J7 disregarding Peter Power statement?

[scubadiver]

I was at Ian's conference and Tom and Brigitte had some time to speak about their campaign. They want to hold the Government to account over the official narrative which we would all agree with and they have learnt some valuable lessons of the 9/11 movement when it comes to "alternative theories", and there has been no infiltration or attempted debunking. In that respect they have done so much better.

They aren't interested in Powers' statement which I personally think is incorrect. There was also a trained lawyer at the conference who also said such important evidence should be disregarded.

Are J7 limited hangout or they just being too overly cautious?

[TonyGosling]

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.

[Andrew.]

[fish5133]

Well he is either a key witness or a suspect because if his company were carrying out the "exercise" at exactly the same stations then they must have seen things

[Andrew.]

[ianrcrane]

It has become apparent over the past few years that J7 are either wittingly or unwittingly 'Corralling' information. The behaviour and attitude of Bridget Dunne is becoming increasingly similar to that of Rachel North, in the anger and vitriol dished out to anyone who has the audacity to take any initiative which might serve to raise the profile of events and/or issues relating to the fateful day of 7th July 2005.

Bridget's attack on Nick Kollestrom following the publication of his excellent book, 'Terror on the Tube' and her outrageous verbal assault on Tony Farrell at the weekend, are illustrative of the fact that something is 'not quite right' about the ongoing motivation of the J7 cabal.

Let's not forget that the seminal information of the train times between Luton & London on the morning of 7th July was due directly to the investigative work of Nick Kollestrom & James Stewart.

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!

J7 (Bridget in particular) give the impression that they think they 'OWN' all research and information related to anything associated with the London Bombings. Although I was the first person in the UK to give a public presentation ('The 9/11 - 7/7 Connection' recorded on the 22nd July 2005) highlighting some of the immediate anomolies surrounding the London Bombings, I have had very limited contact with the J7 movement as I have always found them to be rather insular and extremely protective of 'their information'.

So in summary, Bridget Dunne is providing an excellent example of 'Limited Hangout' at work ... the big question is whether or not this is deliberate or just an unfortunate Ego-attachment to what is undoubtedly a superb repository of information?


Ian R Crane

[Andrew.]

[numeral]

Ian

Please explain how a public website, blogs and a forum can corrall information.

Please recall how Nick Kollestrom gulped when he was ambushed by The Conspiracy Files over the CCTV. Please recall all the foolish things he has done.

Please indicate just how Tony Farrell will further 7/7 Truth.

Please justify your claim that that "no one outside of the 'Truth' Community is aware of" J7's research . It seems to me that few inside said community are aware of it.

Limited Hangout, my fundament.

[Andrew.]

[TonyGosling]

Please consider Andrew that the J7 crew have travelled a different journey to you. In may ways it is healthy to have diverse approaches to the deconstruction of the 7/7 lies and so there is never ony 'one true interpretation' of events that day.
The diversity of approaches should be seen as a positive thing.
In fact a free society should guarantee that situation.
The real probem here is not the J7 campaign's priorities.

It is the as yet invisible criminal assassins who masterminded the attacks of July 7th 2005 and because you can not see them it is all too easy to criticise the J7 people - who you can see. They are in fact much, much closer to your view than the forces of darkness.

[Andrew.]

.



I have considerded it Tony, just keeping a record. And I'm just defending the attacks and criticism.

[conspiracy analyst]

The most extensive research on 7/7 is by the J7 group.

Creating the impression that Bridget Dunne is a new Rachel North could imply what?

That the 'stars' associated with truth in the UK so far haven't ridiculed the whole campaign regarding truth.

Truth isn't owned by anyone and personalising the issues gives the impression that 'people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones'....

The fact that the so-called inquests had to answer J7 questions is good enough for me alone. Let alone the research that connects British imperial history ie Ireland with the recent wave of anti-islamic witchunts.

No one has done that. Not on the Left. Not on the Right. Nowhere.

[Andrew.]

[Prole]

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

[Andrew.]

[conspiracy analyst]

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

One event, training exercises, is one event, it isn't the whole picture or the most important. What emphasis people assign to it is their business and they can be criticised for it, but to assert that they are like Rachel North is a statement too far in my eyes due to her specific role which has been argued on here before.

The 'stars' of the truth movement have come and gone ie Shayler. Truth in itself is independent of its players or those with a 'name' who jump on a bandwagon and are 'promoted'.

Fake terrorism is fake not because I say so, but because it is.

One cannot believe in fairy tales unless one is sellilng something ie the 'war on terror' or in previous eras the 'war against the IRA' or the 'war on communism'.

[Prole]

[Andrew.]

[Prole]

[Andrew.]

[Prole]

[Andrew.]

[Prole]

[Andrew.]

1

[conspiracy analyst]

Which part of the narrative is one expected to believe?
He jumped over the barriers.
He paused to pick up a paper.
He wore a jacket with wires hanging out.
He was wearing a tee shirt.

The role of someone looking for the truth isn't to arrive at an answer on their own, with no conclusive evidence, but to highlight the contradictions of the official narrative.

If one wants answers short of the secret files being revealed and even they can be doctored, then they aren't necessarily interested in the truth but arriving at a narrative then working backwards to justify it.

I dont for instance believe Orwell spied on people. But after his death files have been 'released' to show that, something like the Stasi files which every now an again take down a person....

I cant believe any of the official story regarding the De Menezes killing.
I personally dont believe it happened at the station, but that is my personal belief. I can't prove it. But if I am spun multiple versions of events, which ones am I expected to believe, the parts I choose, the parts which are sold to me, or the parts that create what I believe to be a logical narrative?

[Disco_Destroyer]

somewhat of a marriage made in hell, but is it innocent?

[Andrew.]

[Disco_Destroyer]

[Andrew.]

.

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.


download:

[TonyGosling]

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.