Rachel from N.London on Alex Cox's Forum

[Sinclair]

I have just finished reading the (3-page) topic entitled Sticky: Alex's Xmas Blog: 2005.12.23 - 7/7, located on the forum discussion board at Alex Cox's Forum site, located here - http://www.prayforrain.com/coxforum/viewforum.php?f=1 .

I would recommend to anyone seriously interested in (the deep politics of)the events of 7th July 2005 to have a read of the 3 pages (it is very current stuff, with a large number of posts made today (18/1/06).

[insidejob]

Sinclair, let me get this straight.

The security services regard the Internet as a threat. They have their spooks on the net pretending to be ordinary people who are seeking to debunk conspiracy theories.

Rachel from north London could indeed exist. She could wittingly or unwittingly allow spooks to use her name to cause dissent among, waste time of and gain intelligence about 9/11 and 7/7 sceptics. Spooks are having her pose as someone who wants an inquiry to make out that she is not a stooge and fool the sceptics.

I think this is a credible theory.

Furthermore, if you were a criminal spook, you would realise that the survivors could become a problem. Some 9/11 survivors have. So, you would want to cultivate some among the survivors who could operate as an opinion former for the others. You could argue that seems Rachel is playing that role. Also, there is a female relative of a victim who adopts an authoritarian response who is quoted on the media. So, they could control the opinions within two strands of survivor opinion.

There is a dissenter strand represented by survivor John Tullock, a media studies lecturer. If I were them, I'd want to control that strand but I think it is unlikely that John Tullock is in cahoots with them.

I note on the Indymedia site, when 7/7 conspiracy theories first arose, you had bloggers whose main argument was 'conspiracy theorists are nutters'. These interventions seemed designed not to attack conspiracy bloggers but to stop non-committed viewers from seriously engaging with conspiracy theories. That is, they are promoting an emotional response to conspiracy theories rather than a rational one.

Rachel is different. She does want to come up with arguments and thus engage with the rational. That is, she debates some arguments. But she still wants to promote an emotional response to engaging in conspiracy theories. She also has an emotional attachment to the 'mad Muslim fundamentalist threat' idea.

Most interesting is her witness evidence concerning Germaine. This is difficult to either verify or refute but it does tend to undermine any conspiracy theories. But could this be Rachel engaging in disinformation? If so, this would be evidence of her being a secret service asset, whether she realises it or not.

I have to state that she could be behaving in good faith and has no contact direct or indirect with criminal spooks. But nonetheless, what do we do? Her Internet emotional profile has to be challenged. The fact that she can say she is a survivor is going to influence people who could take conspiracy theories seriously. But he promotion of the mad Muslim threat is also problematic. I'm black. I'm offended by the idea that typical African converts to Islam can become suicide bombers because 'they hate the West'. This indirectly implicates me.

(This suicide bombers, death cult stuff is Zionist nonsense. Zionist say there's a suicide death cult in Palestine. They say it's because of religion. And then they says it's global. The reality is that there is popular support for suicide attacks in Palestine. There is no popular support for it in Britain. In Palestine, suicide attacks are a military tactic not a religious duty i.e. targets are so well defended that suicide attacks are the only sure way of success. That is not the case in the UK. As have been said, there was no reason for the 7/7 bombers to commit suicide. The view that the 7/7 four were suicide like in Palestine is propaganda.)

We need to work out a strategy to challenge the widespread, emotional public response to conspiracy theories. Perhaps, one way is use ridicule in the same way they do. The notion that bin Laden was behind 7/7 is a conspiracy theory. We're supposed to believe that Dr Evil from his bat cave managed to fool the security services and got three or four young people who should be more interested in getting their end away to blow themselves to bits because of 'what Western democracy is doing to Muslims around the world'.

Otherwise, if people like Rachel are spooks then it may be useful to find out what their propaganda is.

[Ally]

^^^well said^^^


My tuppence on Rachel is there is more than 1 person behind her writing. I don't know why but I feel like a male wrote much of her stuff on Cox's forum. No proof like, just a hunch.

Good to see Alex Cox has grown some stones considering the silence from almost all other quarters.

I've been writing to Yorkshire Post journalists trying to get them interested but never had a response yet.

[ianrcrane]

Hi Ally,

in response to your attempts to contact the Yorkshire Post. I gave a presentation at The Trades Club in Hebden Bridge last November. At the end of the evening, a member of the audience introduced himself to me as a Senior Reporter on the Yorkshire Post. He stated that he was very interested in the material that I had presented on the three lads from Leeds and that he agreed with pretty much everything that I had said. However, when I asked him why his paper was not running articles questioning the official version or making editorial comment on the subject, he laughed and said that any attempt to print such material would be 'journalistic suicide'!

Best regards,

Ian.

[ian neal]

[ian neal]

[Garrett Cooke]

No doubt we are all aware of Holmgren's (IMO brilliant): http://www.serendipity.li/wot/holmgren01.htm. A piece in a similar style could be written to describe the absurdity of supposing that the 77 bombings should be attributed to four suicide bombers from Leeds. I will have a try!

Garrett

[insidejob]

Having thought about it, I agree with Ian and it’s not a good idea to accuse Rachel of any underhand behaviour. As far as I am aware, she has done and said nothing that a person involved in and concerned about 7/7 would not have. Her dismissiveness about conspiracy theories reflects what probably is the dominant view in the UK. Such a view would be dominant among the Left. I don’t want to suggest that spooks aren’t involved in alternative sites but they don’t need to use Rachel.

