| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
 Posted: Wed Mar 14, 2007 3:13 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| xmasdale wrote: | | Bushwacker wrote: | | ZUCO wrote: | | Can you show me some evidence of your claim please? Because all I've seen is a doctored image that only clearly identifies one man. |
No, I don't think I'll waste my time that way, thanks very much. Since you unable even to admit the obvious fact that there is no evidence for the men travelling with return tickets, what would be the point? |
That's a very important question, Bushwacker. If you state you have a source of evidence for your claims and yet maintain it would be a waste of time to indicate what your source is, people are bound to doubt the truth of your claims and to suspect you of being insincere and therefore of wasting everyone's time. |
The evidence is well known and has been much debated here. There seems little point in going round the mulberry bush one more time. I'll cite the CCTV, ZUCO has already said it is doctored, technical and non-technical arguments will dispute that, no one will be convinced either way, I'll cite DNA evidence, ZUCO will claim it is rigged, he will ask why is there no other CCTV, I'll say there may be, but not released, he'll say that's suspicious and ask why ID for the same man was a three different locations and I'll say I have no idea. What's the point of going through all that?
_________________
".......some partial collapse [of WTC7] would not have been suspicious......." - chek |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
ZUCO
Moderate Poster
Joined: 22 Feb 2007
Posts: 179
Location: Manchester
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 14, 2007 3:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
You're very good at talking a lot without actually saying anything.
| Quote: | | I'll cite the CCTV, ZUCO has already said it is doctored |
What CCTV? All we have seen is one picture of 4 men in which only one can be identified. And another of one man calmly waking out of a shop at the same ime the station was supposedly being evacuated.
Can you honestly say that after reading the official narrative you feel satisfied with it's interpretation of the days events?
_________________
"Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither" --Benjamin Franklin--
ZUCO |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 14, 2007 3:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| stelios69 wrote: | | KP50 wrote: | | Bushwacker wrote: |
The train they caught was most likely the late-running 7.24 which arrived at 8.23. |
I'm not a 7/7 expert however .... surely if there were CCTV images, these could be used to determine which train they took? If the official narrative says the 7.48 then this was presumably backed up by the CCTV images? If it was more likely the 7.24 then this would be backed up by the CCTV images instead? Or maybe they weren't captured on CCTV at all? So how do we know they carried the bombs onto the trains? |
Ok we seem to be going in circles gentlemen.
It is a fact that that day the trains were running late. Undisputed.
The thameslink train has various stations which it stops at and did not arrive at the thameslink platform at kings cross until after the tube trains had already departed. so yes the bombers must have caught an earlier train. however, the problem is the police released a poor quality probably doctored cctv image from Luton which is time stamped. Meaning they could not have caught an earlier train, if the cctv image is to be believed.
i personally believe these guys are patsies and probably did not even get on the train at all and the evidence has been manufactured postimously.
You see had they got on the trains and tubes. many cctv images will have been taken including moving images. On platforms, inside the carraiges and buying tickets at luton and also at kings cross because you cannot use the mainline ticket on the underground.
(i dont travel by train so i may be wrong)
The fact that there are only 3 images all very poor quality and all showing signs of doctoring means these guys probably were NOT even there.
The fact also that no eyewitness has ID'd them.
The fact that nothing about any of this makes sense.
Why would suicide bombers leave the 'baddest' bombs behind?
Why would a suicide bomber eat an eggMcmuffin before blowing himself up?
why would that bus be diverted the only bus diverted?
Why does victims on the bus and in the tubes believe 7/7 was an inside job and have even appeared in intervies on tv stating this fact?
Michael Meecher has appeared on TV with serious doubts about 7/7.
Whether they bought return tickets is irrelevant. It could not be proven either way and is probably a distraction. Why would they pay and display? If they believed they were going to die? |
No, they could have caught the 7.24 which actually left at 7.25. You can buy through tickets on to the Underground. There are in fact no signs of doctoring on the CCTV pictures released, according to video experts. One man claims to have been on the bus, and the bus was the only one diverted by two cars, and there were agents at Tavistock Square, but he mixes fact and fiction for literary purposes and his story is not reliable. No one else confirms it. Why the bombers did certain things cannot be answered, except with speculation. I will quote you and say they are irrelevant and a distraction. I have serious doubts about Michael Meacher, so there you go!
_________________
".......some partial collapse [of WTC7] would not have been suspicious......." - chek |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 14, 2007 3:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| stelios69 wrote: | the fact that there were security drills that day covering the same targets is not in dispute. The guy from the security firm appeared on ITN news and most of the other channels.
