9/11, 7/7, Covid-1984 & the War on Freedom :: View topic - J7 disregarding Peter Power statement?

FAQ

Memberlist

Chat

Usergroups

Calendar

Profile

J7 disregarding Peter Power statement?
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 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

Prole
Validated Poster

Joined: 07 Oct 2005
Posts: 632
Location: London UK

Posted: Thu Oct 20, 2011 6:55 pm Post subject:

Will Ian Crane be making an appearance on here to answer Numeral's and Conspiracy Analyst's points or to apologise for his outrageous statements? _________________ '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

Andrew.
Validated Poster

Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Posts: 1518

Posted: Thu Oct 20, 2011 7:03 pm Post subject:

TonyGosling wrote:

As I say it is entirely possible that the Peter Power statement is a red herring. That does fully implcate him tough.
Ie if that's the case who put Peter Power up to lying live on TV on 7/7 itself?
He's a key suspect to question whichever way you look at it.

"Red Herring", like this Tony:

"a false protagonist is a literary technique, often used to make the plot more jarring or more memorable by fooling the audience's preconceptions, that constructs a character who the audience assumes is the protagonist but is later revealed not to be."

And Ambiguity:

"Ambiguity of words or phrases is the ability to admit more than one interpretation. It is distinct from vagueness, which is a statement about the lack of precision contained or available in the information."

If people push the idea that it is not significant, it plays into the false protagonist technique. Which is what people are doing by saying it is not significant.

*But unfortunately the fooling of the audience's preconceptions, which the audience assumes is the protagonist but is later, revealed not to be.

And a false flags purpose is to frame people and to lead people astray when covering for people who were involved with the bomb planning, it would be advantageous for them to promote the meme of the drill and "Peter Power's statement" as cover and at the same time promote the terrorist meme.

*

Untill it meets Occam’s Razor.

Prole
Validated Poster

Joined: 07 Oct 2005
Posts: 632
Location: London UK

Posted: Thu Oct 20, 2011 7:30 pm Post subject:

scubadiver wrote:

They aren't interested in Powers' statement which I personally think is incorrect.

This is where I came in at - and this statement is false as it was stated that there were other drills that day (which J7 included in their submission to the 7/7 Inquests) - and that we only weren't interested in constructing alternative narratives that could not be evidenced, such as 'Peter Power recruited the 4 men for a drill that day' (ala 7/7 RE).

There is evidence though for Martin 'Abdullah' McDaid, Mohammed Junaid Babar and Muhammed Quayyam Khan being linked to at least 2 of the 4 accused. Sad thing is, this information was wasted on those already transfixed and obsessed with Power's statement - and this point has been shown clearly on this thread. Open minds are useful in researching and analysing the actual evidence, not just rusty old razors.
_________________
'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

Andrew.
Validated Poster

Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Posts: 1518

Posted: Thu Oct 20, 2011 7:40 pm Post subject:

Quote:

could not be evidenced such as 'Peter Power recruited the 4 men for a drill that day' (ala 7/7 RE).

False, what is wrong with asking the question of patsy or accomplice as many have? With unbelievable odds via Occam’s Razor for it being an inside job, false flag.

Quote:

There is evidence though for Martin 'Abdullah' McDaid, Mohammed Junaid Babar and Muhammed Quayyam Khan being linked to at least 2 of the 4 accused.

That's fine, it takes nothing away from Occam’s Razor of it being an inside job, false flag with unbelievable odds.

If your saying let it happen rather than made it happen, it’s a false dichotomy because if you let it happen, effectively (and at least, offered no reprove, admonishment) you have made it happen by intention, and the guilt is the same.

Quote:

Martin 'Abdullah' McDaid, Mohammed Junaid Babar and Muhammed Quayyam Khan

Also if they were linked to Mi5/6 etc I.E. working for them, and also linked to any of the 4 would they the 4 want to murder their own country men and other Muslims that could be on the tube-trains, and bus? And get blown up at the same time?

