Daniel Obachike's blog - Tavistock Square survivor

[Prole]

[Chi_of_life]

[Prole]

[Chi_of_life]

[Prole]

[Chi_of_life]

[Prole]

[astro3]

Prole wrote (Sept 14)
'You may be interested in these heli-tele images, which were shown on BBC World the following day, the problem is how do we date them? The timing is obviously a few minutes after 9.47 and there is a lot of debris around, would there have been this much debris left lying around 24 hours later?
http://www.julyseventh.co.uk/7-7-30-bus-tavistock-square.html'

The Kingstar van is next to the bus so there is no problem about dating them – they are pics of July 7th, 09.55 seven minutes after the blast, showing the top deck totally deserted.

If Stelios believes that ‘the demolition van is NOT connected. You can detonate a bomb from 1000 miles away’ can he tell us what Kingstar was doing there? Its office is well outside London.

[Prole]

Astro3 I think the date of the heli-tele images was cleared up with this post:

[Nick Cooper]

[Nick Cooper]

[Rachel]

[ian neal]

Interesting

Someone is definately being economical with the truth here atleast if we take chapter 6 on 4th bomb to be an eye witness account of Daniel visiting Rachel's flat as opposed to Daniel imagining what Rachel was going through. If it is his imaginings it is v unclear that this is what he is telling

When I get to a scanner to will try to forward you the pages rachel.

I can't find your 'second appearance' in the book since it can't be p288. There are only 244 pages in the book.

In the first appearance in chapter 6 Daniel does describe your flat, your cat and your boyfirend/husband but all these details are available on the internet so prove nothing.

Daniel/Chi, a bit of clarification is needed here

[Rachel]

[guzman]

[Rachel]

As someone who has had severe PTSD twice, no, obviously that is not what I am trying to suggest.

Reading what I posted might help.

If he was thereand suffers from PTSD then I extend my sympathy to him as I do to anyone who suffers this condition

My sympathy to traumatised people however does not extend to them telling lies about me in books for money, and misrepresenting me and my family, or claiming I support their weird evidence-free theories when I absolutely don't.

To make that clear.

[Bushwacker]

[Rachel]

You are both correct. That's the list of symptoms of post traumatic stress disorder. But it is not exhaustive.

In some people, the traumatic memory can remain seared in their consciousness, and details of it re-experienced intrusively in flashbacks, or dreams, in other people, the memories of the traumatic event are bloacked out, in some people they are blanked out but later recalled piece by piece or all at once, with dreadful clarity, triggered by something that sets it off. No one person is the same.

PTSD can also exaserpate any underlying tendences someone already has to mental illness, (depression, paranoia, whatever.) As you might expect from something that fu*ks you up and massively interferes with your mental balance, your sleep, your immune system etc.

[Rachel]

Thanks to Staraker for sending the scans of the offending chapter. I've read it, and am predictably upset that someone who I've nevermet should feed off my life so parasitically.

What Daniel has written is culled, garbled, from my blog, without permission, and inaccurately represented, misleading, and downright creepy. Here are some of the more obvious errors in the 3 pages in which he writes about me.

1. The police came on Saturday 9 afternoon, not Sunday 10 morning.
2.The flowers were not in vases, but in a bucket, I was too tired and upset to arrange them for several days.
3. The 'at last she was able to feel again' and his description of my emotions is inaccurate and frankly, creepy.
4. The description of 'morbid curiosity, reading and re-reading' is distasteful and offensive as is 'the dizzying brew of intriegue and emotion' . which he insultingly - and lyingly - describes me as feeling.
5. I do not have a laptop.
6. Urban 75 is a message board, not a blog.
7.The problem with the train diagram was reported first to the police, then to the BBC via telephone on Friday 9 July, not Sunday 10 to the news editor by email. I did not begin blogging for the BBC until later in the week.
8. The BBC mesage board wrong image of the explosion on the train was found by me on Friday 8 July and reported that day.
9. My nails were no longer black with soot on the Sunday; I had cut them off.
10. The business about my partner 'whipping out a bunch of lillies from 11.Martina and Andy across the road' is just complete made up * and never happened.
12. The made up bit about my husband saying 'you're not still on the internet are you?' and 'despairing of her post traumatic stress disorder' is equally utter rubbish.
13. PTSD does not kick in in the first instance, I was in shock, not dealing with PTSD at that stage.
14.The sexual/affectionate representation of my relationship is disturbing and creepy.


This man Daniel did not even ask my permission before publishing this insulting misrepresenative drivel.


That's 14 errors - lies - in 3 pages.

