9/11, 7/7, Covid-1984 & the War on Freedom :: View topic - 7/7

FAQ

Memberlist

Chat

Usergroups

Calendar

Profile

7/7 - Still no CCTV or eyewitnesses
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 Next

9/11, 7/7, Covid-1984 & the War on Freedom Forum Index -> London Bombings of Thursday 7th July 2005

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill

Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628

Posted: Sun Mar 18, 2007 9:57 pm Post subject:

ZUCO wrote:

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?

I have referred you before to the full range of statements made by Peter Powers, as listed on a conspiracy website for heaven's sake, which make it very clear it was a paper exercise involving people talking in a room. Why you wish to ignore that and prefer to read things into his original broadcast that he did not say is a matter only you can answer.

paul wright
Moderator

Joined: 26 Sep 2005
Posts: 2650
Location: Sunny Bradford, Northern Lights

Posted: Sun Mar 18, 2007 10:56 pm Post subject:

Bushwacker wrote:

ZUCO wrote:

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?

God knows what the likes of Bushwacker are still doing here, but Peter Power clearly states that an exercise became real time, when an identical situation occurred.
It doesn't really matter if at the time of the bombings , the exercise was on paper with guys sitting in an office.
He clearly states that there was a potential structure involving 1000 people who could be immediately brought into response
Preparedness, in other words
_________________
http://www.exopolitics-leeds.co.uk/introduction

Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill

Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628

Posted: Sun Mar 18, 2007 11:18 pm Post subject:

dh wrote:

Bushwacker wrote:

ZUCO wrote:

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?

Lie away, dh, if it makes you feel good. It's what "truthseekers" do, I find. Why stop at just twisting the truth a little bit, though? Why not tell us that your cousin has a friend who works for MI5 and he says Tony Blair personally planned the entire operation? Go for the big one!
_________________
".......some partial collapse [of WTC7] would not have been suspicious......." - chek

karlos
Validated Poster

Joined: 26 Feb 2007
Posts: 2516
Location: london

Posted: Mon Mar 19, 2007 3:07 am Post subject:

ok answer this question, why did Blair the policeman say there were 4 bombers before anyone including the Met knew what the hell was going on? Then he retracted and said "im not saying there are 4 bombers" So we have the Israeli embassy issuing an alert before anything happened. how did they know? dont say chaos theory _________________

Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill

Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628

Posted: Mon Mar 19, 2007 9:52 pm Post subject:

stelios69 wrote:

ok
answer this question, why did Blair the policeman say there were 4 bombers before anyone including the Met knew what the hell was going on? Then he retracted and said "im not saying there are 4 bombers"

So we have the Israeli embassy issuing an alert before anything happened. how did they know? dont say chaos theory

Why do you claim that Blair the policeman said that before anyone knew what was going on? The police did not make a public announcement that they suspected four young British Asians until 13th July when they made their raids, but that does not mean they did not know what was going on before then. They had the first name, Hasib Hussain, in fact only 20 minutes after the bus blew up, when his family reported him missing. Blair probably retracted because he realised that at that point he had gone further than he had evidence for, in the same way that those being questioned are not described as suspects but as "helping police with their enquiries"

The AP story that the Israeli embassy had been warned in advance by the police was quickly retracted by AP. All embassies were warned after the blasts, not before.
_________________
".......some partial collapse [of WTC7] would not have been suspicious......." - chek

paul wright
Moderator

Joined: 26 Sep 2005
Posts: 2650
Location: Sunny Bradford, Northern Lights

Posted: Mon Mar 19, 2007 10:16 pm Post subject:

Quote:

Lie away, dh, if it makes you feel good. It's what "truthseekers" do, I find. Why stop at just twisting the truth a little bit, though

Lie? Reiterating the gist of what someone says and drawing an inference is a lie? Is this a redefinition of a word from the New Randi Dictionary?
Don't know why you're still here Bushwacker, I really dont
_________________
http://www.exopolitics-leeds.co.uk/introduction

Dogsmilk
Mighty Poster

Joined: 06 Oct 2006
Posts: 1616

Posted: Mon Mar 19, 2007 10:31 pm Post subject:

Bushwacker wrote:

They had the first name, Hasib Hussain, in fact only 20 minutes after the bus blew up when his family reported him missing.