Andrew.
Validated Poster

Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Posts: 1518

Posted: Thu Oct 20, 2011 9:11 pm Post subject:

Quote:

Also that statement about scubadiver's statement is false because you have taken it out of context I.E. "They aren't interested in Powers' statement which I personally think is incorrect .................Are J7 limited hangout or they just being too overly cautious?"

All you have confirmed is that you will not consider "Powers' statement"

And further "there were other drills that day" this does not take anything away from the unbelievable odds via Occam’s Razor and "Powers' statement" for it being an inside job, false flag.

--------

"And a false flags purpose is to frame people and to lead people astray when covering for people who were involved with the bomb planning, it would be advantageous for them to promote the meme of the drill and "Peter Power's statement" as cover and at the same time promote the terrorist meme."

Which would be so important to them for people to do this below. Knowingly or unwittingly.

If people push the idea that it is not significant, it plays into the false protagonist technique. Which is what people are doing by saying it is not significant.

Prole
Validated Poster

Joined: 07 Oct 2005
Posts: 632
Location: London UK

Posted: Thu Oct 20, 2011 9:55 pm Post subject:

Andrew I posted the links to the J7 website on Power and despite all your attempts to state otherwise, all J7 are saying is: we are not interested in constructing alternative narratives that cannot be evidenced such as 'PP recruited the 4 men for his drill'. Get it? Now get off my back. I have no problem with you constructing any scenario you want, I have only bothered with this thread as it contains yet more attacks on J7.

The fact is that J7 come under attack more often than not from those who also claim to be interested in the truth of the events of 7/7, but in reality are only interested in maintaining the conjecture of 7/7 RE. This was the danger of constructing an alternative narrative and something we warned of when 7/7 RE was released:

Quote:

I think it is significant that the opponents of J7 have persistently used the taunt of "what do you think happened then?"; quite recently someone posted on another forum that we don't put our money where our mouth is. This is a trap. As soon as an alternative is put forward, the focus shifts from examining the official account to examining the alternative account

.
_________________
'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

Andrew.
Validated Poster

Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Posts: 1518

Posted: Thu Oct 20, 2011 10:23 pm Post subject:

Apologies, double post. Last edited by Andrew. on Thu Oct 20, 2011 10:28 pm; edited 1 time in total

Andrew.
Validated Poster

Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Posts: 1518

Posted: Thu Oct 20, 2011 10:24 pm Post subject:

Quote:

But many people are saying correctly (imho) there is overwhelming evidence via "Powers' statement" and Occam’s Razor. But it's your choice, which is fine, this is a public forum and people can make their own minds up.

Quote:

The fact is that J7 come under attack more often than not from those who also claim to be interested in the truth of the events of 7/7, but in reality are only interested in maintaining the conjecture of 7/7 RE. This was the danger of constructing an alternative narrative and something we warned of when 7/7 RE was released:

I'm not attacking you, just giving critical debate to help each other, which is what all this is about is it not? And of cause you can do it your way, it's your choice right or wrong. Wrong, imho.

Quote:

con·jec·ture (kn-jkchr)
n.
1. Inference or judgment based on inconclusive or incomplete evidence; guesswork.
2. A statement, opinion, or conclusion based on guesswork: The commentators made various conjectures about the outcome of the next election.
v. con·jec·tured, con·jec·tur·ing, con·jec·tures
v.tr.
To infer from inconclusive evidence; guess.
v.intr.
To make a conjecture.

Using evidence and Occam’s Razor is not guesswork but probabilities that are not conclusive but a line of questioning and provide overwhelming probabilities, rather than an agnostic view expecting criminals to come clean. It’s a way of putting pressure on the criminals and a way of encouraging others to reveal hard evidence.

So what is so wrong in helping each other and using evidence and Occam’s Razor?

Prole
Validated Poster

Joined: 07 Oct 2005
Posts: 632
Location: London UK

Posted: Thu Oct 20, 2011 11:29 pm Post subject:

Andrew what have you ever done to advance 7/7 truth apart from watch a video? _________________ '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

Andrew.
Validated Poster

Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Posts: 1518

Posted: Thu Oct 20, 2011 11:42 pm Post subject:

Prole wrote:

Andrew what have you ever done to advance 7/7 truth apart from watch a video?