In the same way it is not disputed that there were drills on 911.
Whoever organised the drills organised the events as well. |
The security drills were paper exercises, not live, involving a few people sitting in a room. They involved similar but not identical targets. What possible part did they play in a supposed conspiracy?
_________________
".......some partial collapse [of WTC7] would not have been suspicious......." - chek |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 14, 2007 3:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ZUCO wrote: | You're very good at talking a lot without actually saying anything.
| Quote: | | I'll cite the CCTV, ZUCO has already said it is doctored |
What CCTV? All we have seen is one picture of 4 men in which only one can be identified. And another of one man calmly waking out of a shop at the same ime the station was supposedly being evacuated.
Can you honestly say that after reading the official narrative you feel satisfied with it's interpretation of the days events? |
Those are the ones. Exiting the shop when the station is being evacuated sounds a very sensible thing to do. Yes, the narrative seems a satisfactory interpretation of the day's events, however a full scale public enquiry would be much better. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ZUCO
Moderate Poster
Joined: 22 Feb 2007
Posts: 179
Location: Manchester
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 14, 2007 3:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
You're easily pleased. I personally don't accept something as fact unless it contains some kind of evidence to back it up, which the official narrative does not. But if you want to believe the version of events in the narrative then who am I to stop you?
_________________
"Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither" --Benjamin Franklin--
ZUCO |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 14, 2007 6:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ZUCO wrote: | | You're easily pleased. I personally don't accept something as fact unless it contains some kind of evidence to back it up, which the official narrative does not. But if you want to believe the version of events in the narrative then who am I to stop you? |
But yet strangely enough, you believed they bought return tickets on the basis of some newspaper columnist mentioning it in passing, and maintained through a number of posts that it was evidence, then maintained that you had never said it was evidence. But I expect your standards are a bit variable, depending on what you want to believe.
_________________
".......some partial collapse [of WTC7] would not have been suspicious......." - chek |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ZUCO
Moderate Poster
Joined: 22 Feb 2007
Posts: 179
Location: Manchester
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 14, 2007 7:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
If you repeat it does it make it more true? I've acknowledged my error already and don't need reminding. I have also pointed out, however (along with others) that return tickets is not a major issue (though you seem determined to keep people focused on it) and is only a small part of a large number of faults in the official narrative. But since you keep bringing it up, allow me to ask you another question:
Since you make reference to the CCTV here: | Quote: | | I'll cite the CCTV |
Maybe you can explain how it is not known what tickets they bought? If the CCTV DOES exist, surely they will be caught on camera buying tickets and the timestamp will allow them to cross-reference this time with the machine that issued the ticket, and thus discover what type of tickets they bought.
One other thing, in reference to the drills you said this:
| Quote: | | They involved similar but not identical targets. |
Peter Power said himself that the drills involved "precisely the same stations" I have not heard of him retracting this statement but if indeed he has....do you not find it somewhat suspicious that he would change his mind?
_________________
"Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither" --Benjamin Franklin--
ZUCO |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
johndoe
Wrecker
Joined: 03 Mar 2007
Posts: 181
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 14, 2007 8:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
"So they left bombs behind as a general statement about Al Qaeda?"
or the islamic terror movement in general.
but remember i was only giving possible examples, they could have done it just for funsies for all i know.
"Perhaps you are unusually perceptive in picking up on subtle messages embedded in apparently senseless acts. "
no you asked for a possibly interpertation i gave you one. maybe it's just a good car air freshner? but when i find out by managing to seance with the dead then i'll tell you.
"I do apologise for my apparently woeful googling skills; though I appreciate the time you took finding images, you came up with one I'd already given you and two that don't support your claim. "
well that depends on how you read it doesn't it. i gave you images, in that set it showed the floor being bent down. now the difference in interpertation would come from you looking at each item of the set individually and me looking at the set.
"Peter Power said himself that the drills involved "precisely the same stations" I have not heard of him retracting this statement but if indeed he has....do you not find it somewhat suspicious that he would change his mind?"
not really, interviews are high pressure things, words can get misused. and since the retraction matched his earlier and more frequent statements it seems to be normal.
