Joined: 10 Dec 2005 Posts: 2017 Location: Croydon, Surrey
Posted: Thu Dec 27, 2007 11:41 pm Post subject:
Nick Cooper wrote:
karlos wrote:
The Canary Wharf story was broken by a Reuters correspondant so one would assume that is a credible source.
No it wasn't, it was a "Reuters employee" - that so vague it could mean anything.
Yes, it could have been one of those hysterical transvestite buskers we often see around London........desperate, as ever, for a bit of random attention.
The Canary Wharf story was broken by a Reuters correspondant so one would assume that is a credible source.
No it wasn't, it was a "Reuters employee" - that so vague it could mean anything.
Yes, it could have been one of those hysterical transvestite buskers we often see around London........desperate, as ever, for a bit of random attention.
Posted: Mon Dec 31, 2007 3:42 pm Post subject: Why are you here??
Newspeak International wrote:
We all have issues with elements within our own security services Nick Cooper,which is probably why most are here on this forum.
What is your reason for being here?
Couldn't agree with you more Newspeak.
And Cooper, what is your reason for being here? I've read through some of your mindless tripe, and there doesn't seem anything constructive you have to offer. Government employee perhaps??
Posted: Mon Dec 31, 2007 3:54 pm Post subject: Re: Why are you here??
spiv wrote:
And Cooper, what is your reason for being here? I've read through some of your mindless tripe, and there doesn't seem anything constructive you have to offer. Government employee perhaps?? Government employee perhaps??
Not in the sense I suspect you are suggesting. In any case, do you think the opinions of people employed in the private or any other sector are inherently more valid than those in the public sector? Or do you subscribe to some other form of moral or intellectual apartheid?
And perhaps you'd care to indentify a specific piece of "mindless tripe" rather than resort of catch-all ad hominems? It seems that in my brief time here I've figured out a few very obvious things that seem to have (willfully) escaped others for months/years, which one would think would be of some value.
Joined: 10 Dec 2005 Posts: 2017 Location: Croydon, Surrey
Posted: Mon Dec 31, 2007 5:10 pm Post subject: Re: Why are you here??
Nick Cooper wrote:
I've figured out a few very obvious things that seem to have (willfully) escaped others for months/years, which one would think would be of some value.
Yeah......like when information comes from a 'Reuters employee' it was very likely to have been put into the public domain by the guy who cleans their toilets.
Joined: 18 Apr 2006 Posts: 1158 Location: South Essex
Posted: Mon Dec 31, 2007 5:46 pm Post subject:
That is quite rude,and you haven't answered my question either Nicholas.
Anyway,it's still a good film for slaves of both public and private sectors.
No CCTV footage of the July 7th "alleged" bombers of their
journey either!
Quote:
It seems that in my brief time here I've figured out a few very obvious things that seem to have (willfully) escaped others for months/years, which one would think would be of some value.
Joined: 30 Jul 2006 Posts: 6060 Location: East London
Posted: Tue Jan 01, 2008 10:39 pm Post subject:
I don't know if this has been covered, but clearing out and sorting through some old papers I found reference to following, which is probably of interest to 7/7'ers:
08/14/06 "Information Clearing House" -- -- I have been reading very carefully through all the Sunday newspapers to try and analyse the truth from all the scores of pages claiming to detail the so-called bomb plot. Unlike the great herd of so-called security experts doing the media analysis, I have the advantage of having had the very highest security clearances myself, having done a huge amount of professional intelligence analysis, and having been inside the spin machine.
So this, I believe, is the true story.
None of the alleged terrorists had made a bomb. None had bought a plane ticket. Many did not even have passports, which given the efficiency of the UK Passport Agency would mean they couldn't be a plane bomber for quite some time.
In the absence of bombs and airline tickets, and in many cases passports, it could be pretty difficult to convince a jury beyond reasonable doubt that individuals intended to go through with suicide bombings, whatever rash stuff they may have bragged in internet chat rooms.
What is more, many of those arrested had been under surveillance for over a year - like thousands of other British Muslims. And not just Muslims. Like me. Nothing from that surveillance had indicated the need for early arrests.
Then an interrogation in Pakistan revealed the details of this amazing plot to blow up multiple planes - which, rather extraordinarily, had not turned up in a year of surveillance. Of course, the interrogators of the Pakistani dictator have their ways of making people sing like canaries. As I witnessed in Uzbekistan, you can get the most extraordinary information this way. Trouble is it always tends to give the interrogators all they might want, and more, in a desperate effort to stop or avert torture. What it doesn't give is the truth.