Do you have a source for that?

The bus exploded at 09:47

The narrative reads -

Quote:

22:19 Amongst the many thousands of calls to the emergency Casualty Bureau, record of a call to the police emergency hotline from Hasib Hussain's family reporting him missing.

The beeb say

Quote:

2219: The emergency casualty bureau receives a call from the family of Hasib Hussain, reporting him missing.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5032756.stm

So, er, how would they know his name 20 minutes after the blast...?
And single it out from all those thousands of calls...?
_________________
It's a man's life in MOSSAD

Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill

Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628

Posted: Mon Mar 19, 2007 10:33 pm Post subject:

dh wrote:

Quote:

Lie away, dh, if it makes you feel good. It's what "truthseekers" do, I find. Why stop at just twisting the truth a little bit, though

No, dear boy, altering the gist of what someone says in order to draw an entirely false inference from it, that's lying.

And I am still here to point out the deceit of people like you.
_________________
".......some partial collapse [of WTC7] would not have been suspicious......." - chek

rodin
Validated Poster

Joined: 09 Dec 2006
Posts: 2224
Location: UK

Posted: Mon Mar 19, 2007 10:37 pm Post subject:

Bushwacker wrote:

stelios69 wrote:

Netenyahu was given a prior warning on 7/7, according to Haaretz. He did not show up for his appointment
_________________
Belief is the Enemy of Truth www.dissential.com

Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill

Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628

Posted: Mon Mar 19, 2007 10:38 pm Post subject:

Dogsmilk wrote:

Bushwacker wrote:

They had the first name, Hasib Hussain, in fact only 20 minutes after the bus blew up when his family reported him missing.

Do you have a source for that?

The bus exploded at 09:47

The narrative reads -

Quote:

22:19 Amongst the many thousands of calls to the emergency Casualty Bureau, record of a call to the police emergency hotline from Hasib Hussain's family reporting him missing.

The beeb say

Quote:

2219: The emergency casualty bureau receives a call from the family of Hasib Hussain, reporting him missing.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5032756.stm

So, er, how would they know his name 20 minutes after the blast...?
And single it out from all those thousands of calls...?

Here Second paragraph by Mark Urban
_________________
".......some partial collapse [of WTC7] would not have been suspicious......." - chek

Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill

Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628

Posted: Mon Mar 19, 2007 10:41 pm Post subject:

rodin wrote:

Netenyahu was given a prior warning on 7/7, according to Haaretz. He did not show up for his appointment

Because he was warned on his way there, after the bombs went off, not before.

Dogsmilk
Mighty Poster

Joined: 06 Oct 2006
Posts: 1616

Posted: Mon Mar 19, 2007 11:39 pm Post subject:

Bushwacker wrote:

Dogsmilk wrote:

Bushwacker wrote:

They had the first name, Hasib Hussain, in fact only 20 minutes after the bus blew up when his family reported him missing.

Do you have a source for that?

The bus exploded at 09:47

The narrative reads -

Quote:

22:19 Amongst the many thousands of calls to the emergency Casualty Bureau, record of a call to the police emergency hotline from Hasib Hussain's family reporting him missing.

The beeb say

Quote:

2219: The emergency casualty bureau receives a call from the family of Hasib Hussain, reporting him missing.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5032756.stm

So, er, how would they know his name 20 minutes after the blast...?
And single it out from all those thousands of calls...?

Here Second paragraph by Mark Urban

I see.

Quote:

MARK URBAN: The first piece of evidence came in remarkably less than 20 minutes after the No. 30 bus was blown up last Thursday. A phone call from the family of a man from Leeds to the Police Casualty Bureau. They reported him missing. Their relative appears, in fact, to have been the man who carried the explosives onto that bus.

