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.

 

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

page: 2
14
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 05:29 PM
link   
reply to post by TrickoftheShade
 


Would I come forwards? Yes Id like to think I would, but then I think of my family what would happen to them? Suppose they said ok you release this and we bump off your wife and kids? No they wouldnt do that sort of thing would they? Personally I wouldnt put it past them. If they had to take out a plane/boat/or train full of people to make their point I think they would.




posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 05:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

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.




I worked in Canary wharf ( before the bombings ) but that means nothing.
The shootings were reported on the news.
It`s as plain as that.
It happened but it`s been suppressed.

I best hadn`t say no more on the Brazilian guy if as you say the team may be after me.

How can you say you trust a report significantly if you haven`t read it ?

Prejudice ?

Common sense told me those planes didn`t take down those buildings.
Research followed and continues.



posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 05:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by lambros56

How can you say you trust a report significantly if you haven`t read it ?



I notice you don't say that you have read it. I assume you haven't.

Which leads me to ask why you don't trust it?



posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 05:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by illuminnaughty
reply to post by TrickoftheShade
 


Would I come forwards? Yes Id like to think I would, but then I think of my family what would happen to them? Suppose they said ok you release this and we bump off your wife and kids? No they wouldnt do that sort of thing would they? Personally I wouldnt put it past them. If they had to take out a plane/boat/or train full of people to make their point I think they would.


So the non-controlled journalists and production crew put out their story, as above. They are then told by a senior person to stop reporting it. They ask why, and are told not to ask questions. A couple of them pursue it. They are told that if they mention this again their family will be killed.

Keeping that secret time and again would be difficult to say the least.

But even if you think it's possible, do you really think it's likely? Note that the entire journalistic profession would have to be either "controllers" or terrified workers helping the conspiracy because of their fear. And yet not a single one of them - people who as I say work in war zones or places of extreme danger - has ever broken down and let the cat out of the bag. And this monstroulsy powerful conspiracy, that is capable of silencing a whole profession by intimidation, cannot even secure a conviction against "Maud Dib"? Preposterous, surely?



posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 05:45 PM
link   
reply to post by TrickoftheShade
 


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?


No I wouldn’t, I wouldn’t risk my education my job, career. I have a family to feed a mortgage to pay.
Whistle blowers are not embrace for doing the right thing anymore; most end up getting blacked ball.



posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 05:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by lambros56

I worked in Canary wharf ( before the bombings ) but that means nothing.


Do you mean the IRA bombings? Because if so the area changed significantly in the years following.

A shooting there would be seen by enormous numbers of people. The area in front of the One Canada Square comprises three or four bars and a busy concourse and leads down to a shopping centre. It's always thronged with workers and shoppers. As such a shooting would involve enormous numbers of witnesses.

You compare the incident to the shooting of De Menezes at Stockwell. So why wasn't that covered up? It would be a lot easier.



posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 05:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by impressme


No I wouldn’t, I wouldn’t risk my education my job, career. I have a family to feed a mortgage to pay.
Whistle blowers are not embrace for doing the right thing anymore; most end up getting blacked ball.



You would knowingly work for an organisation implicated in the murder of hundreds of thousands of people? And you would help them cover up their crimes?

How do you sleep at night?



posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 05:57 PM
link   
reply to post by TrickoftheShade
 


Well every one who works for the British govt and the American one are doing exactly that. Not to mention other govts arround the world.
I dont trust our govt one bit. Every one of them decent honest upright respectable honourable men. With their dodgy dossiers and moats, duck houses ect ect
Just a bunch of lying thieving twats every one of them.
2 jag presscot in the house of commons? A Lord?
How do they sleep at night?

edit on 5-6-2011 by illuminnaughty because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 05:58 PM
link   
reply to post by TrickoftheShade
 


No I wouldn’t, I wouldn’t risk my education my job, career. I have a family to feed a mortgage to pay.
Whistle blowers are not embrace for doing the right thing anymore; most end up getting blacked ball.

You would knowingly work for an organisation implicated in the murder of hundreds of thousands of people? And you would help them cover up their crimes?

How do you sleep at night?


I sleep very well thank you and furthermore I do not work for any organization that is responsible for killing anyone. I have never been put in such a situation. So what would you do?



posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 06:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

Originally posted by lambros56

How can you say you trust a report significantly if you haven`t read it ?



I notice you don't say that you have read it. I assume you haven't.

Which leads me to ask why you don't trust it?




Yes, i read it and they claim the structural damage caused by the planes along with the fires, brought down the buildings or words to that affect.

