conspiracy theorists target 7/7 victims

[mercurysmate]

Conspiracists target 7/7 victims

Rachel from North London's blog is temporarily out of action due to an infestion of counspiracy theorists who have accused her of being an MI5 spy amongst other things.

is it true?

[John White]

I dont know but more than likely unfortunately

Regretably, when people are handicapped in only having access to the left side of the brain, everything is reduced to simplistic polarised duality: in this schizoid condition humans are reduced to by societal programmes and the education system, to discover one has been decieved once by authority makes all authority suspect: and defenders of authorities POV's are, for the unfortunate people with a severe case of culture shock, automatically "agents": becuase they "MUST" be: the reverse of accepting everything authority says without question of course, in fact: a mirror

The only solution is compassion, tolerance and empathy

Regardless the issues STILL exist, and for everyone of good will, building bridges remains the path to sanity

I dont know much about this blog, but I note it makes no mention of Rachels own 7/7 denial activities, which I have only recently become aware of and have reviewed thoroughly: and of course it contains its own polarities: placing David and Annie automatically in the "tin hat" mental catagory by asssociation, claiming to be able to define highly complex and multifacted subjects acurratly with a single paragraph, and of course classicaly, playing on the fear reaction of "losing ones mind"

Now I always find that ironic when the very purpose of mankinds deepest spiritual paths is to transcend the ego and become "the spaces between our thoughts, not our thoughts themselves"...and (elsewhere on the net) I like to speculate "who benefits" to foster the fear of losing that which is not us

[mercurysmate]

[Annie]

[mercurysmate]

as you may have done, however neither you, david or anyone else has presented anything but speculation that 7.7 was anything more than it was reported as

do you expect people to accept uncritically the views of two people, who regardless of their immediate background actually have a background of lying and deceit on behalf of the secret state?

edited to add it wasnt rachels blog to which john was referring but the original link i believe

[Andrew Johnson]

Mercury'smate,

Because we have had no public enquiry into 7/7 or 9/11, we have to speculate about too many things.

To say that "all that David and Annie present about 7/7 is speculation" is not really true. They present this evidence - as do I -

http://www.checktheevidence.com/7-7PortfolioOfEvidence.zip

and they can probably see it in better perspective.

I don't think anyone expects Rachel or people like her to accept anything we say - we hope that they will take the time to research for themselves and draw their own conclusions. If they disagree, then we promise we won't force them to join our forum or anyting nasty like that.... We would generally be happier if they didn't come onto our board and post unpleasant remarks, but if they do, then we will just jolly well have to put up with it won't we? "Sticks and Stones" and all that stuff, ye know - old chap - what ho?

[mercurysmate]

ok, my speakers are * so no point listening to the audio files, but regarding the pdf ... you call that evidence ffs

one highly traumatised eye witness, a mosque chairman spouting his personal opinion and the oft trotted out exercise (which did not involve 1,000 people, but was merely run by a company which employs 1,000 people, such exercises are carried out everyday and its no way comparable to the norad exercise)

have you ever been to courtt, I have and with evidence like that youd be laughed out, whats the point of a public enquiry if thats all youve got

you are talking about accusing the government on the most heinous crime carried out agianst the citizens of its people in living history, and you expect folk to take you seriously on such flimsy guff

im sorry, but you do the 9/11 cause no favours by this hysterical nonsense, come up with something even vaguely concrete or you remain a laughing stock along with the likes of icke, jones et al in my eyes

[ianrcrane]

With regard to the allegations that 'Rachel's Blog is temporarily out of action due to an infestion of counspiracy(sic) theorists.'

I would suggest that this the first of many such unsupported and unsubstantiated allegations that we shall see in the coming weeks.

Whatever technical difficulties are being experienced, I would doubt very much that it has anything to do with the 9/11 - 7/7 Truth community.

The fact that Milan Rai's attempt to prepare the ground for the narrative by publishing a paperback, which is little more than newsprint cobbled into book form that does not stand up to scrutiny, may be rattling a few cages!