"Maybe you can explain how it is not known what tickets they bought? "
care to explain why we don't know their favourite aftershave either? maybe it's just because noone really cares.
and zuco from a terrorist standpoint performing an attack during a drill is a very good idea. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ZUCO
Moderate Poster
Joined: 22 Feb 2007
Posts: 179
Location: Manchester
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 14, 2007 9:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | not really, interviews are high pressure things, words can get misused. and since the retraction matched his earlier and more frequent statements it seems to be normal. |
From Visor Consultants Limited's own website:
| Quote: | | Peter Power is Managing Director of Visor Consultants Limited based in Piccadilly, London. He has considerable front-line crisis experience and is, uniquely, a Fellow of the Emergency Planning Society |
Does this sound like a man who would get flustered easily? I think not!
Also where is this retraction? I can't find anything on the net, could you please provide a link.
| Quote: |
"Maybe you can explain how it is not known what tickets they bought? "
care to explain why we don't know their favourite aftershave either? maybe it's just because noone really cares. |
As usual you answer a perfectly reasonable question with stupidity, displaying your lack of etiquette and a brain.
If the investigation was from a truly independent viewpoint then it would be important to know if they bought return tickets to establish whether they intended to return or not. But the investigation wasn't independent so nobody cared.
| Quote: | | and zuco from a terrorist standpoint performing an attack during a drill is a very good idea. |
How would the "terrorists" know that there was a drill running?
Get real.
_________________
"Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither" --Benjamin Franklin--
ZUCO |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dogsmilk
Mighty Poster
Joined: 06 Oct 2006
Posts: 1616
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 15, 2007 12:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Johndoe wrote: | | well that depends on how you read it doesn't it. i gave you images, in that set it showed the floor being bent down. now the difference in interpertation would come from you looking at each item of the set individually and me looking at the set. |
Shall I walk you through it again...?
The only useful image was the one I gave you - you remember that, right? ...we discussed it until you decided bombs are like big hands crushing paper...
You'd seen photos....etc
| Quote: | he difference in interpertation would come from you looking at each item of the set individually and me looking at the set.
|
If you say so John, if you say so.
Look John, to anyone reading this thread it's abundantly clear you just make it up as you go along. Your rather creative hypothetical scenarios to justify the various anomalies within the OT are touching in their blind loyalty to the state line, but it's intriguing how you dismiss there could be any cause for concern with the OT, yet happily concoct all kinds of outlandish stories to justify what you can't explain.
Carry on, though; your wild conspiracy theories are quite entertaining.
| Bushwacker wrote: | | But yet strangely enough, you believed they bought return tickets on the basis of some newspaper columnist mentioning it in passing, and maintained through a number of posts that it was evidence, then maintained that you had never said it was evidence. But I expect your standards are a bit variable, depending on what you want to believe. |
But does that matter?
Whether or not you believe ZUCO has been 'selective' on the evidence regarding this minor factoid has zero bearing on whether the narrative provides adequate evidence itself.
Besides, as he(or she) said, he got it from a respected broadsheet newspaper - if you dismiss people for believing what they read in the Indie is valid, you'll be dismissing a lot more people than just 'conspiracy theorists'. It's not like critics never cite newspaper articles to back up their claims.
On one hand ZUCO is He Who Shall Not Be Trusted for reading a newspaper, on the other Johndoe is churning out zany stories - like how the bombers maybe left extra bombs behind as a parting gift for their mysterious benefactors - with gay abandon. Surreal.
Let's face it - conspiracy or not, the narrative is a joke and if anything the government's willingness to take such a half-arsed approach to clearly evidencing their findings regarding such an event is testament to the contempt they have for the public.
_________________
It's a man's life in MOSSAD |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
karlos
Validated Poster
Joined: 26 Feb 2007
Posts: 2516
Location: london
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 15, 2007 2:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Bushwacker wrote: |
The security drills were paper exercises, not live, involving a few people sitting in a room. They involved similar but not identical targets. What possible part did they play in a supposed conspiracy? |
Security drill kept key security people busy. Whether it was on paper locked away in a room the people involved in the drill were kept occupied.
The people who organised the drill for that day have questions to answer because with those key people out of the way they could carry out their mission.
Lose all the cctv for example.
Dont forget the Israeli embassey alerted it's people that bad things were going to happen that day.
The people who diverted that bus they knew. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 15, 2007 12:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| stelios69 wrote: | | Bushwacker wrote: |
The security drills were paper exercises, not live, involving a few people sitting in a room. They involved similar but not identical targets. What possible part did they play in a supposed conspiracy? |
Security drill kept key security people busy. Whether it was on paper locked away in a room the people involved in the drill were kept occupied.
The people who organised the drill for that day have questions to answer because with those key people out of the way they could carry out their mission.
Lose all the cctv for example.