That just doesn`t cut with me.



posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 06:04 PM
link   
reply to post by illuminnaughty
 


I'm sorry, I don't really see what the avarice of politciians has to do with this. Except that the stuff you mention just shows how difficult it is to maintain a cover-up. You only know about those things because insiders blew the whistle and journalists reported them.



posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 06:05 PM
link   
reply to post by impressme
 


I've told you. I'd come forward.

I just don't know how you can sleep well knowing that if asked you would do those terrible things.



posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 06:08 PM
link   
reply to post by lambros56
 


You've read it? All 750 pages?

I'll take your word for it. Personally I haven't and I don't particularly care to. I trust the opinions of all those professionals, mainly because I understand the impossibility of forcing them all into a conspiracy. Which kind of relates to this thread, I suppose.



posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 06:15 PM
link   
reply to post by TrickoftheShade
 



I've told you. I'd come forward.

I just don't know how you can sleep well knowing that if asked you would do those terrible things.


Like I said, I sleep very well; perhaps you should try and focus on the thread topic instead of creating negative scenarios against ATS posters and then insult them. Troll much.



posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 06:19 PM
link   
reply to post by impressme
 


It's not trolling. It's completely on-topic. The point under discussion was whether it would be possible to silence all the broadcast professionals involved, so asking whether you would stay silent seems relevant. You must think it is because you even asked me the same question.

And I hardly think it's unfair to express dismay that someone would knowingly cover up murder.



posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 06:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
reply to post by lambros56
 


You've read it? All 750 pages?

I'll take your word for it. Personally I haven't and I don't particularly care to. I trust the opinions of all those professionals, mainly because I understand the impossibility of forcing them all into a conspiracy. Which kind of relates to this thread, I suppose.



You`re surprised i`ve read all of the report ?

I must read ten times more than that in a day.
Surely you`ve read part of it ?
No ?
Yet you believe it.

By the way.
We`re off topic.

Believe what you will.

I`m happy doing my research.



posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 06:34 PM
link   
reply to post by TrickoftheShade
 


Well for their greed, they would just about do any thing. Including any thing at all to do with the 7/7 bombings. We know what they would do, so its just a matter of how low they would really go if asked. And personally I think they would definatly cover up crimes committed by the state. As for the reporters, most are just ordinary guys with familys. Would they cover up? if threatened? I dont know and Im glad that some of them appear to be disclosing info, regarding other stuff. But the difference between some one ripping me off for a second home ect is far different, from mass murder. Thats another ball game altogeather. And lets not forget the state is involved, So they would be under the official secrets act. They could go to prison for a long time and be branded a traitor. Would they put their familys through that? Id like to think that the press is free, but from events in the past we know this is not true.



posted on Jun, 6 2011 @ 02:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
reply to post by impressme
 


The point under discussion was whether it would be possible to silence all the broadcast professionals involved, so asking whether you would stay silent seems relevant. You must think it is because you even asked me the same question.



This is completely possible and is in fact a reality. How many critical, honest examinations
do you see in the MSM regarding the largest controversy in modern history i.e. 9/11.
Surely all journalists and news outlets aren't on the same intellectual page regarding 9/11.
Yet continued silence reigns throughout.
You accept the Official Story so you need no convincing but it is abundantly clear to most
enquirers that the Official Version of events on 9/11 is absolute pigswill.
The MSM is a sold-out entity but occasionally, under unpredictable circumstances,
stories like the canary wharf shootings (reported almost as it happened) unwittingly get out,
but are quickly suppressed and denied when injurious to their masters schemes and narratives.
The MSM is a well-oiled subservient machine, but not without its occasional glitches.
Also, as mentioned in the opening post, televisual and victim fakery play a large part in both
7/7 and 9/11 events and this could not have been incorporated without media complicity (not that
i believe for a second that the MSM was ever an independant and honest entity).



posted on Jun, 6 2011 @ 05:00 AM
link   
reply to post by lambros56
 


You've read 7500 pages in a day?

That's definitely not true.



posted on Jun, 6 2011 @ 05:09 AM
link   
reply to post by illuminnaughty
 


Are you saying that the politicians were happy for the revelations about their expenses to come out? Even though several of them went to jail for it? If they're powerful enough to suppress any news story why not suppress that one, or the one about no WMDs in Iraq?

The expenses scandal came to public knowledge because the details were released by a man called John Wick. He is still alive, doesn't report being threatened and as far as I know no one has murdered members of his family. The Daily Telegraph published the story - with some glee - over a period of weeks. That paper still exists and the editor is still alive. Why would an all-powerful authority that can apparently kill and silence with impunity allow that to happen?



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join