Go talk to your husband, and remember when we love people we give and ask nothing in return, only give is necessary and it needs all of us to do that. It's not about competition and "self " aggrandising. And I do lots of useful things like you do too.

Prole
Validated Poster

Joined: 07 Oct 2005
Posts: 632
Location: London UK

Posted: Thu Oct 20, 2011 11:54 pm Post subject:

Andrew. wrote:

Prole wrote:

Andrew what have you ever done to advance 7/7 truth apart from watch a video?

Is that your way of saying nothing? My only experience of you is your constant attacks on J7 for not supporting the unsubstantiated conjecture of 7/7 RE. End of.
_________________
'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

Andrew.
Validated Poster

Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Posts: 1518

Posted: Fri Oct 21, 2011 12:09 am Post subject:

Prole wrote:

Andrew. wrote:

Prole wrote:

Andrew what have you ever done to advance 7/7 truth apart from watch a video?

Is that your way of saying nothing? My only experience of you is your constant attacks on J7 for not supporting the unsubstantiated conjecture of 7/7 RE. End of.

See above posts please prole. And I was appealing to any compassion within you, with a little tough Love as I really care more about you than you seem to perceive. If you really want to know what I do as you asked, I’ll compose a short letter and post it here.

Vinciguerra
Minor Poster

Joined: 07 Sep 2010
Posts: 27

Posted: Fri Oct 21, 2011 6:36 pm Post subject:

TonyGosling wrote:

It may be that Peter Power is a Red Herring?
Designed from the start as a diversion.
If so that is evidence of an inside job though.

Certainly a strange one.

Tony,

I disagree, or at least question what you mean by 'inside job'.

If it is a red herring then it's evidence of a false flag, i.e. someone other than the four alleged being responsible for the bombings. But 'false flag' is not the same as 'inside job'.

'Inside job' would presumably mean someone within the British state being responsible, which is a contention that isn't affected in any way by Peter Power's statement being a red herring.

I think it is important to distinguish between such terms and not just use them interchangeably.

ianrcrane wrote:

Bridget's attack on Nick Kollestrom following the publication of his excellent book, 'Terror on the Tube'

A book which is almost entirely devoted to trying to prove the 7/7RE narrative, and ignores all evidence suggesting otherwise, and frequently misrepresents evidence in service of its ultimate aim.

'Excellent' - like f**k it is.

Quote:

and her outrageous verbal assault on Tony Farrell at the weekend

I saw no such verbal assault, and I was present for the entire time Bridget was at the conference. This appears to be yet another paranoid fabrication used to try to discredit what is the most effective and dedicated 7/7 research organisation.

Quote:

There is absolutely no doubt that the J7 website is a fantastic repository of research and information but after six and a half years, no one outside of the 'Truth' Community is aware of it!

This is complete nonsense. They are, in fact, the only group to have got their research and the issues they talk about into the mainstream media.

Prole wrote:

Some people want heroes, martyrs & messiahs - J7 simply want the truth.

I don't know why (yet) Tom's section isn't included here, but judge for yourselves:

http://vimeo.com/30707958

Assuming this is the PSTV recording, Dr Steve told me they had a technical problem during my bit of the presentation. If I were as paranoid/thick as some people who shall remain nameless, I'd be banging on about the low statistical probability of that happening and alleging that PSTV are a limited hangout...

conspiracy analyst wrote:

There were training exercises during 9/11 and during 7/7. But were there any in the Madrid bombings or the bombings in Mumbai?

There was an exercise in the days before the Madrid bombings. There was no exercise in Mumbai. Likewise there was no exercise during the false flag bombings by the CIA during their coup in Iran in '53, or in most of the attacks carried out as part of Gladio, or during any of the Irish attacks that in some way involved the British state. There was an exercise shortly before the 1995 OKC bombing.

What is perhaps most significant about the 'false flag exercise theory' is the way in which those who advocate it tend to ignore the double agents. Thus, the people claiming to be making the case for state involvement in these atrocities are overlooking the strongest evidence linking state agents to the attacks. Is it possible that, however true the exercise hypothesis might be in SOME instances, that as an overarching theory it functions as disinformation, as a limited hangout?