That's an intriguing way of looking at things. A report of someone missing in a mass casualty event generating "thousands" of calls is hardly "evidence" - other than evidence someone is missing.
Putting aside for a moment the fact this directly contradicts the British government line, if his name was "known" within 20 mins it would be an insignificant name among many until further (actual) evidence were gathered. The fact is, the Hussain family would have no reason to call so quickly and would have no idea of where exactly he was supposed to be.
It would only be of note so quickly if you already knew who you were looking for. Otherwise, it pales into insignificance beyond these reams of alleged 'evidence' that emerged later.
I suspect this report is probably simply wrong, but would like to know where they got 20mins from. At any rate, Ian Blair & gang surely can't have known about him. It took three days for the coppers to pop round to the Hussain pad to get a photo to try to identify him. If they 'had his name' in any more significant sense than one on a list of thousands so quickly, then that's a bit suspicious...Ooh, you conspiracy monger, you!

Quote:

Blair probably retracted because he realised that at that point he had gone further than he had evidence for,

Or was supposed to have...
_________________
It's a man's life in MOSSAD

paul wright
Moderator

Joined: 26 Sep 2005
Posts: 2650
Location: Sunny Bradford, Northern Lights

Posted: Mon Mar 19, 2007 11:58 pm Post subject:

Bushwacker wrote:

dh wrote:

Quote:

Lie away, dh, if it makes you feel good. It's what "truthseekers" do, I find. Why stop at just twisting the truth a little bit, though

No, dear boy, altering the gist of what someone says in order to draw an entirely false inference from it, that's lying.

And I am still here to point out the deceit of people like you.

What you accuse me and all "truthseekers" of is what you do persistantly.
Beats me really
_________________
http://www.exopolitics-leeds.co.uk/introduction

Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill

Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628

Posted: Tue Mar 20, 2007 12:20 am Post subject:

dh wrote:

Bushwacker wrote:

dh wrote:

Quote:

Lie away, dh, if it makes you feel good. It's what "truthseekers" do, I find. Why stop at just twisting the truth a little bit, though

No, dear boy, altering the gist of what someone says in order to draw an entirely false inference from it, that's lying.

And I am still here to point out the deceit of people like you.

What you accuse me and all "truthseekers" of is what you do persistantly.
Beats me really

Your nose will grow if you carry on like this. Honesty really is the best policy, you know.

paul wright
Moderator

Joined: 26 Sep 2005
Posts: 2650
Location: Sunny Bradford, Northern Lights

Posted: Tue Mar 20, 2007 1:52 am Post subject:

And you are singularly incapable of it I've no idea why people here engage with you as you seem to have nothing but malicious intent and zero interest in finding out what has occurred and is occurring What you seem to delight in is wrapping up serious people in endless point-scoring. I find that suspicious and cannot be bothered with this kind of stuff any longer _________________ http://www.exopolitics-leeds.co.uk/introduction

ZUCO
Moderate Poster

Joined: 22 Feb 2007
Posts: 179
Location: Manchester

Posted: Tue Mar 20, 2007 2:25 am Post subject:

Bushwacker wrote:

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.

I just came across this post again and realised that the link you provided to prove me wrong actually backs up what I say. Keywords again like "simultaneous bombs", "precisely the same locations"etc. Did you even read it? It's from Julyseventh's website which is a site that disagrees with the official theory and they have a wanted poster for Peter Power on the page you provided me, that's hilarious.
_________________

"Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither" --Benjamin Franklin--

ZUCO

karlos
Validated Poster

Joined: 26 Feb 2007
Posts: 2516
Location: london

Posted: Tue Mar 20, 2007 6:43 am Post subject:

So we have learnt that an Israeli company is running all of London Undergrounds security since 2004. We also know that the Israeli embassey alerted Nethanayu that 7/7 he should stay in his hotel. we know that a security company was running drills that day involving the same locations as the bombs. There are no cctv images or eye witness statements implicating the bombers. These facts are not in dispute. The unanswered questions are: Was this solely a mossad operation or did it also involve M15? Why did Ian Blair announce 4 bombers then try and retract? Does that mean the met were involved or merely tipped off. Did the families of the bombers get coroners inquests for the bombers deaths where evidence would have been disclosed? _________________

Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill

Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628

Posted: Tue Mar 20, 2007 7:54 am Post subject:

stelios69 wrote:

So we have learnt that an Israeli company is running all of London Undergrounds security since 2004. We also know that the Israeli embassey alerted Nethanayu that 7/7 he should stay in his hotel. we know that a security company was running drills that day involving the same locations as the bombs. There are no cctv images or eye witness statements implicating the bombers.
These facts are not in dispute.