From The Void

[mercurysmate]

i dont think anyones attemptng to marginalise the truth (sic) movement

all ive heard people do is ask for some evidence

as yet none has been forthcoming

[alkmyst]

Mercurysmate wrote:

[ian neal]

Harrassment of Rachel

Does anyone here know anything about the harrassment of Rachel and her family (beyond posting on the internet) that the blog refers to? I most certainly don't. I (and I believe everyone I know well who is involved in this movement) wouldn't be involved in the type of harrassment that Rachel reports. Certainly from my point of view, my principle issue is her assumption of guilt of the Leeds 4 before the narrative has been released. The public inquiry that both Rachel and I support should examine all the evidence that surrounds 7/7. That is my chief issue with Rachel and Milan and I certainly wouldn't harrass them in the way described to make this point

Response to the blog

Has anyone come across this blog before and know who is behind it? Perhaps you can help us mercurysmate? Where did you first see this posted or do you just regularly read the void?

In response to this type of criticism (the blog) my advice is to state the obvious. Anyone can post here and within the principles of the forum can post as they choose. Atleast that is how this forum is currently moderated. Given the nature of public forums it is ridiculous to draw conclusions on the merits of the actual campaign for a further inquiry into 9/11 on the basis that you don't like what is posted on a public forum.

This forum contains information about 7/7. The forum does not endorse it. This forum contains information on David Icke upcoming talk in brixton and about where Annie and David are speaking next, but it doesn't endorse them. This site's front page contains links on the front page to David Ray Griffin, Michael Meacher and various DVD presentations of the evidence on 9/11, but the site doesn't endorse them. In short the site doesn't endorse anyone or any one presentation of the evidence. the evidence speaks for itself.

We invite people to examine the evidence that surrounds 9/11 from all angles and draw your own conclusions and hopefully joins us in building a growing movement in this country calling for a further investigation. Not a difficult concept.

So David and Annie's support of this campaign is welcomed. The support of Ian Crane is welcomed. Were (however unlikely) let's say the Queen or Tony Blair to support this campaign their support would be welcomed. That does not mean that David agrees with or endorses everything Ian Crane believes or visa versa any more than the different players within the Stop the War movement (which we consider ourselves to be fundamentally a part of) agree about everything. What any coalition or campaign builds around is a common platform. Ours is a very simple one

"The 9-11 Commission has ‘failed’ in its mandate to provide an independent, impartial, “full and complete accounting” of the attacks of September 11, 2001. We believe the Commission is wrong in crucial respects and the available evidence indicates that US officials authored or facilitated the attacks and their cover-up. We demand full disclosure and accountability through a further independent investigation. We demand answers to the questions." Pretty simple

Of course our critics will ask what questions: well to start with the same bloody questions family representatives have been asking all these years. At the same time our critics will assure us that all questions have been answered by the various debunking articles and websites that claim to debunk the 9/11 truth movement. So at the most recent national gathering in Blackpool, those present agreed they would work together to build an improved campaign website that would present the key evidence and questions that back up the campaign statement.

The article asks David and Annie (having said it doesn't wish to smear them) what they are doing associating themselves with this

"sorry shower. At best they could be described as delusional and confused misfits, at worst anti-semites and far righters using whatever tools they have to whip up hysteria against whomever their current ethnic scapegoat happens to be."

and goes on

"the void has said before we reckon 9/11 stinks, however it's become an impossible subject to discuss due to the rantings of some of the most high profile 'truthseekers'."

What complete XXXX. It basically falls into the trap of the racist or bigot. 'They' are this. 'They' are that. Who is this 'they' that void refers to. The people who post here. The people working for 9/11 truth who are on the larger email list but who don't post here. The people who are campaigning for 9/11 truth and who aren't even aware of us. How does void know who we are? Who is he referring to when he/she refers to rantings of the most high profile 'truthseekers'. name names, based on what (the recent Milan meetings, posts on this forum, elsewhere?). How can the individuals defend themselves if these criticisms aren't specific. It is the insults and mindset of the racist, when general insults are hurled at no one in particular. 'They' are crazy and delusional. 'They' are anti-semitic and far-righters (who exactly).

No that's not how it works. Our message is very simple

The campaign recognizes that there is a diverse range of opinion amongst 9/11 truth campaigners. The campaign does not endorse any one position. What we do say is when taken in totality the evidence overwhelmingly supports the need to reopen 9/11.

Get it? The evidence, when taken in totality, is overwhelming. Challenge us on that message and not the messenger. Because as void rightly "reckons 9/11 stinks as it goes, but also reckons the 9/11 truth campaigners are every bit as fishy.". When void specualtes "A situation no doubt quite acceptable to any nefarious agents involved in 9/11 whether al Queda, the CIA or the Annunaki (don't ask)." he is accepting the possibility that nefarious agents ... would want to infiltrate or derail the 9/11 truth movement.

