that Brazilian lad on the tube cos he knew too much.

I`m sorry but i can`t believe you actually believe that the WTC towers were brought down by those two planes.



posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 04:57 PM
link   
Yes the emergency servises were doing a drill to respond to bombers,attacking the very same stations which were attacked. Once the servises were in place they called off the drill. Then the so called bombers,actually attacked those very same stations. Whats the odds of that happening? Must have been another miracle like 911 was. Perhaps bush spoke to god on the phone and got him to help his mates,out like he did on 911 for the Americans.



posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 05:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by impressme
because they want to keep their jobs, it would be career suicide to talk, don’t you think?



If the situation is as the above poster envisages, then yes. But you don't think that one single person would come forward and speak out against continual cover-ups?

Wouldn't you?



posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 05:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by lambros56

I watched and heard the report about the shootings in Canary wharf live on BBC or Sky news.
It was before noon.
They actually said two or three suspects had been shot dead.


I recall a similar report. But have you been to Canary Wharf? If so you'll understand why the details don't make much sense.




The same team murdered that Brazilian lad on the tube cos he knew too much.


He knew too much? That's very far fetched. Are Brazilian electricians usually party to government cover-ups?

What exactly did he know? Note that if you are able to answer this question then the "team" are most likely after you as well...


I`m sorry but i can`t believe you actually believe that the WTC towers were brought down by those two planes.


Have you read the NIST report? I haven't, but I trust it significantly more than the prejudices of some people who I've never met in the internet.



posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 05:08 PM
link   
reply to post by TrickoftheShade
 


Well if they are capable of murdering people. Would you come forward? Never mind your job . Or maybe you could end up doing a life sentance, in solitary confinement. These a$$holes can do what ever they like.



posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 05:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by illuminnaughty
reply to post by TrickoftheShade
 


Well if they are capable of murdering people. Would you come forward? Never mind your job . Or maybe you could end up doing a life sentance, in solitary confinement. These a$$holes can do what ever they like.


I think it would be impossible to keep the thousands of non "controlled" journalists quiet. Practically speaking that would just be impossible - someone would talk, even if it was just because they had a terminal illness or were drunk.

Remember we're envisaging a situation where a story is found, the team write it up and it is transmitted by a newsreader or reporter with the aid of editors and tech crew. All of these people are then told that the story is not to go out again - or else. They have intimate knowledge right there of a conspiracy. Perhaps one or two suggest they might take this further. But they are told they will be killed.

Do you honestly think that this is how news journalism in the UK works? That thousands of well meaning professionals are knowingly covering up a monstrous system of censorship and deception? Just because they are frightened? Some of these people report from war zones or revolutions, but as soon as a "controlled" editor tells them to spike a stroy they do so without complaint.

You ask if I would come forward. I think I probably would, yes. Would you?





new topics

top topics



 
14
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join