Oh - and the next, even worse lie, is his attempt to have me somehow supporting his crackport theory that the injured man, who was hurt in the Piccadilly blast - was anything to do with a drill - which I would say is libellous to the unfortunate man Daniel writes about
. He twists my words on the forum to try to make his point.

Despicable.

Think this is a reliable witness? Think this is honest and honourable behaviour? Think this rubbish should be given any credence at all?

I don't.

I think it is horrible. I feel disgusted and upset by what he has done. Bad enough that he should write such rubbish on a blog, but to publish it in a book? And that people will think I gave permission for this nonsense?

Ugh. Just - ugh.

[guzman]

[guzman]

__

[karlos]

Guzman - I must say the above post is one of the most informative i have ever read on this board - anywhere. So, many thanks mate.

Rachel - If you have never met Daniel why do you feel you have to write this long list? To me a simple yes or no will do. So the fact that you wrote this meaningless list of rebuttal makes me curious.
1. The police came on Saturday 9 afternoon, not Sunday 10 morning.
2.The flowers were not in vases, but in a bucket, I was too tired and upset to arrange them for several days.
3. The 'at last she was able to feel again' and his description of my emotions is inaccurate and frankly, creepy.
4. The description of 'morbid curiosity, reading and re-reading' is distasteful and offensive as is 'the dizzying brew of intriegue and emotion' . which he insultingly - and lyingly - describes me as feeling.
5. I do not have a laptop.
6. Urban 75 is a message board, not a blog.
7.The problem with the train diagram was reported first to the police, then to the BBC via telephone on Friday 9 July, not Sunday 10 to the news editor by email. I did not begin blogging for the BBC until later in the week.
8. The BBC mesage board wrong image of the explosion on the train was found by me on Friday 8 July and reported that day.
9. My nails were no longer black with soot on the Sunday; I had cut them off.
10. The business about my partner 'whipping out a bunch of lillies from 11.Martina and Andy across the road' is just complete made up * and never happened.
12. The made up bit about my husband saying 'you're not still on the internet are you?' and 'despairing of her post traumatic stress disorder' is equally utter rubbish.
13. PTSD does not kick in in the first instance, I was in shock, not dealing with PTSD at that stage.
14.The sexual/affectionate representation of my relationship is disturbing and creepy.

Rachel your book which is mostly about matters other than 7/7 has a number of inconsistencies about 7/7 that dont marry up with the published 'facts' so my question before we dissect it - are there any things that have come to light since you published that you know to be errors or do you stand 100% by what you wrote?

[Nick Cooper]

[Nick Cooper]

[Nick Cooper]

Guzman,

Even by the usual standards of this forum, that was utterly reprehensible. Given what you cannot fail to be aware of about Rachel's past, and why she desires a degree of anonymity, what you posted suggests a lack of empathy on your part that borders on the sociopathic. If you have a shred of a hint of a conscience you will remove it.

[guzman]

[karlos]

[guzman]

Take this lady for example, Tania Head, a sociopathic individual who decided to masquerade as the wife of a victim of the 9/11 attacks. Sure when revealed it may be an unhealthy period for those who suffered in the attacks and those who chose to stay in contact with other survivors and victim's relatives, but continuously bringing accusations of lying into the field would probably be much more damaging in the long run. Yet Rachel North decided to do this, perhaps forever making a small and widening crack in the bonds between survivors.

Rachel North spends seven times as much effort online coming onto 9/11 truth forums, the Antagonist's blog, Abandon All Fear, the Alex Cox forum etc. then building momentum for her campaign. Who knows she may have spent many an hour on the J7 forum, out of curiosity she may have even started posting on there. All she does is attack those who dissent from her views on 7/7 and other matters. She then frequently beats people around the head with anonymity thing, even though she's frequently failed when it comes to protecting her own anonymity - she often publishes her now maiden name. The only thing she has consistently protected is the anonymity of her alleged attacker.

She makes an issue out of a book that she says she hasn't read, but she was originally going to buy it anyway. The reason she gives now for not buying the 4th Bomb is that she doesn't want to give him money for writing the possibly misleading sections of the book. Yet, the book she was originally going to buy has been out for nearly four months, but she didn't have reasons not to buy the book ‘'till recently’. Her public demonstration of ignorance could be for a possible legal argument, so if she bought the book it might be construed as a possible acceptance of the contents.

She's significantly posted her quibbles with Daniel Obachike on this board, rather than contacting him in private or posting on his blog to his readership or making an issue out of it on the most accessible forum for her readership, her blog. By way of attacking him on here she also wants to attack us as well. That is her motive.

She, not Daniel Obachike nor astro3, has made a small but significant breach into the social etiquette between survivors and victim's relatives alike. I hope she understands the repercussions of that.

[Nick Cooper]

[Nick Cooper]