The gentleman being "interrogated" had fled the UK after being wanted for questioning over the murder of his uncle some years ago. That might be felt to cast some doubt on his reliability. It might also be felt that factors other than political ones might be at play within these relationships. Much is also being made of large transfers of money outside the formal economy. Not in fact too unusual in the British Muslim community, but if this activity is criminal, there are many possibilities that have nothing to do with terrorism.
We then have the extraordinary question of Bush and Blair discussing the possible arrests over the weekend. Why? I think the answer to that is plain. Both in desperate domestic political trouble, they longed for "Another 9/11". The intelligence from Pakistan, however dodgy, gave them a new 9/11 they could sell to the media. The media has bought, wholesale, all the rubbish they have been shovelled.
We then have the appalling political propaganda of John Reid, Home Secretary, making a speech warning us all of the dreadful evil threatening us and complaining that "Some people don't get" the need to abandon all our traditional liberties. He then went on, according to his own propaganda machine, to stay up all night and minutely direct the arrests. There could be no clearer evidence that our Police are now just a political tool. Like all the best nasty regimes, the knock on the door came in the middle of the night, at 2.30am. Those arrested included a mother with a six week old baby.
For those who don't know, it is worth introducing Reid. A hardened Stalinist with a long term reputation for personal violence, at Stirling Univeristy he was the Communist Party's "Enforcer", (in days when the Communist Party ran Stirling University Students' Union, which it should not be forgotten was a business with a very substantial cash turnover). Reid was sent to beat up those who deviated from the Party line.
We will now never know if any of those arrested would have gone on to make a bomb or buy a plane ticket. Most of them do not fit the "Loner" profile you would expect - a tiny percentage of suicide bombers have happy marriages and young children. As they were all under surveillance, and certainly would have been on airport watch lists, there could have been little danger in letting them proceed closer to maturity - that is certainly what we would have done with the IRA.
In all of this, the one thing of which I am certain is that the timing is deeply political. This is more propaganda than plot. Of the over one thousand British Muslims arrested under anti-terrorist legislation, only twelve per cent are ever charged with anything. That is simply harrassment of Muslims on an appalling scale. Of those charged, 80% are acquitted. Most of the very few - just over two per cent of arrests - who are convicted, are not convicted of anything to do terrorism, but of some minor offence the Police happened upon while trawling through the wreck of the lives they had shattered.
Be sceptical. Be very, very sceptical.
As Britain's outspoken Ambassador to the Central Asian Republic of Uzbekistan, Craig Murray helped expose vicious human rights abuses by the US-funded regime of Islam Karimov. He is now a prominent critic of Western policy in the region. Visit his website http://www.craigmurray.org.uk _________________ 'And he (the devil) said to him: To thee will I give all this power, and the glory of them; for to me they are delivered, and to whom I will, I give them'. Luke IV 5-7.
Posted: Wed Jan 02, 2008 8:37 am Post subject: Re: Why are you here??
kbo234 wrote:
Nick Cooper wrote:
I've figured out a few very obvious things that seem to have (willfully) escaped others for months/years, which one would think would be of some value.
Yeah......like when information comes from a 'Reuters employee' it was very likely to have been put into the public domain by the guy who cleans their toilets.
What rubbish.
I never said it was "likely" but offered it as the polar opposite to those who - because it suits them better - extrapolate "employee" into "correspondent".
That is quite rude,and you haven't answered my question either Nicholas.
Anyway,it's still a good film for slaves of both public and private sectors.
No CCTV footage of the July 7th "alleged" bombers of their
journey either!
Quote:
It seems that in my brief time here I've figured out a few very obvious things that seem to have (willfully) escaped others for months/years, which one would think would be of some value.
I doubt it will be a surprise to most here,so you may as well spill the beans.
You're so interested, you look for them - they're all in my past postings.
Joined: 10 Dec 2005 Posts: 2017 Location: Croydon, Surrey
Posted: Wed Jan 02, 2008 9:20 am Post subject: Re: Why are you here??
Nick Cooper wrote:
I never said it was "likely" but offered it as the polar opposite to those who - because it suits them better - extrapolate "employee" into "correspondent".
What suits you better is to try and undermine any suggestion that 7/7, like 9/11, was an 'inside job'.
.......which, for anyone who takes the trouble to look closely, it obviously was.
Posted: Wed Jan 02, 2008 2:26 pm Post subject: Re: Why are you here??
kbo234 wrote:
Nick Cooper wrote:
I never said it was "likely" but offered it as the polar opposite to those who - because it suits them better - extrapolate "employee" into "correspondent".
What suits you better is to try and undermine any suggestion that 7/7, like 9/11, was an 'inside job'.
On the contrary, there are plenty of feasible ways in which some aspects of 7/7 could have been, but that is quite distinct from the ridiculously complex theories some people seem so keen to promote, and - ironically - your precious little "film" is a prime example.