Vinciguerra
Minor Poster

Joined: 07 Sep 2010
Posts: 27

Posted: Fri Oct 21, 2011 7:03 pm Post subject:

Andrew. wrote:

.

That’s ok DD it was really a reply to, about Prole and Tom Secker (above) and a recent radio interview where Tom takes the agnostic view and where they specifically at one point talk about the significance of the “disregarding Peter Power statement” and as shown above imho Tom's view on the unbelievable odds is deeply flawed. He makes some decent points, but just dosen't get! the significance of the odds and probabilities.

I get it. I just don't believe it. The comical mathematic deceptions employed in favour of this argument aside, I simply don't believe in a 'scenario A is highly unlikely, ergo scenario B must be true' manner of investigation. From Descartes to Sherlock Holmes, this sort of naive, dialectical logic has been used and abused.

Quote:

download:

Quote:

http://radiofetzer.blogspot.com/
Monday, August 8, 2011
Tom Secker & Nick Kollerstrom
The 7/7 London Subway Attack

To make it easier for Tom and others to see lets simplify this:

What is the likelihood of four men that would travel to London on the same day at roughly the same time to exact locations selected for a simulated terrorist exercise organised by Peter Power, (or whom ever) if they had not been invited to participate?

I don't know, you tell me. But it's irrelevant in any case, for two reasons:

1) Peter Power's exercise did not involve all the exact same locations - when pressed for further details he eventually issued a statement saying his exercise was based around simultaneous bombings at Kings Cross (obvious target), Liverpool Street (obvious target) and Russell Square (reasonably obvious target). He said nothing about Edgware Road or Paddington. He said nothing about a bus bombing. So, of 7 locations (tube stations either side of three bombings, and Tavistock Square for the bus bombing) he got 3. Three out of seven. Not bad, but not 'the exact same locations' as claimed by yourself.

2) There is no little evidence that the three who allegedly bombed tube trains (Khan, Tanweer, Lindsay) ever got beyond Kings Cross. None were pronounced dead at the scenes. The accounts of the bodies recovered do not match the stated locations of the blasts within the carriages. The accounts of the pieces of bodies recovered do not match the account of the forensic anthropologist who determined that they were likely to be suicide bombers.

Put simply, to make this easy for you, I'm not answering your question because it's a stupid question.

Quote:

What is the likelihood that four men agreeing to participate in Peter Power’s (or whom ever) mock terror exercise would travel to the four locations on the same day at, roughly the same time?

It is not just highly likely it is almost certain, Occam’s Razor applies.

There are any number of possible scenarios by which four men (three men) could be convinced to travel (be alleged to have travelled) to the exact same locations (some of the same locations) as the exercise. The 'they were recruited as part of the exercise' theory is only one possibility.

So, far from 'almost certain', the second option in your dialogue is only 'one possible explanation'.

As to Occam's Razor - that only applies if all other issues are equally balanced, e.g. if two theories are equally good at accounting for the available evidence, have equal explanatory value, are both internally coherent, are both testable and verifiable/falsifiable, have both been tested and found to be verified/falsified, THEN and ONLY THEN does the Razor of 'the simplest explanation tends to be the right one' apply to choosing which theory to advance.

I suggest you look up, read about, and understand Occam's Razor, and the limitations of statistical probability, before making them central planks in your argument.

Quote:

---

One man, Mr X, and one named station (I have a planned mock drill) Please give the day and time that Mr X is going to coincide with his backpack bomb (further reducing the odds in this model with unbelievable odds for pre-planted explosives) of this planned mock drill.

It is almost certain you will not guess the date and time, even in this much more simplified scenario.

If Mr X agreed to go to the one station of the planned mock drill at that day and time.

It is certain you will know (if you have been told or planned it) and almost certain that he Mr X other than any problems to delay will get there.

Stop trying to prove that your desired beliefs are true. I know you Christians have a bit of an issue with just being happy to believe what you believe without trying to convince other people that they need to believe it, but please, for my sake, stop trying to prove this exercise hypothesis. You don't have the data, you don't have the command of mathematics or logic necessary to do so. Until you/we do have that, it is a complete waste of everybody's time to pursue this argument.