The unanswered questions are:
Was this solely a mossad operation or did it also involve M15?
Why did Ian Blair announce 4 bombers then try and retract? Does that mean the met were involved or merely tipped off.
Did the families of the bombers get coroners inquests for the bombers deaths where evidence would have been disclosed?

It makes you seem strangely disconnected from reality to post on a thread disputing a number of claims, that these claims are "facts not in dispute" Anyone reading the thread can see that they are in dispute, so who do you think you are kidding Mr Stelios?

Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill

Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628

Posted: Tue Mar 20, 2007 7:59 am Post subject:

dh wrote:

And you are singularly incapable of it
I've no idea why people here engage with you as you seem to have nothing but malicious intent and zero interest in finding out what has occurred and is occurring
What you seem to delight in is wrapping up serious people in endless point-scoring. I find that suspicious and cannot be bothered with this kind of stuff any longer

You are not a serious person trying to find out the truth, you are a person with pre-conceived ideas about what happened, who twists the evidence to try to support them. You are certainly not the only one who operates like that, but to call that activity "truth seeking" is deeply ironic.
_________________
".......some partial collapse [of WTC7] would not have been suspicious......." - chek

Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill

Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628

Posted: Tue Mar 20, 2007 8:11 am Post subject:

ZUCO wrote:

Bushwacker wrote:

ZUCO wrote:

Quote:

I'll cite the CCTV

Quote:

They involved similar but not identical targets.

You are really not very good at reading what other people post, but congratulations on getting this far, if you manage to move on a bit further you will see that I later posted:
"I have referred you before to the full range of statements made by Peter Powers, as listed on a conspiracy website for heaven's sake, which make it very clear it was a paper exercise involving people talking in a room. Why you wish to ignore that and prefer to read things into his original broadcast that he did not say is a matter only you can answer."
So your amazing and hilarious discovery is not quite so amazing and hilarious after all.

If you can keep the attention going long enought to actually read the link, and the statements quoted from Peter Power, you will see that they confirm what I said "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."

Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill

Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628

Posted: Tue Mar 20, 2007 8:24 am Post subject:

Those who like to point as evidence of a conspiracy to the false report put out by AP, later retracted but not before it had appeared in a number of papers, that the Israeli Embassy had received a prior warning from the police, might care to think about this: assuming that you are right, the police did know in advance what was going to happen, and that was because they knew of the false flag operation, why should they risk revealing their inside knowledge by warning the Israeli Embassy? It was hardly likely that the Israeli Finance Minister was going to travel to his appointment by Underground was it? And for those who believe the Israelis were behind it all, why should they announce a warning?

ZUCO
Moderate Poster

Joined: 22 Feb 2007
Posts: 179
Location: Manchester

Posted: Tue Mar 20, 2007 1:30 pm Post subject:

Quote:

"I have referred you before to the full range of statements made by Peter Powers, as listed on a conspiracy website for heaven's sake, which make it very clear it was a paper exercise involving people talking in a room. Why you wish to ignore that and prefer to read things into his original broadcast that he did not say is a matter only you can answer."