Dont forget the Israeli embassey alerted it's people that bad things were going to happen that day.
The people who diverted that bus they knew. |
No security people were kept busy. The exercises involved people from the company concerned planning what they would do in certain circumstances.
The CCTV could not be involved.
The Israeli embassy reacted only to the general alert given to all embassies after the bombs went off. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 15, 2007 12:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Dogsmilk wrote: |
| Bushwacker wrote: | | But yet strangely enough, you believed they bought return tickets on the basis of some newspaper columnist mentioning it in passing, and maintained through a number of posts that it was evidence, then maintained that you had never said it was evidence. But I expect your standards are a bit variable, depending on what you want to believe. |
But does that matter?
Whether or not you believe ZUCO has been 'selective' on the evidence regarding this minor factoid has zero bearing on whether the narrative provides adequate evidence itself.
Besides, as he(or she) said, he got it from a respected broadsheet newspaper - if you dismiss people for believing what they read in the Indie is valid, you'll be dismissing a lot more people than just 'conspiracy theorists'. It's not like critics never cite newspaper articles to back up their claims.
On one hand ZUCO is He Who Shall Not Be Trusted for reading a newspaper, on the other Johndoe is churning out zany stories - like how the bombers maybe left extra bombs behind as a parting gift for their mysterious benefactors - with gay abandon. Surreal.
Let's face it - conspiracy or not, the narrative is a joke and if anything the government's willingness to take such a half-arsed approach to clearly evidencing their findings regarding such an event is testament to the contempt they have for the public. |
Let us put the exchange back into context, I was replying to Zuco's statement that he never believed anything without evidence, by showing that he did. The Independent did not show any evidence to believe or disbelieve, a columnist simply mentioned it in passing. As I have said before, if that is evidence, then casual mentions of the men as suicide bombers is evidence that they were.
I have agreed before that the narrative is inadequate and there should be a full public enquiry. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 15, 2007 1:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ZUCO wrote: | If you repeat it does it make it more true? I've acknowledged my error already and don't need reminding. I have also pointed out, however (along with others) that return tickets is not a major issue (though you seem determined to keep people focused on it) and is only a small part of a large number of faults in the official narrative. But since you keep bringing it up, allow me to ask you another question:
Since you make reference to the CCTV here: | Quote: | | I'll cite the CCTV |
Maybe you can explain how it is not known what tickets they bought? If the CCTV DOES exist, surely they will be caught on camera buying tickets and the timestamp will allow them to cross-reference this time with the machine that issued the ticket, and thus discover what type of tickets they bought.
One other thing, in reference to the drills you said this:
| Quote: | | They involved similar but not identical targets. |
Peter Power said himself that the drills involved "precisely the same stations" I have not heard of him retracting this statement but if indeed he has....do you not find it somewhat suspicious that he would change his mind? |
1. You do seem to need reminding, as you claim you don't accept something as fact unless it contains some kind of evidence to back it up, but did so in these exchanges. I agree the ticket issue is not important in itself.
2. The CCTV we have seen was outside the station, not in the ticket office, so do you know there was CCTV there? Why not pass your helpful suggestion on to the police?
3. Peter Power said different things on different occasions, sounding exhilerated at how clever his company was in conducting exercises so close to what had happened at the beginning, and toning that down later to a more sober assessment when pressure mounted on him. I am surprised you are not aware of his other statements. They can be found here.
What point there would be in him making these statements if he were involved no one has yet suggested, as far as I know. See if you can do better.
_________________
".......some partial collapse [of WTC7] would not have been suspicious......." - chek |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kbo234
Validated Poster
Joined: 10 Dec 2005
Posts: 2017
Location: Croydon, Surrey
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 15, 2007 1:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bushwacker wrote: |
What point there would be in him making these statements if he were involved no one has yet suggested, as far as I know. See if you can do better. |
It is most unlikely Peter Power was 'involved' in anything underhand on 7/7.
One obvious possible reason for his speaking out is that he took the 'Gennifer Flowers' option. This was Clinton's mistress, who went public on their affair before he was elected. Seeing as what happened to other mistresses of his this looks like a good choice. She is still walking around and breathing as far as we know.
Once the information is 'out there' there was no possible profit in carrying out any actions against her person.
This seems the most likely explanation for Power's behaviour. He is no fool, is he? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 15, 2007 2:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| kbo234 wrote: | | Bushwacker wrote: |
What point there would be in him making these statements if he were involved no one has yet suggested, as far as I know. See if you can do better. |
It is most unlikely Peter Power was 'involved' in anything underhand on 7/7.