Andrew.
Validated Poster

Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Posts: 1518

Posted: Fri Oct 21, 2011 7:07 pm Post subject:

Vinciguerra wrote:

TonyGosling wrote:

It may be that Peter Power is a Red Herring?
Designed from the start as a diversion.
If so that is evidence of an inside job though.

Certainly a strange one.

ianrcrane wrote:

Bridget's attack on Nick Kollestrom following the publication of his excellent book, 'Terror on the Tube'

Quote:

and her outrageous verbal assault on Tony Farrell at the weekend

Quote:

There is absolutely no doubt that the J7 website is a fantastic repository of research and information but after six and a half years, no one outside of the 'Truth' Community is aware of it!

This is complete nonsense. They are, in fact, the only group to have got their research and the issues they talk about into the mainstream media.

Prole wrote:

Some people want heroes, martyrs & messiahs - J7 simply want the truth.

I don't know why (yet) Tom's section isn't included here, but judge for yourselves:

http://vimeo.com/30707958

conspiracy analyst wrote:

There were training exercises during 9/11 and during 7/7. But were there any in the Madrid bombings or the bombings in Mumbai?

Bump

Andrew.
Validated Poster

Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Posts: 1518

Posted: Fri Oct 21, 2011 7:07 pm Post subject:

Vinciguerra wrote:

Andrew. wrote:

Quote:

download:

Quote:

http://radiofetzer.blogspot.com/
Monday, August 8, 2011
Tom Secker & Nick Kollerstrom
The 7/7 London Subway Attack

Quote:

Bump

Andrew.
Validated Poster

Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Posts: 1518

Posted: Fri Oct 21, 2011 7:13 pm Post subject:

Quote:

1) Peter Power's ecisexer did not involve all the exact same locations - when pressed for further details he eventually issued a statement saying his exercise was based around simultaneous bombings at Kings Cross (obvious target), Liverpool Street (obvious target) and Russell Square (reasonably obvious target). He said nothing about Edgware Road or Paddington. He said nothing about a bus bombing. So, of 7 locations (tube stations either side of three bombings, and Tavistock Square for the bus bombing) he got 3. Three out of seven. Not bad, but not 'the exact same locations' as claimed by yourself.

It does not matter how many exercises he/they had going on that day. You have missed the point entirely.

Andrew.
Validated Poster

Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Posts: 1518

Posted: Fri Oct 21, 2011 7:19 pm Post subject:

Quote:

2) There is no little evidence that the three who allegedly bombed tube trains (Khan, Tanweer, Lindsay) ever got beyond Kings Cross. None were pronounced dead at the scenes. The accounts of the bodies recovered do not match the stated locations of the blasts within the carriages. The accounts of the pieces of bodies recovered do not match the account of the forensic anthropologist who determined that they were likely to be suicide bombers.

Put simply, to make this easy for you, I'm not answering your question because it's a stupid question.

There is evidence at Canary wharf, there is get this please Tom, evidence of explotions at four locations. Pre-planted explosives.

Andrew.
Validated Poster

Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Posts: 1518

Posted: Fri Oct 21, 2011 7:40 pm Post subject:

Quote:

But just random people Tom? Turn up at those Locations and at that time? And there was no contrived narrative?

scubadiver
Validated Poster

Joined: 26 Apr 2006
Posts: 1850
Location: Currently Andover

Posted: Fri Oct 21, 2011 7:41 pm Post subject:

Quote:

ianrcrane wrote:

Bridget's attack on Nick Kollestrom following the publication of his excellent book, 'Terror on the Tube'

I didn't get the impression at all that this book was trying to prove 7/7 RE. NK did not try to demonstrate what he thought actually happened. I thought the writing was very objective throughout.
_________________
Currently working on a new website

Andrew.
Validated Poster

Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Posts: 1518

Posted: Fri Oct 21, 2011 7:55 pm Post subject:

Quote:

One man, Mr X, and one named station (I have a planned mock drill) Please give the day and time that Mr X is going to coincide with his backpack bomb (further reducing the odds in this model with unbelievable odds for pre-planted explosives) of this planned mock drill.

