| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Nick Cooper
Suspended
Joined: 04 Sep 2007
Posts: 329
|
 Posted: Sun Oct 21, 2007 8:44 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| stelios wrote: | Lets get in touch with Eamon Spelman at Harrods then, lets phone up Harrods on Monday and speak to him and listen to his story.
Agreed? |
Do what you like. I was offering a rebuttal to your claim that he "doesn't exist" because you couldn't find him. I would imagine, however, that cold-calling anyone is potentially counter-productive.
| Quote: | | Because dont forget your 'Dick' Jones turned out to be a dead end. |
On what grounds? There was a match on name, birth-place, past employment history, occupation (allowing for journalistic licence), and geographical area. How does that constitute a "dead end"? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
conspiracy analyst
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Joined: 27 Sep 2005
Posts: 2277
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 21, 2007 9:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Staraker wrote: | | conspiracy analyst wrote: |
Are you implying the evidence made available in the aftermath of 7/7 did not come under the jurisdiction of the Anti-Terrorist Acts? |
No, I'm asking you to demonstrate that it does.
I also note your abject failure to reply to almost all of the direct questions I have put to you over the last couple of days. Perhaps you would like to go back to my earlier posts and do so? Otherwise people may choose to think that you either cannot or do not wish to answer them. They're very obvious, as the sentences invariably end with a question mark (i.e. "?"). |
The Secretary of State is given extra powers under the Anti-Terrorist Acts.
When other sections of the state machine are given equal powers with the local bobbies then the local bobbies are invariably made redundant. Equalizing the power of investigation means that the local bobbies lose power.
Unless you believe in an inverse law. The power of the Secretary of State is weakened as other parts of the state machine are given new legal powers.
The killing of De Menezes for instance allegedly occurred not by the normal police force but by some other force, separate to, but under the jurisdiction of the Anti-Terrorist police. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
conspiracy analyst
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Joined: 27 Sep 2005
Posts: 2277
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 21, 2007 10:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | [quote="Staraker"] | conspiracy analyst wrote: | | Staraker wrote: |
The Copeland case has been seen by many to be dubious as to whether he is the real perpetrator. |
What a surprise.
| Quote: | | Notes From the Borderland has done some extensive research on that one. This case has more to do with introducing legislation which defends the right of homosexuality and in many situations first something terrible happens and it then is used as pretext to pass new laws. The issue is whether the events were orchestrated or just happned. |
So somebody blew up a gay bar to further gay rights...? Yeah. Sure.
| Quote: | | You now assert they did forensics on the train carriages. |
So presumably you think they didn't? Is that actually credible? It could hardly escape the notice of everyone in that field if nobody was working on that particular case, don't you think. Are we expected to believe that they're all being universally silent?
| Quote: | | Funny no ones seen it. I wonder why. |
Because we generally don't, regardless of whatever the crime is, except during legal proceedings. |
So when they released the detonator material for the Lockerbie plane crash and tried to force the MD of the Swiss based company to state he knew the Arab who is allegedly behind the bombings what are we to presume? This thing is not normal operating practice? Bombs went off in the carriage. What does the bomb residue show. Where did it originate from? Why the secrecy? After all Al Quaeda is in a cave on the other side of the world...
| Quote: |
| Quote: | | You seem to be arguing that 10 years after an event they will release evidence as in the Diana case and this will be taken to be a serious attitude by the law enforcement bodies. |
Where exactly did I say that?
| Quote: | | All you argue is that the police should retain whatever evidence they see fit for as long as they see fit to keep it. |
I suggest you re-read what I've actually said, not what you'd like to believe I said, which is pointing out the legal framework (i.e. PACE) within which the police retain, return or dispose of sized items (i.e. evidence).
| Quote: | | If the normal judicial proceedings were allowed and they weren't, |
Which proceedings, exactly? If you mean the inquests, although the time elapse may seem excessive to some, it's not so anomalous compared to other cases, many of them purely criminal which I think even you couldn't suggest otherwise.
| Quote: | | as most of the relatives were carted off to be kept by MI5 and undue pressure was placed on the families to accept the police version of 7/7, a lawyer would ask for the families representatives for evidence to be shown and evidence to be retained to clear their names. |
Proof? |
It was reported in the Sun that the wife of one of the alleged 7/7 bombers said Prove It in public. She was then carted off for 3 odd weeks. Its known as Extraordinary Rendition. They keep you in a room, torture you, threaten every known relative like the mafia of old and then you come out singing a different tune.
| Quote: | | But most of the families are selected by police psychologists beforehand. |
Selected for what?
| Quote: | | If you read todays serialisation of Norman Bakers seminal study on the death of Dr. Kelly he states quite clearly that the police namely Thames Valley police knew beforehand what was going to happen. |
Yes I did read it. Baker suggests that TVP knew of a threat to Kelly a few hours before it happened, but hints heavily that the killing was down to Iraqi elements.
| Quote: | | So did our police with 7/7. You can't carry out such an operation without elements of the police force being involved as they were in New York on 9/11. |
More people involved.... more people who aren't talking...
| Quote: | | Destroying a crime scene or removing a crime scene before independent forensic investigation may not be a crime in and of itself but it is shoddy police work. Whether its organised or not is beside the point. The biggest single terrorist atrocity on British soil ever and the train carriages are removed and destroyed and the only thing we have so far presented to us is from the US media (how did they get hold of it). |
You seem to be doggedly maintaining that non-disclosure equal non-existance about something that we would not normally expect disclosure of in the first place. Perhaps you would like to cite examples of legally unresolved cases where the sort of forensic material you think doesn't exist for 7/7 have been reported to the level of detail you think should be reported for 7/7? |
4 people and their families have been labelled suicide bombers, much like various irish families were before due to Britains honourable imperialist tradition known at home as 'fair play'.
After the miscarriages of justice for 20 odd years which Michael Mansfield was involved in uncovering, one would assume this type of evidence would be made available in the public domain as to how these 4 blokes were responsible. But like the Iraq dossier and previous to that the Evidence that Bliar had said he had seen for who caused 9/11 nothing has been presented to the public. Apart from CCTV images unrelated to any crime.
Much like your arguments. Any lawyer worth his salt would shoot them down in minutes. But then again I said before the victims in this were chosen and under police surveillance. This is the modus operandi of creating patsies. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
karlos
Validated Poster
Joined: 26 Feb 2007
Posts: 2516
Location: london
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 22, 2007 2:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Staraker wrote: |
| Quote: | | Because dont forget your 'Dick' Jones turned out to be a dead end. |
On what grounds? There was a match on name, birth-place, past employment history, occupation (allowing for journalistic licence), and geographical area. How does that constitute a "dead end"? |
Because i did a paid search on the company and called them up and there was no trace of any Richard Jones.
I invited you to do the same but you were happy that somebody had stuck an internet profile and that for you meant he was real.
I will phone Harrods today and try and speak to Eamon Spelman and try and hear it from the horses mouth.
So if any MI5 boys want to get a call diversion in place you got time to get it sorted lads.
_________________
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nick Cooper
Suspended
Joined: 04 Sep 2007
Posts: 329
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 22, 2007 7:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
| stelios wrote: | | Staraker wrote: |
| Quote: | | Because dont forget your 'Dick' Jones turned out to be a dead end. |
On what grounds? There was a match on name, birth-place, past employment history, occupation (allowing for journalistic licence), and geographical area. How does that constitute a "dead end"? |
Because i did a paid search on the company and called them up and there was no trace of any Richard Jones. |
Well, correct me if I missed it, but when I suggested the connection back in September, you came up with some company details which you failed to disclosed the origin of, despite at least three direct requests from me to do so. If by "called up" above you mean you telephoned the company (as opposed to "called up" the details of the company on said search), you did not say you had done so.
| Quote: | | I invited you to do the same but you were happy that somebody had stuck an internet profile and that for you meant he was real. |
You seem to be forgetting the Telegraph article that established a Dick Jones with connections to both Ardrossan and Maidenhead, i.e. where Jones was born and and where Compliance Technology is based. It strikes me that if anyone was genuinely interested in finding Jones, as you claim to be, that's an avenue of investigation as well.
| Quote: | | I will phone Harrods today and try and speak to Eamon Spelman and try and hear it from the horses mouth. |
Subtle. As yourself this, though. If you had been a witness to a traumatic event, say a car crash, in which people died and in which you could easily have been yourself, what would you think if someone - not a journalist or a police officer, but just a member of the public - rang you up out of the blue more than two years later, asking if you really were actually there, how do you think you'd react?
| Quote: | | So if any MI5 boys want to get a call diversion in place you got time to get it sorted lads. |
Paranoid. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nick Cooper
Suspended
Joined: 04 Sep 2007
Posts: 329
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 22, 2007 7:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
| conspiracy analyst wrote: | | Staraker wrote: | | conspiracy analyst wrote: | | The Copeland case has been seen by many to be dubious as to whether he is the real perpetrator. |
What a surprise.
| Quote: | | Notes From the Borderland has done some extensive research on that one. This case has more to do with introducing legislation which defends the right of homosexuality and in many situations first something terrible happens and it then is used as pretext to pass new laws. The issue is whether the events were orchestrated or just happned. |
So somebody blew up a gay bar to further gay rights...? Yeah. Sure.
| Quote: | | You now assert they did forensics on the train carriages. |
So presumably you think they didn't? Is that actually credible? It could hardly escape the notice of everyone in that field if nobody was working on that particular case, don't you think. Are we expected to believe that they're all being universally silent?
| Quote: | | Funny no ones seen it. I wonder why. |
Because we generally don't, regardless of whatever the crime is, except during legal proceedings. |
So when they released the detonator material for the Lockerbie plane crash and tried to force the MD of the Swiss based company to state he knew the Arab who is allegedly behind the bombings what are we to presume? This thing is not normal operating practice? Bombs went off in the carriage. What does the bomb residue show. Where did it originate from? Why the secrecy? After all Al Quaeda is in a cave on the other side of the world... |
That would depend on whether you believe the AQ connection is anythign other than extremely tenuous, if at all....
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
| Quote: | | You seem to be arguing that 10 years after an event they will release evidence as in the Diana case and this will be taken to be a serious attitude by the law enforcement bodies. |
Where exactly did I say that?
| Quote: | | All you argue is that the police should retain whatever evidence they see fit for as long as they see fit to keep it. |
I suggest you re-read what I've actually said, not what you'd like to believe I said, which is pointing out the legal framework (i.e. PACE) within which the police retain, return or dispose of sized items (i.e. evidence).
| Quote: | | If the normal judicial proceedings were allowed and they weren't, |
Which proceedings, exactly? If you mean the inquests, although the time elapse may seem excessive to some, it's not so anomalous compared to other cases, many of them purely criminal which I think even you couldn't suggest otherwise.
| Quote: | | as most of the relatives were carted off to be kept by MI5 and undue pressure was placed on the families to accept the police version of 7/7, a lawyer would ask for the families representatives for evidence to be shown and evidence to be retained to clear their names. |
Proof? |
It was reported in the Sun that the wife of one of the alleged 7/7 bombers said Prove It in public. She was then carted off for 3 odd weeks. Its known as Extraordinary Rendition. They keep you in a room, torture you, threaten every known relative like the mafia of old and then you come out singing a different tune. |
Cite?
| Quote: | | Quote: | | Quote: | | But most of the families are selected by police psychologists beforehand. |
Selected for what?
| Quote: | | If you read todays serialisation of Norman Bakers seminal study on the death of Dr. Kelly he states quite clearly that the police namely Thames Valley police knew beforehand what was going to happen. |
Yes I did read it. Baker suggests that TVP knew of a threat to Kelly a few hours before it happened, but hints heavily that the killing was down to Iraqi elements.
| Quote: | | So did our police with 7/7. You can't carry out such an operation without elements of the police force being involved as they were in New York on 9/11. |
More people involved.... more people who aren't talking...
| Quote: | | Destroying a crime scene or removing a crime scene before independent forensic investigation may not be a crime in and of itself but it is shoddy police work. Whether its organised or not is beside the point. The biggest single terrorist atrocity on British soil ever and the train carriages are removed and destroyed and the only thing we have so far presented to us is from the US media (how did they get hold of it). |
You seem to be doggedly maintaining that non-disclosure equal non-existance about something that we would not normally expect disclosure of in the first place. Perhaps you would like to cite examples of legally unresolved cases where the sort of forensic material you think doesn't exist for 7/7 have been reported to the level of detail you think should be reported for 7/7? |
4 people and their families have been labelled suicide bombers, much like various irish families were before due to Britains honourable imperialist tradition known at home as 'fair play'. |
Really? Exactly which Irish families were "labelled suicide bombers"? If you mean just "bombers," you should be both more aware of your use of English. You might also be mindful about the fact that many IRA volunteers were all too ready to admit to what they did. Surely you're not suggesting that everything done in the IRA's name was actually MI5/MI6/RUC/SAS/whatever?
| Quote: | After the miscarriages of justice for 20 odd years which Michael Mansfield was involved in uncovering, one would assume this type of evidence would be made available in the public domain as to how these 4 blokes were responsible. But like the Iraq dossier and previous to that the Evidence that Bliar had said he had seen for who caused 9/11 nothing has been presented to the public. Apart from CCTV images unrelated to any crime.
Much like your arguments. Any lawyer worth his salt would shoot them down in minutes. |
And yet you chose not to deal with them point-by-point, but prefer vague and unsubstatiated waffle that is heavy on belief/prejudice and light on factual evidence.
| Quote: | | But then again I said before the victims in this were chosen and under police surveillance. This is the modus operandi of creating patsies. |
That may be the case, but issue is more whether using such patsies also requires the massive wider conspiracy you seem to think happened, involving many different organisations and scores if not hundreds of people, as well. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
karlos
Validated Poster
Joined: 26 Feb 2007
Posts: 2516
Location: london
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
conspiracy analyst
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Joined: 27 Sep 2005
Posts: 2277
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 22, 2007 10:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
Staraker,
http://www.julyseventh.co.uk/july-7-timeline.html
The copy of the Sun where the wife of one of the alleged 'suicide bombers' says Prove It.
I then heard she was held for 3 weeks and changed her tune.
Most people would, as after all having had something to do with the dissapearance of her bloke, anything may happen to her and her kids.
It has been commented how the 'suicide bombers' appeared normal run of the mill characters, not fanatics in any way or extremists. This is why they were chosen.
Most of the world knows Britains history despite it not being taught in British schools. They know they are experts in frame ups, false testimonies, lies, fabricated evidence etc. After all they are the country that leapfrogged into a new war with Bush and had an alleged lawyer as Primeminster. Lawyers as they know the law no more than anybody else how to commit fraud if they want to like coppers know how to get rid of controversial evidence.
Staraker would have us believe the government which on the back of TOTAL and ABSOLUTE lies, which has been involved in or knows who has perpetrated deaths of both politicians and government scientists that it has had no hand in 7/7 and everything is at is seems.
None of the above are conjecture or opinions but based on hard historical and up to date facts. If something cannot be logically explained there is a reason for that. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nick Cooper
Suspended
Joined: 04 Sep 2007
Posts: 329
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 22, 2007 11:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
So which did you try to contact?
| Quote: | Company is odd because it is clearly trading but has no website or adverts and addresses in business parks. The nearest you come to Dick Jones is Richard Blood. So either Mr Blood just told the newspapers a different surname as Rachel North has done which is suspicious anyway or is a different person,
http://www.friendsreunited.co.uk has no trace of a Richard Jones at Ardrossan Academy |
Hardly compelling "evidence" - especially going back to 1960, people who are on FU will definitely be in the minority of anyone who was at any given school. Even though I finshed my schooling more than 20 years later, I see that only around half of those I studied alongside are on the site.
| Quote: | | So i would say that if he exists and is an IT expert then he should be traceable. How are clients supposed to hire him if they cant get hold of him? |
Funnily enough, while looking on FU, I notice my best mate at senior school now works IT "customer service manager" and names a particular company. Checking up on it, they are based where he says they are, but his name doesn't appear anywhere on their website. Should I assume that he either doesn't exist or does not work for this company?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nick Cooper
Suspended
Joined: 04 Sep 2007
Posts: 329
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 22, 2007 11:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
This is the bit you need to cite proof for, not that she said "Prove it."
| Quote: | Most people would, as after all having had something to do with the dissapearance of her bloke, anything may happen to her and her kids.
It has been commented how the 'suicide bombers' appeared normal run of the mill characters, not fanatics in any way or extremists. This is why they were chosen. |
LOL! One can just as convincingly argue that anyone who is genuinely upto something is hardly going to draw attention to themselves. By your line of reasoning, we should find it suspiscious of someone being identified as a burglar because they don't go around with a striped jersey and big bag with "SWAG" written on it.
| Quote: | | Most of the world knows Britains history despite it not being taught in British schools. They know they are experts in frame ups, false testimonies, lies, fabricated evidence etc. |
The governments of most countries have been guilty of the same sort of thing, when it suits their interest, but arguing that because they've done something in the past, then obviously they've done something in the present is about as morally sound as saying an ex-burglar must be guilty of a current crime because they'd done it previously.
| Quote: | After all they are the country that leapfrogged into a new war with Bush and had an alleged lawyer as Primeminster. Lawyers as they know the law no more than anybody else how to commit fraud if they want to like coppers know how to get rid of controversial evidence.
Staraker would have us believe the government which on the back of TOTAL and ABSOLUTE lies, which has been involved in or knows who has perpetrated deaths of both politicians and government scientists that it has had no hand in 7/7 and everything is at is seems. |
Well, since I've never said that, that makes you either a fool or a liar. Why is it that this sort of subject matter seems to attract people who either fail to understand or wilfully chose to misinterpret the motivations of those who point out when they're talking *? I can think of numerous ways in which the government could be involved, but none of them require the overly complex and all-encompassing conspiracies that you seem to favour. Quite frankly, it gets boring hearing people like you wittering on, claiming things are "impossible" or "unusual," even after it's demonstrated that they aren't anything of the sort. The last thing you want is for anomalies or ambiguities to be explained, because clearly you think that the quantity of "evidence" is more important than its quality.
| Quote: | | None of the above are conjecture or opinions but based on hard historical and up to date facts. If something cannot be logically explained there is a reason for that. |
You wouldn't know logic if your life depended on it, which makes your chosen moniker here even more hilariously ironic.
Last edited by Nick Cooper on Sat Oct 27, 2007 11:01 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
conspiracy analyst
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Joined: 27 Sep 2005
Posts: 2277
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 23, 2007 11:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Staraker wrote: |
This is the bit you need to cite proof for, not that she said "Prove it."
| Quote: | Most people would, as after all having had something to do with the dissapearance of her bloke, anything may happen to her and her kids.
It has been commented how the 'suicide bombers' appeared normal run of the mill characters, not fanatics in any way or extremists. This is why they were chosen. |
LOL! One can just as convincingly argue that anyone who is genuinely upto something is hardly going to draw attention to themselves. By your line of reasoning, we should find it suspiscious of someone being identified as a burglar because they don't go around with a striped jersey and big bag with "SWAG" written on it.
| Quote: | | Most of the world knows Britains history despite it not being taught in British schools. They know they are experts in frame ups, false testimonies, lies, fabricated evidence etc. |
The governments of most countries have been guilty of the same sort of thing, when it suits their interest, but arguing that because they've done something in the past, then obviously they've done something in the present is about as moral sound as saying an ex-burglar must be guilty of a current crime because they'd done it previously.
| Quote: | After all they are the country that leapfrogged into a new war with Bush and had an alleged lawyer as Primeminster. Lawyers as they know the law no more than anybody else how to commit fraud if they want to like coppers know how to get rid of controversial evidence.
Staraker would have us believe the government which on the back of TOTAL and ABSOLUTE lies, which has been involved in or knows who has perpetrated deaths of both politicians and government scientists that it has had no hand in 7/7 and everything is at is seems. |
Well, since I've never said that, that makes you either a fool or a liar. Why is it that this sort of subject matter seems to attract people who either fail to understand or wilfully chose to misinterpret the motivations of those who point out when they're talking *? I can think of numerous ways in which the government could be involved, but none of them require the overly complex and all-encompassing conspiracies that you seem to favour. Quite frankly, it gets boring hearing people like you wittering on, claiming things are "impossible" or "unusual," even after it's demonstrated that they aren't anything of the sort. The last thing you want is for anomalies or ambiguities to be explained, because clearly you think that the quantity of "evidence" is more important than its quality.
| Quote: | | None of the above are conjecture or opinions but based on hard historical and up to date facts. If something cannot be logically explained there is a reason for that. |
You wouldn't know logic if your life depended on it, which makes your chosen moniker here even more hilariously ironic. |
All encompassing conspiracies are four bombs or the blowing up of three skyscrapers?
An invasion of a country is a tad more difficult is it not?
You then say the governments of most countries are equally responsible in other words moral relativism the new fashion of academia?
Britain has been responsible for running most of the world from 1800 onwards and been responsible for two world wars. Now it is an appendage of the USA and is involved up to its neck in the genocide of Iraquis around 1 million.
The events in London are only a little sideshow to add justification to their illegal invasion and in order to keep the politicians in check.
If the irish situation showed us from the past anything is that the police would have to be double and triple sure they blamed the right people. By not doing so and creating so many inconsistencies they are repeating the past. Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nick Cooper
Suspended
Joined: 04 Sep 2007
Posts: 329
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 24, 2007 6:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
| conspiracy analyst wrote: | | Britain has been responsible for running most of the world from 1800 onwards and been responsible for two world wars. |
That just about sums up the depth of your moral and intellectual idiocy, which is clearly beyond either help or reason. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
conspiracy analyst
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Joined: 27 Sep 2005
Posts: 2277
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 24, 2007 11:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Staraker wrote: | | conspiracy analyst wrote: | | Britain has been responsible for running most of the world from 1800 onwards and been responsible for two world wars. |
That just about sums up the depth of your moral and intellectual idiocy, which is clearly beyond either help or reason. |
Taking into account they controlled a majority of the worlds markets and imposed punitive import duties to non-sterling zone products they inevitably created the conditions of a world war against them by their near competitors.
Imperial hubris is a lesson the USA never learnt. The British never appeared able to teach them either. Sinking together instead of separately seems to be what the future holds. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nick Cooper
Suspended
Joined: 04 Sep 2007
Posts: 329
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 25, 2007 7:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
| conspiracy analyst wrote: | | Staraker wrote: | | conspiracy analyst wrote: | | Britain has been responsible for running most of the world from 1800 onwards and been responsible for two world wars. |
That just about sums up the depth of your moral and intellectual idiocy, which is clearly beyond either help or reason. |
Taking into account they controlled a majority of the worlds markets and imposed punitive import duties to non-sterling zone products they inevitably created the conditions of a world war against them by their near competitors. |
So that's your pseudo-historical revisionist apologism for Nazism, is it? Pathetic. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
conspiracy analyst
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Joined: 27 Sep 2005
Posts: 2277
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 26, 2007 9:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
Modern Blairism always harps back to 1930's ...nazism. For the people in the colonies there was no difference if they were ruled by either France, Germany or Britain.
Nowadays they harp on about the nazi dictators Milosevic, Saddam and Mugabe. But they forget the genocides they have been involved in the last 2 decades.
So when you call me an apologist for nazism you have to prove what you say not offer moral relativism to excuse your own historical past and alibi the present which is a continuation of that past.
You are an apologist for US imperialism. You excuse every provocation they are involved in. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nick Cooper
Suspended
Joined: 04 Sep 2007
Posts: 329
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 26, 2007 3:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| conspiracy analyst wrote: | | You are an apologist for US imperialism. You excuse every provocation they are involved in. |
Well, that would again make you a liar, unless you would care to cite specific proof of the above, although I won't hold my breath. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ian neal
Angel - now passed away
Joined: 26 Jul 2005
Posts: 3140
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 26, 2007 5:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Oy remember it's nice to be important but more important to be nice |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
conspiracy analyst
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Joined: 27 Sep 2005
Posts: 2277
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 27, 2007 5:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Staraker wrote: | | conspiracy analyst wrote: | | You are an apologist for US imperialism. You excuse every provocation they are involved in. |
Well, that would again make you a liar, unless you would care to cite specific proof of the above, although I won't hold my breath. |
| Quote: | | I can think of numerous ways in which the government could be involved, but none of them require the overly complex and all-encompassing conspiracies that you seem to favour. Quite frankly, it gets boring hearing people like you wittering on, claiming things are "impossible" or "unusual," even after it's demonstrated that they aren't anything of the sort. The last thing you want is for anomalies or ambiguities to be explained, because clearly you think that the quantity of "evidence" is more important than its quality. |
You have invented a justification and indeed an alibi for almost everything in almost every thread related to 7/7.
In todays Mail there is an article of a bloke who attempts to travel 50 miles without being seen by CCTV. He states its impossible.
The 4 alleged suicide bombers pulled off the biggest single terrorist event since WW2 and not a single CCTV camera spotted them. It wasn't a power surge that happened on that day, but an invisible man surge.
They weren't even in London. No one saw them. No eyewitness was produced that saw them, no film saw them even a Photoshop job, indeed no one has seen them at all. Where they even there?
My bet is they weren't even in the UK at the time. No amount of waffle from you can square the circle.
If in the next year CCTV is produced that they were there, its fake. Why?
CCTV is produced to counter allegations that are rife on the net that all these jobs are inside ones. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nick Cooper
Suspended
Joined: 04 Sep 2007
Posts: 329
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 27, 2007 5:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| conspiracy analyst wrote: | | Staraker wrote: | | conspiracy analyst wrote: | | You are an apologist for US imperialism. You excuse every provocation they are involved in. |
Well, that would again make you a liar, unless you would care to cite specific proof of the above, although I won't hold my breath. |
| Quote: | | I can think of numerous ways in which the government could be involved, but none of them require the overly complex and all-encompassing conspiracies that you seem to favour. Quite frankly, it gets boring hearing people like you wittering on, claiming things are "impossible" or "unusual," even after it's demonstrated that they aren't anything of the sort. The last thing you want is for anomalies or ambiguities to be explained, because clearly you think that the quantity of "evidence" is more important than its quality. |
You have invented a justification and indeed an alibi for almost everything in almost every thread related to 7/7.
In todays Mail there is an article of a bloke who attempts to travel 50 miles without being seen by CCTV. He states its impossible.
The 4 alleged suicide bombers pulled off the biggest single terrorist event since WW2 and not a single CCTV camera spotted them. It wasn't a power surge that happened on that day, but an invisible man surge.
They weren't even in London. No one saw them. No eyewitness was produced that saw them, no film saw them even a Photoshop job, indeed no one has seen them at all. Where they even there?
My bet is they weren't even in the UK at the time. No amount of waffle from you can square the circle. |
None of which justifies your lies, i.e.:
| Quote: | | You are an apologist for US imperialism. You excuse every provocation they are involved in. |
So I'll say it again: Liar.
Come back when you can actually address something specifically, rather than spouting vague blanket claims.
| Quote: | If in the next year CCTV is produced that they were there, its fake. Why?
CCTV is produced to counter allegations that are rife on the net that all these jobs are inside ones. |
CCTV footage was presented at the Met/JCdM trial. Would you claim that it is fake, as well, just because it had not been released publicly before?
Last edited by Nick Cooper on Mon Oct 29, 2007 10:02 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
conspiracy analyst
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Joined: 27 Sep 2005
Posts: 2277
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 27, 2007 6:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Staraker wrote: |
| Quote: | If in the next year CCTV is produced that they were there, its fake. Why?
CCTV is produced to counter allegations that are rife on the net that all these jobs are inside ones. |
CCTV footage was presented at the Met/JCdM trial. Would you claim that it is fake, as well, just because it had not been released publicly before? |
What trial? This is a stagemanaged event. Who is taking who to trial and for what?
We have 'police' giving evidence behind closed doors, we have new versions of lies appearing and we are told ...footage was presented but because it has not been released to the public, would I claim it was fake?
Bliar saw the evidence for 9/11 that Bush didn't do it, but the alleged 9/11 hijackers did despite the fact that half of them have been found to be alive.
If the Metropolitan Police has seen evidence which it does not release to the public two and a half years AFTER the most major event in London, then they have reasons not to release it.
Photoshop is not up to date.
They want to keep us in suspense.
They haven't got their story yet as to what actually happened.
In a world full of lies, alibing what you read in the press and repeating it to me seem to you to be a response.
The problem is once again only you believe it. The issue is what are your motives and reasons. The answer is to be found there. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nick Cooper
Suspended
Joined: 04 Sep 2007
Posts: 329
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 27, 2007 7:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| conspiracy analyst wrote: | | Staraker wrote: |
| Quote: | If in the next year CCTV is produced that they were there, its fake. Why?
CCTV is produced to counter allegations that are rife on the net that all these jobs are inside ones. |
CCTV footage was presented at the Met/JCdM trial. Would you claim that it is fake, as well, just because it had not been released publicly before? |
What trial? This is a stagemanaged event. Who is taking who to trial and for what?
We have 'police' giving evidence behind closed doors, we have new versions of lies appearing and we are told ...footage was presented but because it has not been released to the public, would I claim it was fake?
Bliar saw the evidence for 9/11 that Bush didn't do it, but the alleged 9/11 hijackers did despite the fact that half of them have been found to be alive.
If the Metropolitan Police has seen evidence which it does not release to the public two and a half years AFTER the most major event in London, then they have reasons not to release it.
Photoshop is not up to date.
They want to keep us in suspense.
They haven't got their story yet as to what actually happened.
In a world full of lies, alibing what you read in the press and repeating it to me seem to you to be a response.
The problem is once again only you believe it. The issue is what are your motives and reasons. The answer is to be found there. |
And so you type a load of barely coherent drivel, rather than either justifying your lies, or admitting that you can't. Pathetic. And very, very boring. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
conspiracy analyst
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Joined: 27 Sep 2005
Posts: 2277
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 28, 2007 9:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Staraker wrote: |
And so you type a load of barely coherent drivel, rather than either justifying your lies, or admitting that you can't. Pathetic. And very, very boring. |
The moral of the story is trust the police. They have the evidence, they know who to shoot, they know what they are doing. Despite never presenting any to the public 2.5 years after the event.
The miscarriages of justice with the Irish are now being repeated with the Asians and Arabs.
When trust becomes like belief the new mantra, one knows one has no rights. No wonder your Labourites are proposing internment without trial indefinitely. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nick Cooper
Suspended
Joined: 04 Sep 2007
Posts: 329
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
conspiracy analyst
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Joined: 27 Sep 2005
Posts: 2277
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 28, 2007 7:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Did you see the article in todays Mail regarding the killing of a Cambridge student by the Doherty fan club?
The mother states the police carried out no forensic examination.
Despite one person admitting the crime the police still will not prosecute.
They refused to use the glasses of the murdered boy as forensic evidence.
The mother clearly states she used to trust the police. Now she thinks they are an abysmal failure.
At least you have a different experience and you are used to alibiing them over 7/7. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rachel
On Gardening Leave
Joined: 17 Feb 2006
Posts: 211
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 29, 2007 12:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
Astro3
| Quote: | | Fictional Nature of Rachel North’s Story |
| Quote: | | The totally fictional nature of Rachel North’s story becomes more evident when one considers |
| Quote: | | All I wish to establish here is that another untruthful book has been published about July 7th. |
| Quote: | | Out of the Tunnell by Rachel of North London 2007 |
Excuse me, this is not only offensive but libellous, particularly as a thread title.
You are entitled to your opinion, but to totally misrepresent my book as a work of fiction when it is no such thing is distressing, offensive and damaging. It's also clear that you haven't even read the book. Which is available to read for free in public libraries.
| Quote: | | NB, yesterday at the CAMPACC meeting, Rachel gave me the link for her excellent speech calling for an independent enquiry. Its on Milan Rai’s site: |
Considering you have actually MET me, it's even more rude of you. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
karlos
Validated Poster
Joined: 26 Feb 2007
Posts: 2516
Location: london
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 29, 2007 1:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
Rachel if you pop in every now and then to read this board why dont you ever answer the questions we keep asking you?
EG: Did you get the tube from Arsenal or Finsbury Park?
Was this before they closed due to the Cally Road fire alert or after they re opened?
At what time?
Instead of attacking Astro just answer these very straightforward qestions. Plus the many i myself have asked youto which you have never replied.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
paul wright
Moderator
Joined: 26 Sep 2005
Posts: 2650
Location: Sunny Bradford, Northern Lights
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 29, 2007 1:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
Rachel always gets a hard time here which is wrong. She ought to be able to answer out her case unmolested.
Lets give her a bit of Due Regard
_________________
http://www.exopolitics-leeds.co.uk/introduction |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ian neal
Angel - now passed away
Joined: 26 Jul 2005
Posts: 3140
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 29, 2007 1:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
| TonyGosling wrote: | Dear Astro,
I don't think this kind of language helps the cause of 7/7 truth. Rachel has not, to my knowledge, had an opportunity to explain or defend these claims.
I would much prefer something along the lines of 'As yet unexplained discrepencies in eyewitness testimonies', because that's what were talking abuit here.
|
Agreed |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rachel
On Gardening Leave
Joined: 17 Feb 2006
Posts: 211
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 29, 2007 2:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
Stelios, I am not under any obligation to answer questions here, particularly from someone who claims I am 'disinfo'.
I am only here because there is a libellous statement about my book on the boards which is defamatory, misrepresentative and misleading.
If you, or anyone else, wants to know the answers to your questions you can borrow a copy of the book from the library for free and read my story for yourself. I stand by every word of it and much of it is based on sworn statements made to the police and in the case of the 2002 incident, proved in the Inner London Crown Court. I have nothing more to say on the matter here and it is discourteous to expect me to answer questions especially for you when the answers have already been published in a book for anyone to read .
Ian, Tony and others have already pointed out that the statements Astro3 falsely makes about the book are unhelpful: please can you, or the mods edit the thread to reflect what has been raised by others. The thread title is particularly offensive. Astro 3 is entitled to his personal opinion but claiming my life is a lie or my witness testimony is false is libellous, and yes, I will get lawyers invoilved if I have to - and so will my publishers - but it would be easier if you just sorted it out, as happened before when someone broke the Sexual Offences Act legislation on this site when they posted about me.
Thanks
RN |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rachel
On Gardening Leave
Joined: 17 Feb 2006
Posts: 211
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 29, 2007 10:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Okay, who is a moderator here? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
