Tue30Jun - LONDON - Kollerstrom BBC talk meet Conway Hall

[TonyGosling]

Using a pen name for the book proves nothing, indeed that's exactly what Rachel North has done.

[Stefan]

[Pikey]

Stefan wrote:-

[Stefan]

Pikey,
I have no problem with people selling books. If Daniel had written what appeared to be a genuine and coherent account of a survivor's story on 7/7 I would not have a problem with that either.

What Daniel has done is to write a slightly wierd third person account which has seriously questionable details and is all over the place in his facts.

I don't like the fact he turns up at protests and sidles up to well meaning people trying to sell them a copy which they do because he is telling them he is a survivor and they'd feel guilty not to. He also sells them for a tenner when they are priced at £8.99 on the back.

David Ray Griffin sells his books legitmately and they sell because word of mouth has informed people they are good. And they are. The research is painstaking and it clearly take a lot of time to do that. Daniel appears to have rambled off a load of fictional nonsense and sells it using cornering and guilt trip tactics. When people get home and try and read it they conclude all people who question 7/7 are rambling, incoherent and self-contradictory.

I don't like how he says he knows "MI5 Did It" despite there being no evidence to make that claim. He says he was on the bus so he knows. How could being on the bus mean he knows? Why doesn't everyone on the bus also "know" this then, as if by magic. It makes a fool of all of us and makes us look like we don't care about evidence.

Don't get me wrong, there are dozens of anomalies with 7/7 and I fully support the J7 campaign's call to release the evidence. I have done everything in my power to raise awareness of these anomalies, but to say that 7/7 was an inside job, or even to ascribe a specific perpertrator to the event.

If I went around saying MI5 Did It - I'd be damaging our cause and should be held accountable for it. But I don't.

Daniel Adigwe does.

[TonyGosling]

A negative review is not evidence.

[andyb]

Tony,

Where is your evidence he was on the bus apart from his own account. Are there any other survivors to corrobarate his story????

'Oh Danny boy, the pipes, the pipes are calling'

[Stefan]

Thank you Andy,
Yes Tony, the point is not evidence some one was not on the bus, Andy is merely rightly pointing out that there has never been a shred of evidence he was on it.

If someone comes out and says they were there and there is no footage or photo of them, that's one thing. I'd say in that situation you'd be naturally cautious of what they were saying but would not openly question it.

If that has happened and at the same time their story is littered with unbeleivable details, contradictions and physical impossibilities. You should generally disasociate yourself from the person.

If that person starts causing trouble, claiming to have met and hugged other 7/7 victims who say they have never met him, turns out to be using a fake name, has a blog that names everyone from a bloke down the fish and chip shop to his alledged ex-girl friend, to his downstairs neighbor as MI5 agents trailing him... you should start asking for evidence.

If you are in the position of Andy and me, knowing first hand for 100% certain he is a liar, then do you blame us for calling the guy out?

You don't have the luxury we do of knowing for sure that he is making stuff up off the top of his head. We do, because he is writing about details of our lives WE KNOW are not true.

But there is enough there to get a hint of it.

For example he said in his talk he knows we are MOD because we turned up on the UK truth scene just after he did in late 2007. Now you know yourself this is bullsh|t don't you?

But he was speaking this as fact to a gullible audience last Tuesday, among many other verefiably false claims.

Tony, I'm going to make this very clear this guy is a liar I don't mind saying this because I know 100% it is the truth, and if he's lying about us, and he's lying about his name, and his story about 7/7 just does not add up in any way... what does that tell you?

[Pikey]

Daniel states:-

[TonyGosling]

Interesting meeting taking place last month at Conway Hall

Scuffles as extremist Muslim group orders men and women to be segregated at public meeting
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1193869/Muslim-clashes-segrega tion-men-women-forces-cancellation-meeting.html


http://www.radio4all.net/files/anonymous@radio4all.net/16-1-20090708_d ialect_edit.mp3

[Pikey]

[Disco_Destroyer]

[Annie]

[Chi_of_life]

[Stefan]

[Stefan]

Further:

OK, now, my background is I was um, my book last, in 2007 July, I was invited to do a talk at the Indian YMCA which was done by 9/11… UK 9/11 Truth… now obviously, because of the content mentioned in my book, I was under surveilance at that time. It was just two years after 7/7 and my book was a warts and all tale of what MI5 did in Tavistock square. So, the following month I wasn't too surpised when these guys showed up, anyway.