It is almost certain you will not guess the date and time, even in this much more simplified scenario.

If Mr X agreed to go to the one station of the planned mock drill at that day and time.

It is certain you will know (if you have been told or planned it) and almost certain that he Mr X other than any problems to delay will get there.

Quote:

That is if Vinciguerra is Tom Seker, because Vinciguerra is just a name on my computer screen, as would someone calling themselves Tom Seker.

The point is Tom, even from all your suggested random "There are any number of possible scenarios by which four men (three men) could be convinced to travel (be alleged to have travelled) to the exact same locations (some of the same locations) as the exercise. The 'they were recruited as part of the exercise' theory is only one possibility." It was either Random, Planned or Coincidence. And please Tom, stop trying to act all superior in intelligence, and further you do not know how Occam's Razor is applied it seems.

It is also not trying to prove, it's just very large odds and probabilities.

And if it was Random or just Coincidence (any number of possible scenarios) can you give the day and time that has been Planned to coincide with pre-planted explosives in the real and contrived narrative event of the four? (Even if there were no four, but just in the contrived narrative of four?)

Quote:

There is no need for that Tom, you’re just not as bright as you think you are and are blinded by your own arrogance.

So can we please continue with Occam's Razor from the above? Because you'll most likely say that some just took advantage of the events, which would be a good exercise to go through via the evidence and Occam's Razor?

Quote:

I suggest you look up, read about, and understand Occam's Razor, and the limitations of statistical probability, before making them central planks in your argument.

And I suggest you look up, read about, and understand Occam's Razor and not "Probability theory"

Andrew.
Validated Poster

Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Posts: 1518

Posted: Sat Oct 22, 2011 12:49 am Post subject:

For those interested

Quote:

What is the likelihood of four men that would travel to London on the same day at roughly the same time to exact locations selected for a simulated terrorist exercise organised by Peter Power, (or whom ever) if they had not been invited to participate?

Quote:

So the above (any number of possible scenarios) randomness and/or coincidence can’t be answered. Not because it’s irrelevant but because it would just rely on randomness and/or coincidence to fit the events that actually did happen, even if there were no four. So that is a good answer, it is very unlikely. Thank-you.

Quote:

First that is "Probability theory" not Occam's Razor.

So this group of people that there is lots of evidence for, as a group of people. We just disregard that evidence now do we? But lets go with your “any number of possible scenarios” for them to even “be alleged to have travelled”. It would be randomness and/or coincidence (any number of possible scenarios) and can’t be answered, not because it’s irrelevant but because it would just rely on randomness and/or coincidence (any number of possible scenarios) to fit the events that actually did happen. So that is a good answer, it is very unlikely. Thank-you.

But conveniently it has disregarded any and all evidence for a group of four people and can we ignore any and all evidence for this group of people working together when working with Occam's Razor? No, you have to apply what evidence you have and then apply Occam's Razor.

Quote:

Not bad, but not 'the exact same locations' as claimed by yourself.

I said:
"They always said "at exactly the same stations" wasn't important." I did not claim he said that; but at least it got some answers and it isn’t important if he didn't.

Andrew.
Validated Poster

Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Posts: 1518

Posted: Sat Oct 22, 2011 5:15 am Post subject:

.

Tom Seker? wrote:

Quote:

Please Tom in all sincerity, humble yourself (me too,) there is a big difference in "Probability theory" compared to Occam's Razor. And this is a public forum for debate Tom, you can believe what you want, but I don't recommend it.

Vinciguerra
Minor Poster

Joined: 07 Sep 2010
Posts: 27

Posted: Sat Oct 22, 2011 10:08 am Post subject:

Andrew, I would respond to your points, but they are so poorly expressed, and so full of ad hominem and other diversionary arguments, that it's hard to even understand what your points are. You have asked me for the probability of a scenario for which we have no evidence. It is a waste of my time to attempt to calculate such a probability, because it has no bearing on 7/7. Just as if I asked you to calculate the probability that the four alleged bombers spontaneously combusted in Hyde Park, or decided not to become suicide bombers and all just went for a Starbucks...