Rachel also has considerations that the rest of us do not. She is high profile. She is, I believe, aware that if she starts promoting conspiracy theories, something bad might happen to her. This is ironic. This probably reflects widespread fears. One reason members of the public don’t want to get into conspiracy theories is because if they do the conspirators will get them. They know that there are powerful people who will abuse their power, get away with it and act in secret with criminal and malicious intent. Ordinary people like them would be crushed if they get in their way. It is remarkable the extent to which fear controls people’s thoughts and behaviour.

As for Rachel, if we are to counter her possible anti-conspiracy influence, then it would be to encourage her to engage with it on a rational basis. She does engage with 7/7 anomalies. She may come up with valid criticisms of conspiracy theories. We don’t need her to agree with them. She may be as irritating as she regards us, but she is doing it in good faith. (I hope.)

insidejob

[Pikey]

Ian Crane stated

[ian neal]

Rachel is quoted here

This weekend Rachel North, an advertising executive from north London who was injured in the King’s Cross bombing, said: “This is a compelling reason why we need a full public inquiry. The public has a right to know what the risks were and why this happened.” in this article

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-2003915_2,00.html

I think we would support her in that

[paul wright]

[alkmyst]

During a few days of exchanges on the Alex Cox Forum earlier this month, 'Rachel North' submitted some interesting postings before electing to remove the evidence of her participation and deleted all of her posts.

A number of forum members had endeavoured to engage 'Rachel North' in discussion but any rational observation, comment or question which suggested that there may be some anomolies between what has been portrayed in the MSM and the masses of accumulating evidence, was met with zero intellectual curiosity.

Earlier todayThe Alex Cox Forum was hacked and is currently off-line!

Entirely co-incidental, no doubt!

Al K Myst.

[ian neal]

Hi dh

You're right. The key question for any campaign for a 7/7 inquiry is its terms of reference, independence and transparency and whether it even considers the possibility of 'intelligence failure', 'prior knowledge' and the possibility of involvement of rogue elements from within HMG

The reason I picked up on Rachel's comments regarding the Times article is that she was calling for an inquiry based upon the proposition that HMG intelligence services may have had prior relevent knowledge of the 'bombers'. This is a shift as far as I can tell from her previous calls for the inquiry to focus more on the response of the authorities to the bombings, based on her assumption that the details of the crime are already known.

[Jane]

[ian neal]

We are all individually responsible for our actions and should be accountable for them including war criminals like Bush Blair and Hitler. The level of awareness of the 9/11 truth movement and the existence of DVDs that prove, in the eyes of many people, that the Bush regime is responsible for 9/11 is still v low amongst the British public in my experience. But that awareness is rising. I retain unshakeable faith in the human spirit and the belief that when the evidence contained in, for example Loose Change or DRGriffin's books, is known to by many and not just a few, it will set off an unstopable chain reaction that will transform the world. A global people power movement of peace and justice. The beauty of 9/11 is that the evidence is out there, it's accessable and it's compelling. If the evidence leads you to conclude that the Bush regime is responsible, there can be no avoiding the depth and seriousness of the situation. I refuse to believe that if for example Loose Change was screened at prime time on BBC1, this country would wake up, shrug its shoulders and continue 'business as usual'.

Now given the media bias that exists against the 9/11 truth movement I'm open to the question of how we spread the word and how we link our message with others working for peace and justice and how we make 9/11 truth part of a global transformation movement, but the basic premis that this transformation is possible even inevitable, I don't doubt

[Jane]

[ian neal]

[Ally]

Rachel is a total shill. I noticed Cox's forum has been under malicious attack since she abused everyone then deleted all her posts from there.
The nonsense she writes on her blog makes me want to puke, it sounds straight from tavistock.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4655196.stm

[Prole]

On the Alex Cox Forum, Rachel engaged in the debate over the Piccadilly Line train number which was originally quoted as 311 before being changed to 331. I grabbed her comment before she managed to delete it:

[alkmyst]

Rachel North Blog - Feb 10, 2006

[Prole]

The Alex Cox forum is back up and running and includes Rachel's last comment to a post I made re: train numbers.
Alex responded to her and then the forum was hacked!
http://prayforrain.com/coxforum/viewtopic.php?t=43&start=60

[alkmyst]

Alex Cox Forum is up and running with some interesting postings from Rachel North:

www.prayforrain.com/coxforum/viewtopic.php?t=43&postdays=0&postorder=a sc&start=75

Shortly before the Alex Cox forum was hacked, Rachel North deleted all her previous postings and stated that she would no longer engage the 'conspiraloons'. Well, it seem that 'Team Rachel' just couldn't stay away!

Al K Myst

[Ally]

[Prole]

I have just posted the following on the Alex Cox forum:

Alkymst said to Rachel

[Sinclair]

Prole,

Excellent posts by you & Alkmyst on the AlexCox forum.

The whole circumstances of (Team) Rachel's posts on there, togther with the subsequent deletion & the consequent hacking of the site (twice) is VERY interesting. I wouldn't be surprised if that forum goes down again!

I’d like to draw attention to the posting by Alkmyst above (Wed Feb 15, 2006 12:25 am) & on the AlexCox forum here , particularly the suggested questions to Mr Peter Power.


___________________________________
Our Karma Just Ran Over Your Dogma

[Rachel]

[Rachel]

[Rachel]

[Rachel]

[Rachel]