One obvious possible reason for his speaking out is that he took the 'Gennifer Flowers' option. This was Clinton's mistress, who went public on their affair before he was elected. Seeing as what happened to other mistresses of his this looks like a good choice. She is still walking around and breathing as far as we know.
Once the information is 'out there' there was no possible profit in carrying out any actions against her person.
This seems the most likely explanation for Power's behaviour. He is no fool, is he? |
So you don't think David Kelly was murdered after speaking out, then? Or is the Gennifer Flowers option rather uncertain in its effects? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
karlos
Validated Poster
Joined: 26 Feb 2007
Posts: 2516
Location: london
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 15, 2007 3:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| johndoe wrote: | "So they left bombs behind as a general statement about Al Qaeda?"
or the islamic terror movement in general |
My american apologist, Al Qaeda was your invention as was the islamic terror movement. Remember you set them up to challange the USSR in Afghanistan and you have financed them ever since.
The bin laden family and the bush family are very close business partners and friends.
The only general statement the prescence of those bombs made was that the four patsies did not leave that car or those bombs there. The general statement is that either mossad or m15 or the CIA or all three carried out the events of the day themselves.
You probably are sitiing in your office in Thames House or Berkely Square and are being paid to write this tosh mate but you are not fooling anyone.
_________________
Last edited by karlos on Fri Mar 16, 2007 3:59 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
johndoe
Wrecker
Joined: 03 Mar 2007
Posts: 181
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 15, 2007 6:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
"Al Qaeda was your invention as was the islamic terror movement. Remember you set them up to challange the USSR in Afghanistan and you have financed them ever since."
i did? i have been busy recently.
"You probably are sitiing in your office in Thames House or Berkely Square and are being paid to write this tosh mate but you are not fooling anyone."
not even in the right country.
"Thonly general statement those bombs made was that the four patsies did not leave that car or those bombs there. The general statement is that either mossad or m15 or the CIA or all three carried out the events of the day themselves. "
you see this is what is a little odd.
people try to claim that the bombs in the car prove that the government did it as suicide bombers wouldn't leave stuff in their car.
but why would the government leave it in the car? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
karlos
Validated Poster
Joined: 26 Feb 2007
Posts: 2516
Location: london
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 16, 2007 3:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Bushwacker wrote: |
No security people were kept busy. The exercises involved people from the company concerned planning what they would do in certain circumstances.
The CCTV could not be involved.
The Israeli embassy reacted only to the general alert given to all embassies after the bombs went off. |
how on earth do you know?
Verint Systems is the private ISRAELI company responsible for security of the London Underground system.
Do u work for them?
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
karlos
Validated Poster
Joined: 26 Feb 2007
Posts: 2516
Location: london
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 16, 2007 4:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
| johndoe wrote: | "
but why would the government leave it in the car? |
Whoever planned and carried out this operation left these bombs in the car as a smoking gun. My money is on mossad.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
johndoe
Wrecker
Joined: 03 Mar 2007
Posts: 181
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 16, 2007 9:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
"Whoever planned and carried out this operation left these bombs in the car as a smoking gun."
a bit of a * smoking gun don't you think? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John White
Site Admin
Joined: 27 Mar 2006
Posts: 3187
Location: Here to help!
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 17, 2007 3:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
*PLEASE NOTE*
A whole load of posts have been split off this thread and moved to moderatored topics whilst we consider whether they contain remarks that are inadvertantly (or otherwise) libelous
_________________
Free your Self and Free the World |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rodin
Validated Poster
Joined: 09 Dec 2006
Posts: 2224
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 17, 2007 9:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| stelios69 wrote: | You are right.
No evidence means no cctv in the car park at luton even though aparantly there are 12 cameras, no witnesses no cctv in the trains, on the platforms, on the bus, in the tube station, etc. Means on the balance of probabilities they were even there.
The independant states They boarded the 7.48am to London carrying return tickets. And that the bombers stepped off the train at King's Cross Thameslink station at 8.20.
However, the 0748 did not reach Thameslink until 8.42am; seven minutes after the Eastbound Circle Line train had departed from Kings Cross, which later exploded between Liverpool St. and Aldgate.
So did they teleport themselves onto the underground?
The bus bomber aparantly buys a battery, buys breakfast then where does he go? because the bus does not blow up till later.
Again no cctv. In central london everyone is caught on cctv many many times every day inadvertantly, yet these bombers seem to be invisible.