Joined: 10 Dec 2005 Posts: 2017 Location: Croydon, Surrey
Posted: Wed Jan 02, 2008 3:40 pm Post subject: Re: Why are you here??
Nick Cooper wrote:
On the contrary, there are plenty of feasible ways in which some aspects of 7/7 could have been, but that is quite distinct from the ridiculously complex theories some people seem so keen to promote, and - ironically - your precious little "film" is a prime example.
It is not 'my' film, nor is it 'precious' to me.
I campaign on 9/11, not 7/7 which is a trickier kettle of fish because the physical evidence does not nail the issue in the same way as it does with 9/11.
However, 'The Ripple Effect' is brilliantly put together, shrewd in its analysis and thorough in its exposition......and although it contains speculation, that speculation is, going on the historical record, highly intellectually justifiable in my opinion.
I keep posting this film onto this thread because I strongly suspect that the purpose of determined naysayers is to keep this material away from the eyes of the hundreds who continuously scan these threads.
I think I know your purpose and am determined, in the pathetically limited context of this forum, that you do not win.
So, here you are folks....as long as there are government apologists (shall we call them) out there, shoving this video away from your innocent eyes....here it is.....take a look......an alternative and much more probable narrative describing the events of 7/7.
Posted: Wed Jan 02, 2008 6:39 pm Post subject: Re: Why are you here??
kbo234 wrote:
Nick Cooper wrote:
On the contrary, there are plenty of feasible ways in which some aspects of 7/7 could have been, but that is quite distinct from the ridiculously complex theories some people seem so keen to promote, and - ironically - your precious little "film" is a prime example.
It is not 'my' film, nor is it 'precious' to me.
So why act as if you're getting paid per link to it?
Quote:
I campaign on 9/11, not 7/7 which is a trickier kettle of fish because the physical evidence does not nail the issue in the same way as it does with 9/11.
However, 'The Ripple Effect' is brilliantly put together, shrewd in its analysis and thorough in its exposition......and although it contains speculation, that speculation is, going on the historical record, highly intellectually justifiable in my opinion.
Which says more about your critical faculties than the "quality" of the "film".
Quote:
I keep posting this film onto this thread because I strongly suspect that the purpose of determined naysayers is to keep this material away from the eyes of the hundreds who continuously scan these threads.
How paranoid. If you see something you think is *, presumably you won't be shy of telling people that you think it is? How exactly is telling someone that something is * stopping them from wasting their own time, if they want to judge for themselves?
Joined: 10 Dec 2005 Posts: 2017 Location: Croydon, Surrey
Posted: Wed Jan 02, 2008 9:14 pm Post subject: Re: Why are you here??
Nick Cooper wrote:
How paranoid. If you see something you think is *, presumably you won't be shy of telling people that you think it is? How exactly is telling someone that something is * stopping them from wasting their own time, if they want to judge for themselves?
Say what you like (I can't make any sense of this comment anyway).
I want as many people as possible to see the video.
Furthermore.
If I agreed with the mainstream media and government line on something I would not be worried about trying to discourage people from an alternative view because I would know there is a multi-billion pound machine paying its employees good money and that they are pushing this line for me 24 hours a day.
I think I can fairly claim to have a good personal reason for being here.
I believe that the government narrative about the "War On Terror' is a load of lying murderous (let's use your word) *. I believe it is but one aspect of a profound corruption that seethes beneath the surface of most aspects of our national life.
I believe that the most powerful promoters of this lying poison wish to create a single world government and that in order to achieve this end they are quite happy to drag us all into another world war. This is clear from evidence from many sources including many of this governments own documents. There is some evidence that an attack on Iran would have already taken place had the US military, supported by elements within the intelligence services, not refused to take orders and resisted their political leaders.
I think these issues, if they continue to be ignored and misunderstood by the public, could easily kill us all.
This is why I do all I can to contradict the tsunami of lies generated by the mainstream media every single day.
I find it difficult to understand, frankly, why any government sympathiser would spend a great deal of their time posting on this forum. I mean, why bother?
You've already got every mainstream outlet saying what you want to hear.
I can understand the government being worried about 9/11 truthers (and the 7/7 activists) but not ordinary members of the public. I would have thought that any unaware or 'uncommitted' member of the public would surely welcome a full airing of all these controversial 9/11 and 7/7 issues in the public domain.....if only so that the appropriate heavyweights could step forward and demonstrate openly what a bunch of stupid little nitwits are those that talk about 'inside jobs'.
Don't you agree?
But they won't do it, will they?
I understand why they won't....
......but I genuinely can't understand what you're up to on this site Nick Cooper.
There have been many here like you.
Others on this site disagree and argue the toss but there are some, like yourself, who only jeer at and contradict anything and everything.