When we say "selected", by who? Obviously it's got to be someone in power. Ministry of Defence. MOD. Who else could it be? Who else wants power of grass roots organisations? Who else wants to plant leaders in grass roots organisations and control them? As they did back in the 70's and 80's with the socialists and all those other left wing organisations. This is something that isn't new. The've done it before and they'll do it again.

Now… um.. Well… AndyB, as I say, and co and a number of others infiltrated this group, but I'm really foucsing on these guys. These selected guys. Now… Right…. Now.. What… I'll give you a time line of what happened. In July my book came out. Around August I went to the counting house pub and I was standing up there and talking about my book and we arranged this talk in the Indian YMCA and it was on the third of September. Now if you go online, these guys were already embedded, they were ready. Their site was registered on the second of September. My talk was on um… the third of September 07 they had invited Cynthia McKinney to a talk at friends house in Euston.

I'm sure a few people could confirm that the Cynthia McKinney event was a 9/11 truth campaign event, not a we are change event, although we did help out a lot with publicising and organising it.

I'm surpirsed Daniel didn't just ask his co-speaker Nick Kollerstrom, who originally suggested inviting Cynthia earlier that year...

[ian neal]

Just to clarify Daniel's talk at the Indian YMCA was organised by the London group and not the national 911 truth campaign. There was a clear distinction between national events and events organised by autonomous local groups. The national events which the campaign put its name to were deliberately very few in number and choose the most credible spokespeople (eg William Rodriguez and Cynthia McKinney).

[Chi_of_life]

[Chi_of_life]

[peloloco]

Daniel,

We are still waiting for your evidence, I for one know you are a Liar as you claim I was following you when in actual fact you stalked me as it turns out.

Plus you claim I work for the MOD.

Liar

Alan

[Danny]

Daniel, in your talk filmed by Tony Gosling here :- http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6453336143085991879

you show a photo of people wrapped in tin foil, who do not look burnt or dirty, on a street corner.

Do you know which street that was and what corner please?

You also referred to two other photos, do you have them and could you put them up somewhere to take a look, please?

[peloloco]

Daniel,

Perhaps now is a good time to tell you that we have a FULL audio recording of your lecture the other day.

You are now claiming:

You did not claim Andy, Gareth Stef etc showed up on the truth movement scene a month or so after you.

You did not claim it was We Are Change UK who invited Cynthia McKinney to London.

Would you like a last chance to revise any of these changes to your story?

Or shall we skip straight to you being proven a liar?

Your call buddy.

[Prole]

This place becomes more ridiculous by the day. Why on earth has Stefan been suspended?

[conspiracy analyst]

The probable reason why an eye-witness had to materialise for the bus event, one year after it took place was that the only real witness to the event was the... alleged bus driver.

A bus driver who had never before driven that bus, there are no CCTV images of him actually ever being on that bus, and the whole event seems stage managed so pictures can be taken.

Those in charge of these event know more than anybody else when they stage managed them what actually happened.
Trying now to 'prove' by way of argument based on who was an eye-witness, who wrote which book to make money etc. distracts from the reality of the falsity of the events.

They are false, manufactured, stage-managed and organised by the security services irrespective of our opinions. Those are the bare facts.

All else is/was/can become hearsay.

If someone was on the tube that day they can become a self-promoted
'survivor', if someone was 100 metres from one of these terror shows, they likewise can be termed to be a 'survivor'.

Those with a line to peddle, that the events are real ie have a connection with global terrorism are given air time by the media who after all are an accessory to the never ending 'war on terror'.

[TonyGosling]

We have a policy of not attacking terror victims or survivors here.
Do you allow attacks on Daniel at J7?
If so why?

[Prole]

[insidejob]

I do not remember a time when Daniel O was welcomed and listened to by this group and then rejected on the basis that he was lying about his 7/7 experiencing in order to exploit it for his own gain. My memory is that there has always been skepticism about what he has to say. Indeed, there has been an attempt to create a concensus that Daniel O is somehow suspect and we should not listen to him.

All I know, is that he is someone with first hand experience of 7/7 and went public with his criticisms of the official story. He has then gone on to say 7/7 was an inside job.

How many people involved in 7/7 has done that?
How many people have been brave enough to publicly voice their doubts about the official story?

And the response of this group? To rubbish him.

Who exactly is going to do more to achieve our aims? A person who experienced 7/7 and publicly claims that it was an inside job?

Or We are change?

It is a no-brainer. Yet, we have people only too happy to attempt to rubbish him. There is something very bizarre going on.

Kollerstrom's criticisms of Daniel O are personal and trivial and are no basis for the position our group should take. We don't have to agree with everything Daniel says.

[TonyGosling]

On the nail sir.