Well Void cannot on the one hand accept that nefarious agents may try to discredit us and at the same time criticise a loose network of campaigners on the basis that s/he doesn't like certain completely unnamed individuals actions or web postings, since surely he/she is smart enough to work out that we are what we say we are: a loose network of campaigners united in the call for a further inquiry open infiltration by nefarious agents. So some of the people he criticises maybe nefarious agents. But how can they defend themselves when we talk in generalities.

Whilst we have held two national meetings (more accurately gatherings) so far and many of the key activists know each other personally, having come together over the past 2 years, there is currently no central co-ordinating committee pulling any levers behind the scenes, (at least at present.)

So if I understand void (and it seems to a large extent mercurysmate) you agree with the message (we need a further investigation into 9/11) but you don't like the messengers. Well firstly if you support the message, welcome. If you don't like the current messengers and how they communicate that message, you do a better a job. If you do you will find people here will support you.

But I also ask who are you void and mercurysmate,

In void's case what have you done in promoting the 9/11 truth. When I can see some background of campaigning and understanding of 9/11 truth, when I see that you actually know what you talking about when you talk about the 9/11 truth movement in this country, then I will take you seriously. Your blog is a very piss poor start.

Mercurysmate, I'm prepared to be more charitable and assume you have come across void's article and wanted to ask 'is it true?'. Well if void's article is the first time you have come across us I encourage you to meet us before believing Void's description. I can give you a potted history of the movement (or atleast this network) in this country as can atleast 20 others who have been involved since the early days.

We will all have a slightly different tale to tell of how we came together but it will be the same basic people and events. These key activitists I know and trust. We may not agree about everything, but I can assure you I have never detected any anti-semitic or far-right/fascist beliefs and we are no more (indeed I would argue slightly less) 'delusional' or 'crazy' than the general population.

Assuming you are genuine, you can find out more about us either by PM and I will either chat on the phone or I can put you in touch with a local group. If you are near London come to a meeting or if meetings aren't your thing, meet for a chat outside a meeting. I know others will lend a similar welcome

Just also to clarify the reference made in Rachel's post about Ian Crane being the chair of this 'organisation'. What Ian is chair of, is the group that came together in Blackpool and which agreed to work towards forming this more professional site I mention above that will present the key evidence and questions. One of the issues this group is working on is proposing a constitution for the management of this new site, what other responsibilities it may take on such as fund-raising and planning events, etc and how it relates to this forum.

This forum and website does not have a chair or formal constitution at present. (But then again this country doesn't have a formal constitution either)

[Ally]

[John White]

[John White]

[Andrew Johnson]

mercury'smate

Why are you posting here? Are you a masochist?

Do you have some good evidence that the official narrative of 7/7 or 9/11 is true in the important respects?

We all know about the Channel 4 article supposedly "debunking" Peter Power. We have discussed all the other similar evidence - I know it's tricky to find here - but you can try Adrian's archive too at www.officialconfusion.com

Are we all lawyers and solicitors? No.

Do we have the resources to bring a court case? Not at the moment.

Is the media denying a voice to people like us? Absolutely.

If you think "our" 7/7 evidence is no good, then can we see "yours"?

Thanks

[johnnyvoid]

[Ally]

let's troll foool

[John White]

[markburdge]

What an astonishing post!

Much of the real 'evidence' has been hidden or destroyed by the US governnment, which begs the question ..why???

There are loads of websites with detailed information that points to what could only be government involvement at the highest level.

The truth movement is only asking for disclosure of the 'evidence' that the government still hold and independent examination of it.

If it all stacks up, and they can show beyond reasonable doubt that terrorists did it, then great.

Their silence and repression only adds to the doubt and speculation.....

[Uma]

to ..JohnnyVoid

you seem to be making personal slights regarding Alex Jones. I for one think he is an incredibly brave journalist who is not afraid of getting in where it hurts. What particular aspects of Alex's journalism do you object to and why do you think the mainstream media won't take him seriously?

[ian neal]

[quote="johnnyvoid"]

[Ally]

Challenge his insulting pap on his own blog, see how long it lasts, if Void deletes it then we can safely do the same with his trolling posts here.

[ian neal]

One more thing, the most likely reason a particular piece of evidence (such as a supposed explanation of the WTC7 collapse) would not have been discussed in any detail is because as a London group, we have found it most productive avoiding detailed discussion of specific elements of the evidence in such a public meeting, since these discussions tend to get bogged down in detail and there is much else to discuss, such as practical campaigning.

So don't take the failure of a meeting to consider a particular piece of evidence or to challenge the mention of the illuminati by someone as an indication that we are not interested in debating evidence. Especially with our critics this is exactly where we want the debate. As a London group we just don't choose to spend our limited time together debating evidence issues but more choose to focus on campaigning issues. Other groups will choose to run their meetings differently. Besides anyone can suggest agenda items and previously the chairing of the meeting has rotated, so you can't say our meetings are held in such and such a way. You don't like the way meetings are run? You want to see more debate of the evidence? No problem, announce your own meeting focussing on evidence, research and getting to the 'truth' and those who are interested will attend.

[Ally]

here's void

http://johnnyvoid.blogspot.com/2006/04/conspiracists-target-77-victims .html#links

BTW - Milan Rai ain't no 7/7 survivor, he's a lying disinfo artist.

[ian neal]

[Ally]

You're rite again Ian ;->

[xmasdale]

[Annie]

[quote="johnnyvoid"]

[Annie]

[johnnyvoid]

sorry i couldn't answer earlier, for some reason i couldn't access these boards from work ... perhaps someone is trying to keep me from the TRUTH

annie for the record i dont doubt your sincerity or davids, i was just pointing out that to accuse rachel of being a spook (which some have) is a little disengenous when two of the most prominent and feted members of the 9/11 movement were former spooks

as a long time activist ive learnt that the whole your a spook, shes a spook thing leads nowhere, we'll rarely uncover who is really who, and it credits no-one and certainly diminshes any movement when slurs such as that begin flying around

although if davids (or you) are prepared yet to reveal the names of the mi5 agents involved in infiltarting the left, class war etc then im all ears

i would add that i was surprised when i went to the 9/11 meeting and heard the illuminati brought up without challenge, for the record i had hoped that yourself and david would have taken the lead on this and created a credible campaign, rather than the gathering of usual suspects and their delusional, evidence free assertations

im assuming you have no truck with this nonsense, what are your views on the illuminati

my points in my original piece were aimed at the 9/11 truth movement in general, not just those in the london group and who post on these boards

i stand by them, while you do not reject absolutely the likes of icke and alex jones, and those who give them credence then you cant expect to be taken seriously even by those who think you might have a point when you aim to call yourself a 'truth' movement

icke is discrediting you far more than milan rai, why not target his next booklaunch for promoting disinformation

im arguing the toss about 7/7 because of what happened to rachel and the actions of some of you at rais book launch, which in my opinion was pathetic and further serves to discredit your movement

to target a victim of 7/7 and a prominent anti-war activist is cheap and cowardly, why not go after the real targets, i dont see you demonstrating outside thames house


you have done yourselves and your cause a great disservice within the leftist/activist/progressive movement

and i add again theres is no evidence whatsoever that 7/7 was anything other than as it was reported, some of us accept already that false flag operations exist, we also accept that genuine terrorism exists

thats not to say i could say hand on heart that the state had no involvement in 7/7 the cynic in me always leans that way, thats why ive learnt to become dependant on evidence rather than relying on a gut feeling (given my anti-state prejudice holds no bounds)


as ive said 9/11 stinks, but its a difficult subject to even address whilst the likes of alex jones hold court, and he is linked directly from the front page of this site, which whilst not an endorsement would appear to be one to anyone who happens to come across your site, personally the second i see his name and face i move on and look for a legitimate source

to finish on 7/7, i would just like to quote a comment i recently made on my blog in response to a point about the alleged warning to netanyahu

can't find a link myself but here's an israeli paper which features the interview

seems mossad tipped off the british, not the other way round, although i would still say the story is tenous without reading the original source

i can understand uk spooks wanting to cover up the fact that mossad had picked up intelligence regarding this and not them, although its more than believable given that mossad have far more experience in dealing with islamic suicide bombers then mi5

in many ways this further confirms the mainstream version of events, if mossad had picked on the attacks then it would seem likely that would be through intelligence they gained through islamic terrorist groups rather than them being in on the inner workings of the uk secret state (and if they were then why warn, or talk about it afterwards)

unless it was a mossad op of course, but then why release the story at all?

methinks you might have just trashed the one piece of possible evidence you had that this was a false flag op, thanks for the info

bit sarky i grant you, but could be a possible reason why 5 are so twitchy on this one, mossad got there before they did