Again, why bother?
Your side is winning ten-nil at the moment, aren't you?.........so why bother!!
Who is this Nick Cooper character and why is he swearing?
Is he a shill suspect?
Would any serious person dis this film?
The julyseventhites seriously do
Nick might be an agent but not to strong
After all he swears, which suggests someone only professing his scepticism
Still, no matter, it's still a good film _________________ http://www.exopolitics-leeds.co.uk/introduction
How would we know one way or the other? Whilst there may be a case for asking supporters of the official July 7 narrative to post in critics corner, I see no value speculating whether someone is a 'shill' without evidence. Having said this, I'm not even sure if Nick does accept the official narrative, although he is clearly unconvinced by MuadDib's one.
Whilst there is some interesting stuff in the film, I can find plenty to fault in it both factual and stylistic. Beyond that, Muad's wider message is not one that resonates with me.
Joined: 25 Jul 2005 Posts: 18335 Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England
Posted: Thu Jan 03, 2008 2:18 am Post subject:
I get frustrated with seemingly pointless posts about an excellent amateur film.
May be overreacting a bit.
Sorry chief.
ian neal wrote:
TonyGosling wrote:
Who is this Nick Cooper character .........?
Is he a shill suspect?
Would any serious person dis this film?
How would we know one way or the other? Whilst there may be a case for asking supporters of the official July 7 narrative to post in critics corner, I see no value speculating whether someone is a 'shill' without evidence. Having said this, I'm not even sure if Nick does accept the official narrative, although he is clearly unconvinced by MuadDib's one.
Whilst there is some interesting stuff in the film, I can find plenty to fault in it both factual and stylistic. Beyond that, Muad's wider message is not one that resonates with me.
Who is this Nick Cooper character and why is he swearing?
Is he a shill suspect?
Would any serious person dis this film?
The julyseventhites seriously do
Nick might be an agent but not to strong
Oh, please, get over yourself. Why is it that people here seem to love the idea that they're really the focus of that sort of attention? It stands to reason that if there really is anyone "watching" you all, they're either saying little or doing their best to blend in without suspicion.
Quote:
After all he swears, which suggests someone only professing his scepticism
I said "bo11ocks" - which should get past your prissy filtering - which is hardly "swearing". Read it as "rubbish" if it still offends your delicate sensibilities.
Joined: 27 Jul 2005 Posts: 881 Location: Woking, Surrey, UK
Posted: Sat Jan 05, 2008 11:37 pm Post subject:
The Reuters correspondent was working at his desk in Canary Wharf and looked out of his window and saw what happened. He was a New Zealand citizen and phoned his mother at home, and she phoned The Sun in London. That's how the story got out.
Joined: 19 Feb 2007 Posts: 410 Location: Sheffield
Posted: Sun Jan 06, 2008 1:06 am Post subject:
Can people get over the fact that others 'swear',they're only words.Do you find the word 'rose' offensive ,thought not, but f*ck ,hey don't say that ,ptttft,it's just words with connatations imposed on you by the PTB _________________ "The people will believe what the media tells them they believe." George Orwell
Posted: Sun Jan 06, 2008 2:22 am Post subject: Re: Why are you here??
Nick Cooper wrote:
spiv wrote:
And Cooper, what is your reason for being here? I've read through some of your mindless tripe, and there doesn't seem anything constructive you have to offer. Government employee perhaps?? Government employee perhaps??
Not in the sense I suspect you are suggesting. In any case, do you think the opinions of people employed in the private or any other sector are inherently more valid than those in the public sector? Or do you subscribe to some other form of moral or intellectual apartheid?
Although of minor significance, I've been a member for quite a few months Mr Cooper; however in that time I can assure you that Spiv is the last person on earth who would exercise any form of moral or intellectual apartheid, as you say. He doesn’t need me to defend his comments either, but I will in this instance.
Quote:
And perhaps you'd care to identify a specific piece of "mindless tripe" rather than resort of catch-all ad hominems? It seems that in my brief time here I've figured out a few very obvious things that seem to have (willfully) escaped others for months/years, which one would think would be of some value.
Perhaps you would care to identify "the few very obvious things that seem to have (willfully) escaped others for months/years, which one would think would be of some value" rather than practising casuistry. Perhaps the "one" who would think they are of some value is simply "one" being you. However I'm open as I’m sure is Spiv and Tony Gosling and the others on this message board to hear you out, so please extirpate these fallacies to which we cling so that we may extricate ourselves from our wilfully self imposed intellectual abyss.
Despite Maud’dib’s film being speculative and yes agreed containing inaccuracies; it does one thing very well. That is, it makes people think, enough to realise that the official narrative is also full of inaccuracies and so a work of fiction.
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
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