Vinciguerra
Minor Poster

Joined: 07 Sep 2010
Posts: 27

Posted: Sat Oct 22, 2011 10:13 am Post subject:

scubadiver wrote:

Quote:

ianrcrane wrote:

Bridget's attack on Nick Kollestrom following the publication of his excellent book, 'Terror on the Tube'

I didn't get the impression at all that this book was trying to prove 7/7 RE. NK did not try to demonstrate what he thought actually happened. I thought the writing was very objective throughout.

Then I suggest you look up NK's source material and see how he has cherry-picked and misrepresented virtually everything in the book.

During the inquests, NK only reported on those issues that he felt he could weave into the 7/7RE narrative. He ignored all the other questions and issues because he isn't interested in demonstrating that the government's story is false, only in proving his desired narrative to be true.

He is a conspiracy theorist in the most stereotypical sense of the term - and that isn't a good thing.

Andrew.
Validated Poster

Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Posts: 1518

Posted: Sat Oct 22, 2011 11:16 am Post subject:

Vinciguerra wrote:

Andrew,

I would respond to your points, but they are so poorly expressed, and so full of ad hominem and other diversionary arguments, that it's hard to even understand what your points are.

You have asked me for the probability of a scenario for which we have no evidence. It is a waste of my time to attempt to calculate such a probability, because it has no bearing on 7/7. Just as if I asked you to calculate the probability that the four alleged bombers spontaneously combusted in Hyde Park, or decided not to become suicide bombers and all just went for a Starbucks...

Andrew wrote:
"And if it was Random or just Coincidence (any number of possible scenarios) can you give the day and time that has been Planned to coincide with pre-planted explosives in the real and contrived narrative event of the four? (Even if there were no four, but just in the contrived narrative of four?) "

Tom wrote:
"You have asked me for the probability of a scenario for which we have no evidence."

No evidence Tom of a contrived narrative? It's not about putting numbers on it and "Probability theory"

Why are you here if the contrived narrative is as the newspapers or government official story says it is?

Andrew.
Validated Poster

Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Posts: 1518

Posted: Sat Oct 22, 2011 11:19 am Post subject:

Vinciguerra wrote:

scubadiver wrote:

Quote:

ianrcrane wrote:

Bridget's attack on Nick Kollestrom following the publication of his excellent book, 'Terror on the Tube'

I didn't get the impression at all that this book was trying to prove 7/7 RE. NK did not try to demonstrate what he thought actually happened. I thought the writing was very objective throughout.

bump

numeral
Validated Poster

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

Posted: Sat Oct 22, 2011 1:21 pm Post subject:

Andrew. wrote:

<snip>
Why are you here if the contrived narrative is as the newspapers or government official story says it is?

You failed the Turing Test again, Andrew.

Um, did you mean: Why are you here if you think the truth is as the newspapers or government official story says it is?

Vinciguerra, of course, thinks nothing of the sort. Your random noise generator seems to have gone haywire. Ask your SysAdmin for a re-boot.

When you are back up consider the possibility the "suicide bombers shot in Canary Wharf" rumour was deliberating started in order to introduce the suicide bomber meme.

A person looking out of an office window in Canary Wharf could see an incident and reasonably report that some-one had been shot. But how on earth could they know it was a suicide bomber?

I hope this input does not crash your operating system.
_________________
Follow the numbers

Last edited by numeral on Sat Oct 22, 2011 1:29 pm; edited 1 time in total

Andrew.
Validated Poster

Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Posts: 1518

Posted: Sat Oct 22, 2011 1:22 pm Post subject:

numeral wrote:

Andrew. wrote:

<snip>
Why are you here if the contrived narrative is as the newspapers or government official story says it is?

bump

numeral
Validated Poster

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

Posted: Sat Oct 22, 2011 1:38 pm Post subject:

I posted at 2.21 and you bumped at 2.22, Andrew. Great processing speed. Are you a supercomputer? _________________ Follow the numbers

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 Next
Page 2 of 3

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