You keep saying Peter Power did not say the things I quoted, but it's a fact that he did, I even posted a video proving it, you can hear it with your own ears. Again: "precisely the same stations" it's not a misquote, it's his voice!
_________________

"Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither" --Benjamin Franklin--

ZUCO

karlos
Validated Poster

Joined: 26 Feb 2007
Posts: 2516
Location: london

Posted: Tue Mar 20, 2007 4:40 pm Post subject:

Bushwacker wrote:

stelios69 wrote:

Ok if you dispute anything. Tell us all - Where is all the cctv footage? Freedom of information requests were filed and nothing has been forthcoming
When were the bombers coroners inquests and where can i read the judgements?
_________________

ian neal
Angel - now passed away

Joined: 26 Jul 2005
Posts: 3140
Location: UK

Posted: Tue Mar 20, 2007 5:10 pm Post subject:

Bushwacker Based on the assumption that you are a critic, you should confine yourself to critics corner or face immediate ban

numeral
Validated Poster

Joined: 23 Dec 2005
Posts: 500
Location: South London

Posted: Tue Mar 20, 2007 7:23 pm Post subject:

Bushwacker wrote:

Those who like to point as evidence of a conspiracy to the false report put out by AP, later retracted but not before it had appeared in a number of papers, that the Israeli Embassy had received a prior warning from the police, might care to think about this: assuming that you are right, the police did know in advance what was going to happen, and that was because they knew of the false flag operation, why should they risk revealing their inside knowledge by warning the Israeli Embassy? It was hardly likely that the Israeli Finance Minister was going to travel to his appointment by Underground was it? And for those who believe the Israelis were behind it all, why should they announce a warning?

Bushwacker,

What is your evidence that the AP report was retracted? There were further AP reports on the same issue but can you point to a retraction?
_________________
Follow the numbers

numeral
Validated Poster

Joined: 23 Dec 2005
Posts: 500
Location: South London

Posted: Tue Mar 20, 2007 7:32 pm Post subject:

stelios69 wrote:

Bushwacker wrote:

stelios69 wrote:

stelios69,

The inquests are scheduled for June this year. Whether they will actually take place then is another question.
_________________
Follow the numbers

Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill

Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628

Posted: Wed Mar 21, 2007 12:31 am Post subject:

ian neal wrote:

Bushwacker

Based on the assumption that you are a critic, you should confine yourself to critics corner or face immediate ban

Sorry, I thought critics could post here on 7/7 issues, but so be it.

numeral
Validated Poster

Joined: 23 Dec 2005
Posts: 500
Location: South London

Posted: Wed Mar 21, 2007 12:48 am Post subject:

Bushwacker wrote:

ian neal wrote:

Bushwacker

Based on the assumption that you are a critic, you should confine yourself to critics corner or face immediate ban

Sorry, I thought critics could post here on 7/7 issues, but so be it.

Can I come in here to defend Bushwacker. I see no problem in someone asking for evidence to back up assertions or taking a critical attitude to the memes that circulate. We should welcome *'s challenges. Of course, I am equally prepared to challenge him.
_________________
Follow the numbers

numeral
Validated Poster

Joined: 23 Dec 2005
Posts: 500
Location: South London

Posted: Wed Mar 21, 2007 12:49 am Post subject:

Bushwacker wrote:

ian neal wrote:

Bushwacker

Based on the assumption that you are a critic, you should confine yourself to critics corner or face immediate ban

Sorry, I thought critics could post here on 7/7 issues, but so be it.

Can I come in here to defend Bushwacker. I see no problem in someone asking for evidence to back up assertions or taking a critical attitude to the memes that circulate. We should welcome Bushwacker's challenges. Of course, I am equally prepared to challenge him.
_________________
Follow the numbers

karlos
Validated Poster

Joined: 26 Feb 2007
Posts: 2516
Location: london

Posted: Wed Mar 21, 2007 2:40 am Post subject:

Bushwacker wrote:

[The AP story that the Israeli embassy had been warned in advance by the police was quickly retracted by AP. All embassies were warned after the blasts, not before.

you cant retract news.
Once they released it, it became news. The fact that they made a mistake releasing it changes nothing.
The Israeli embassy issued an alert prior to the attacks meaning they had a tip off meaning someone other than the four pakistanis knew about it and told them.

ps are you sure your name shouldnt be bushw**ker
because you seem to be an apologist for everything
face the facts we have been lied to about 7/7
_________________

Display posts from previous:

	9/11, 7/7, Covid-1984 & the War on Freedom Forum Index -> London Bombings of Thursday 7th July 2005	All times are GMT Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 Next
Page 6 of 7

Jump to:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum