Joined: 30 Jul 2006 Posts: 6060 Location: East London
Posted: Sat Jun 26, 2010 8:26 pm Post subject: Re: DANIEL TALK TUES 5/7/10
KEVIN wrote:
5/7/10 IS A MONDAY SO IS TALK ON TUESDAY 6/7/10
I/M GOING TO COME
I ain't! _________________ '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.
Will this be like last year, whereby Daniel Adigwe charges people £5 to walk around London before sitting them down in a pub, taking photos of them and calling them MOD?
Last edited by Chi_of_life on Mon Jun 28, 2010 2:13 pm; edited 2 times in total
Is there any reason for the postponement until July 20? I notice the event remains unlisted on Conway Hall's website. After the 'confusion' and 'cancellation' of your previous event last year at Conway Hall, I trust you have secured your booking with a deposit and booking contract.
I'm also interested in your co-sponsor for the event, Floran Publishing.
Out of interest what books other than the 4th Bomb and Terror on the Tube have Floran published and how do you know the 4th bomb is THE most successful self-published book in history.
Is your association with Emerald limited to website design?
Finally what is the truth about the accusation that your true name is daniel adigwe? And would this Daniel A be related to you? http://www.facebook.com/daniel.adigwe
He bears a striking similarity to you and certainly seems to like your book
Joined: 25 Jul 2005 Posts: 18335 Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England
Posted: Tue Jun 29, 2010 11:26 pm Post subject:
Ian,
You're jumping on Bridget's usual mean-spirited bandwagon here.
Let her show herself up for what she is but don't parrot it.
Daniel's last talk wasn't listed on the Conway Hall website either.
I'm assuming they don't put private bookings up there only those organised by the rather strange Secular Society that run the hall.
No honest 7/7 truth camaigner has a right to discredit Daniel without cast iron evidence.
I admit Daniel can be a difficult character to trust but that doesn't mean you should put yourself in the role of his accuser.
Can we use the good old 'inocent until proven guilty rule here please.
Ian,
You're jumping on Bridget's usual mean-spirited bandwagon here.
Not at all. I drew my conclusions about DO all by myself
TonyGosling wrote:
Daniel's last talk wasn't listed on the Conway Hall website either. I'm assuming they don't put private bookings up there only those organised by the rather strange Secular Society that run the hall.
Did you follow the fiasco that surrounded the location of Daniel and Nick's talk last year? In the end, people were charged for the privalege of sitting in the corner of a pub having been dragged from pillar to post past various supposed alternative venues that failed to deliver. All the work of the MI5 apparently?
Strange there was never any problem getting Conway Hall to take the booking and list it on their website when David Ray Griffin spoke there
I admit Daniel can be a difficult character to trust but that doesn't mean you should put yourself in the role of his accuser.
Indeed he is a difficult person to trust. Unlike him I have not made any specific accusations. What I do do is ask him perfectly legitimate questions based on his various accusations and his failure to place any evidence that corroborates his J7 account or his accusations in the public domain.
Indeed you do much the same yourself. When DO categorically states that you supported Nick to develop his TerrorontheTube website, something that you know to be untrue, you ask him for his evidence.
Whilst I make no specific accusation against DO you have to admit that he makes a good impression of a prize bullsh1tter and all-round con-artist
TonyGosling wrote:
Go to the talk, enjoy it, then critique it at your pleasure but I will tolerate neither legal threats nor accusations against survivors of terror attacks here.
I wouldn't waste my hard earned. I've seen him talk at the Indian YMCA and I wasn't impressed. Needless to say he was unable or chose not to provide any corroborating evidence to support anything he had to say. BTW I'm not making any legal threats.
Joined: 25 Jul 2005 Posts: 18335 Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England
Posted: Wed Jun 30, 2010 9:44 pm Post subject:
You are saying he's a fraud.
That is a character assassination.
I see Daniel Obachike as an inteligent person lucky to be alive, destabilised by fascist terrorists and the secret state.
ian neal wrote:
Whilst I make no specific accusation against DO you have to admit that he makes a good impression of a prize bullsh1tter and all-round con-artist
You are saying he's a fraud.
That is a character assassination.
I see Daniel Obachike as an inteligent person lucky to be alive, destabilised by fascist terrorists and the secret state.
ian neal wrote:
Whilst I make no specific accusation against DO you have to admit that he makes a good impression of a prize bullsh1tter and all-round con-artist
I'm not saying that
I'm saying he MIGHT be an "an intelligent person lucky to be alive, destabilised by fascist terrorists and the secret state"
But equally I'm saying that through his words and actions, by his throwing around unsubstantiated accusations himself, by failing to put any evidence in the public domain that corroborates his accusations or account of 7/7, by failing to answer legitimate questioned that are posed to him, by repeatedly displaying a relaxed attitude to the truth .... he MIGHT be a fraud.
Of course there is a way for Daniel to dispel such an impression and that is to put in the public domain EVIDENCE that supports both his 7/7 account and his accusations against those he accuses of working for the secret state. This afterall is what we were promised when he chose to team up with Nick Kollerstrom and speak at Conway Hall last year, evidence against WAC UK. An event that ended up being held in a local pub and where by all accounts (except his own) he failed to present anything noteworthy.
If Daniel feels this is character assassination he could always withdraw his own character assassinations against those he accuses and start acting with a bit more class.
andrew childs
I can confirm that I absolutely did NOT say in any of my statements to the press that I had seen a black man running away from the scene. Best regards AC
_________________ 'The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie -- deliberate, contrived and dishonest, but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic. Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought'. JFK
Joined: 25 Jul 2005 Posts: 18335 Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England
Posted: Thu Jul 15, 2010 9:39 am Post subject:
A great pity that Bridget Dunne (Prole) from the July 7th campaign and Ian Neal have both taken to circulating accusations about a victim of 7/7 ... rather than the perpetrators.
How they think their increasing the 'heat' on Daniel is going to help find the truth God only knows.
Daniel is innocent until proven guilty. It's quite simple really.
Looks to me as if both Ian and Bridget have somewhat lost their focus.
Watch Daniel's presentation for nearly an hour here and make up your own mind...
Joined: 07 Oct 2005 Posts: 632 Location: London UK
Posted: Thu Jul 15, 2010 10:18 am Post subject:
gosling wrote:
A great pity that Bridget Dunne (Prole) from the July 7th campaign and Ian Neal have both taken to circulating accusations about a victim of 7/7 ... rather than the perpetrators.
How they think their increasing the 'heat' on Daniel is going to help find the truth God only knows.
Daniel is innocent until proven guilty. It's quite simple really.
Looks to me as if both Ian and Bridget have somewhat lost their focus.
Your attitude on this is woeful, Gosling. I posted a comment left on J7 by Andrew Childes, a person that DO claimed saw him running away from the bus. No newspaper articles have ever been found by DO or anyone else that confirms this statement and Childes has stated that he never said it.
J7 review of the 4th bomb wrote:
Obachike claims that as a result of a Google search he found a report that "A bicycle courier called Andrew Childes saw a black man running away from the bus seconds after it exploded" (p 50). Whilst a number of articles citing Andrew Childes can still be found on the Internet, none of them has this statement about a black man running away.
a comment on the J7 4th bomb book review wrote:
I can confirm that I absolutely did NOT say in any of my statements to the press that I had seen a black man running away from the scene. Best regards AC
Your attempts to smear me, J7 & Ian Neal are pathetic. We cannot prove guilt or innocence, we can only examine the evidence, and the evidence for DO's story is lacking. He has also taken to accusing everyone that doesn't 'believe' him of being an MOD agent, and he is very content to circulate his own conjectures on blogs and websites without any evidence to back up these accusations.
Remember Gosling, there are none so blind as those who will not see. _________________ 'The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie -- deliberate, contrived and dishonest, but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic. Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought'. JFK
Joined: 25 Jul 2005 Posts: 18335 Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England
Posted: Thu Jul 15, 2010 4:13 pm Post subject:
The evidence for the official version is lacking.
Daniel's over reaction to being insensitively cross examined by anonymous online 'truth' campaigners is understandable, given the criminal blocking of all enquiries into the 7/7 attacks by top politicians and judges.
Seems to me that as the real perpetrators of 7/7 hide in the shadows some frustrated people would prefer to turn on anyone they can find, yes, even survivors.
Prole wrote:
the evidence for DO's story is lacking. He has also taken to accusing everyone that doesn't 'believe' him of being an MOD agent
Joined: 07 Oct 2005 Posts: 632 Location: London UK
Posted: Thu Jul 15, 2010 5:33 pm Post subject:
DO claims that Andrew Childes told the press he saw a black man running away from the bus - DO claims to have found this via a google search - he could have saved the article and produced a copy of it, what paper was it in, what date etc. Neither J7 nor DO can find or produce this version and Andrew Childes is saying he never said it. These are facts.
Perhaps DO can tell us where the account of a black man running away appeared.
Andrew Childes claimed someone saw the bus driver run away:
Declarepeace (who was compiling articles from the day) picked up the Scotsman article which is dated 7th July, and doesn't mention seeing a black man running away. (The beauty of the internet is that even if the story is edited you can be sure someone will have grabbed a copy of the original).
As you can see it doesn't have DO's version of the story. According to DO he was edited out.
From emails dated Dec 2006 when DO was picking the brains of J7 and we were offering him a lot of support with his disclosure:
Quote:
A cyclist/courier named Childes reported seeing me running but after the 8th
> they edited his story.
>
> Daniel
Quote:
Bridget,
I remember the cyclist/courier who saw me running away from the bus.
His name was Andrew Childes. They edited out his story because he had
thought I was the bus driver on account of my grey shirt and dark grey
trousers and the next day the driver was named as George Psaradackis.
Daniel
I expect that many people would have been running away from the vicinity of the bus, and why this cycle courier would have noted that 'a black man was seen' which would hardly have been relevant, whereas the bus driver would.
Link _________________ 'The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie -- deliberate, contrived and dishonest, but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic. Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought'. JFK
Daniel's over reaction to being insensitively cross examined by anonymous online 'truth' campaigners is understandable....
Bullsh1t
DO has never reacted one way or the other to any of my 'cross examinations'. That's the point. He doesn't answer legitimate questions. I only occasionally remind people of these questions because he continues to libel WAC campaigners as MoD agents whilst refusing to give any evidence to support his wild accusations and after he had made claims about WAC's involvement London group and the London group's history that I know (because I was there unlike DO) to be 100% bullsh1t.
And as you well know Tony there is nothing anonymous about me.
You see these little details matter (for example about whether Andrew Childes did see DO at the scene) because as far as I'm aware there is no one else that has corroborated his account. Now he may be who and what he says he is but in which case why the problem of presenting any evidence?
DO claims that Andrew Childes told the press he saw a black man running away from the bus - DO claims to have found this via a google search - he could have saved the article and produced a copy of it, what paper was it in, what date etc. Neither J7 nor DO can find or produce this version and Andrew Childes is saying he never said it. These are facts.
Please Prole, have you not lost focus.
Are you not just doing what many defence and prosecution lowers do, discredit any witnesses and both missing the bigger picture.
QUOTE (Bridget @ Jul 15 2010, 01:40 AM)
7/7 The Big Picture 7 - No DNA & Peter Power
QUOTE
Neil Flewitt, QC, prosecuting, said that expert Clifford Todd had examined the wreckage of the bomb sites.
He said: "It is, in the opinion of Mr Todd, noteworthy that at each scene, some personal materials and documents, such as ID cards, were found relating to the bombers.
"Although they were damaged to some extent, they did not show the damage that would be expected if they were on the body of the bomber or in the rucksack, suggesting that in each case they had been deliberately separated by some distance from the actual explosion."
source
[This would have been an impossibility for Lindsay as he squeezed onto a packed to capacity train.]
In the Peter Power section, Keelan, you have a couple of spelling mistakes: Crisis Management & prepare.
---------------------------------------
What evidence was there, that he Lindsay was even on that train?
Could he have been else where when we look at (investigate) the train times and the Canary Wharf scenario?
We could say the same about you Prole and your statements.
And is all of that a bit mute now, as we can confirm that there was indeed a drill involving about 1000 people that day confirmed by Peter Power (same place and time) and suggested by DO and others. That has been denied repeatedly by people in the “Truth movement” as just insignificant when all along in shouts Inside job.
Joined: 07 Oct 2005 Posts: 632 Location: London UK
Posted: Thu Jul 15, 2010 7:15 pm Post subject:
Andrew
I was just quoting the official narrative on a J7 thread that is about a much better documentary than the one you happily trumpet. But then I suspect you'd have difficulty in understanding the difference between fact & fiction. Wanting to believe something doesn't make it true. Your Messiah may believe his story is "99.99%" what actually happened, but that doesn't make it so.
Now, I've had my say, answered my accusers and slanderers, posted up some evidence & facts, and I'll happily leave this scurrilous conversation.
I don't know how you can stand it here Ian, it feels more and more like the threads on U75 and the drivel of RN's obedient attack dogs rather than a place where open minded and thoughtful people can actually discuss anything. _________________ 'The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie -- deliberate, contrived and dishonest, but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic. Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought'. JFK
Joined: 23 Dec 2005 Posts: 500 Location: South London
Posted: Thu Jul 15, 2010 7:16 pm Post subject:
Andrew. wrote:
...
And is all of that a bit mute ['moot' is the word you are searching for, Andrew] now, as we can confirm [you can't] that there was indeed a drill involving about 1000 people that day confirmed by Peter Power[ he didn't] (same place and time) and suggested by DO and others. That has been denied repeatedly by people in the “Truth movement” as just insignificant when all along in shouts Inside job.
I will take this opportunity to deny once again that there was a drill involving about 1000 people happening on the day.
Andrew, I urge you to cease this abuse of the English language even if you can't curb your self-abuse. _________________ Follow the numbers
Last edited by numeral on Thu Jul 15, 2010 8:04 pm; edited 1 time in total
Joined: 07 Oct 2005 Posts: 632 Location: London UK
Posted: Thu Jul 15, 2010 7:33 pm Post subject:
See here for posts removed from this thread by Gosling.
edit: Gosling has now locked the original thread, all these posts were removed from here. _________________ 'The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie -- deliberate, contrived and dishonest, but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic. Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought'. JFK
Last edited by Prole on Thu Jul 15, 2010 9:44 pm; edited 1 time in total
Tony says he "hopes someone will be able to film" the talk -
- they won't.
Daniel hired a bouncer to stop anyone filming his last "lecture" and threw out one person for trying to do so.
The next day he wrote up the event with a version of events bearing not even the slightest resemblance of reality.
Daniel Obachike is a compulsive and repulsive liar, if you doubt me, find out for your self.
Go along and pay him a fiver, tenner, or whatever he will charge. He won't have paid for Conway Hall to be booked - although he will pretend he did and he'll make some vague excuse about the MOD trying to silence him and take you to a venue that cost him nothing to book like the back room of a pub.
Then he'll babble a load of nonsense about a subject without presenting a shred of evidence for anything he says.
Now this is the key part -
- A week later look at his blog or the website he stole off Nick Kollerstrom and read his write up of the event -
This will confirm to you what everyone on this thread is saying - what he says happened and what actually happened will bear no resemblance to each other.
He will not be able to help him self because he is incapable of telling the truth.
Tony Gosling - why don't YOU go to Conway Hall and see this for yourself and stop backing this complete and utter fraud. _________________
I was just quoting the official narrative on a J7 thread that is about a much better documentary than the one you happily trumpet. But then I suspect you'd have difficulty in understanding the difference between fact & fiction. Wanting to believe something doesn't make it true. Your Messiah may believe his story is "99.99%" what actually happened, but that doesn't make it so.
Now, I've had my say, answered my accusers and slanderers, posted up some evidence & facts, and I'll happily leave this scurrilous conversation.
I don't know how you can stand it here Ian, it feels more and more like the threads on U75 and the drivel of RN's obedient attack dogs rather than a place where open minded and thoughtful people can actually discuss anything.
That’s right turn it all up side down (Just like, who was it that made a self proclaimed 1000 year rule) that isn’t going to happen
Tony says he "hopes someone will be able to film" the talk -
- they won't.
Daniel hired a bouncer to stop anyone filming his last "lecture" and threw out one person for trying to do so.
The next day he wrote up the event with a version of events bearing not even the slightest resemblance of reality.
Daniel Obachike is a compulsive and repulsive liar, if you doubt me, find out for your self.
Go along and pay him a fiver, tenner, or whatever he will charge. He won't have paid for Conway Hall to be booked - although he will pretend he did and he'll make some vague excuse about the MOD trying to silence him and take you to a venue that cost him nothing to book like the back room of a pub.
Then he'll babble a load of nonsense about a subject without presenting a shred of evidence for anything he says.
Now this is the key part -
- A week later look at his blog or the website he stole off Nick Kollerstrom and read his write up of the event -
This will confirm to you what everyone on this thread is saying - what he says happened and what actually happened will bear no resemblance to each other.
He will not be able to help him self because he is incapable of telling the truth.
Tony Gosling - why don't YOU go to Conway Hall and see this for yourself and stop backing this complete and utter fraud.
"No good deed goes unpunished and no bad deed goes unrewarded". And DO knows it like we all do. And as he confirms about the planned drill (that we all know now took place ) he probably feels threatened.
Has he got more to add. Not yet.
Last edited by Andrew. on Thu Jul 15, 2010 8:20 pm; edited 1 time in total
Joined: 23 Dec 2005 Posts: 500 Location: South London
Posted: Thu Jul 15, 2010 8:20 pm Post subject:
Andrew. wrote:
.
I did catch that Numeral (I take that threat as real) be warned.
How ludicrous can a thread get? I can't stop laughing. If I were a conspiracy theorist I'd think the spooks were behind this but even they are not that stupid. I should stop feeding the trolls, I know. _________________ Follow the numbers
I did catch that Numeral (I take that threat as real) be warned.
How ludicrous can a thread get? I can't stop laughing. If I were a conspiracy theorist I'd think the spooks were behind this but even they are not that stupid. I should stop feeding the trolls, I know.
There is no sitting on the fence. Do you understand?
Joined: 23 Dec 2005 Posts: 500 Location: South London
Posted: Fri Jul 16, 2010 2:42 am Post subject:
Andrew. wrote:
numeral wrote:
Andrew. wrote:
.
I did catch that Numeral (I take that threat as real) be warned.
How ludicrous can a thread get? I can't stop laughing. If I were a conspiracy theorist I'd think the spooks were behind this but even they are not that stupid. I should stop feeding the trolls, I know.
There is no sitting on the fence. Do you understand?
Or, as George Bush would say, you are either with us or with the Woolwich. _________________ Follow the numbers
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