Maybe they werent really there. |
But they were definitely seen on the train from Luton that never was. According to our masonic Government.
_________________
Belief is the Enemy of Truth www.dissential.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ZUCO
Moderate Poster
Joined: 22 Feb 2007
Posts: 179
Location: Manchester
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 17, 2007 11:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| rodin wrote: | | stelios69 wrote: | You are right.
No evidence means no cctv in the car park at luton even though aparantly there are 12 cameras, no witnesses no cctv in the trains, on the platforms, on the bus, in the tube station, etc. Means on the balance of probabilities they were even there.
The independant states They boarded the 7.48am to London carrying return tickets. And that the bombers stepped off the train at King's Cross Thameslink station at 8.20.
However, the 0748 did not reach Thameslink until 8.42am; seven minutes after the Eastbound Circle Line train had departed from Kings Cross, which later exploded between Liverpool St. and Aldgate.
So did they teleport themselves onto the underground?
The bus bomber aparantly buys a battery, buys breakfast then where does he go? because the bus does not blow up till later.
Again no cctv. In central london everyone is caught on cctv many many times every day inadvertantly, yet these bombers seem to be invisible.
Maybe they werent really there. |
But they were definitely seen on the train from Luton that never was. According to our masonic Government. |
Didn't they have witnesses from this ghost train too? It's laughable really.
_________________
"Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither" --Benjamin Franklin--
ZUCO |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 18, 2007 12:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
| stelios69 wrote: | | Bushwacker wrote: |
No security people were kept busy. The exercises involved people from the company concerned planning what they would do in certain circumstances.
The CCTV could not be involved.
The Israeli embassy reacted only to the general alert given to all embassies after the bombs went off. |
how on earth do you know?
Verint Systems is the private ISRAELI company responsible for security of the London Underground system.
Do u work for them? |
No security people were kept busy because no one went near the underground, a few people sat in a room and talked about what they would do in a terrorist situation. That's all.
_________________
".......some partial collapse [of WTC7] would not have been suspicious......." - chek |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ZUCO
Moderate Poster
Joined: 22 Feb 2007
Posts: 179
Location: Manchester
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 18, 2007 12:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | No security people were kept busy because no one went near the underground, a few people sat in a room and talked about what they would do in a terrorist situation. That's all. |
Perer Power says they were running drills, he doesn't say they were sitting in an office talking, because sitting in an office talking isn't drills. See the difference?
_________________
"Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither" --Benjamin Franklin--
ZUCO |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
karlos
Validated Poster
Joined: 26 Feb 2007
Posts: 2516
Location: london
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 18, 2007 8:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
Listen, a security drill involving London Underground, would involve many people thus keeping many people occupied. Why did they announce a power surge before they realised it was bombs? Why were one 'patsies'. documents found at several locations?
What is it with bombers that their passports and driving licenses are indestructable and always seem to survive whatever explosion or fire takes place? And what is it with these suicide bombers always kindly CARRYING all their documents with them so we know straight away who they are.
I am surprised that people on this board dont get it.
21/7 was the real thing. CCtv images. homemade bombs, witnesses, evidence, etc.
7/7 is a hoax it is a false flag mossad / m15 / cia event
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
numeral
Validated Poster
Joined: 23 Dec 2005
Posts: 500
Location: South London
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 18, 2007 10:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
| stelios69 wrote: | Listen, a security drill involving London Underground, would involve many people thus keeping many people occupied. Why did they announce a power surge before they realised it was bombs? Why were one 'patsies'. documents found at several locations?
What is it with bombers that their passports and driving licenses are indestructable and always seem to survive whatever explosion or fire takes place? And what is it with these suicide bombers always kindly CARRYING all their documents with them so we know straight away who they are.
I am surprised that people on this board dont get it.
21/7 was the real thing. CCtv images. homemade bombs, witnesses, evidence, etc.
7/7 is a hoax it is a false flag mossad / m15 / cia event |
Was 21/7 the real thing? Why not a hoax designed to reinforce the idea of suicide bombers on 7/7?
_________________
Follow the numbers |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
johndoe
Wrecker
Joined: 03 Mar 2007
Posts: 181
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 18, 2007 11:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
"Why did they announce a power surge before they realised it was bombs?"
because that's what it would appear as.
"Why were one 'patsies'. documents found at several locations?
why would anyone plant them?
"What is it with bombers that their passports and driving licenses are indestructable and always seem to survive whatever explosion or fire takes place?"
books, especially ones with laminated paper and non-paper covers don't burn too well. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
