6 years since the London Bombings

[beorhthelm]

I never said he was anything other than an unwitting pawn.

Maybe he knew. Maybe he didnt. I dont know. I have no way of knowing.

What I know is that his drill matched exactly the events that happened on the day. The places and the times. I want to know who decided on the places and times for the drill. But he's not talking.

ok, so you claim you have your own version of the conspiracy. thats cool.

however, what you dont know is that his scenario did *not* match exactly the events. in one video* he says two were the same (not sure which), and explains the scenarios are based on actual previous bombings and threats. does he tell the truth? who knows, we chose our version based on what is presented. on the one hand people looking for something to build into a big grand plot, on the other a person tell the world this about his funny day at the office and telling his version first hand.

you, and those perpetuating these ideas, are the ones being disrepsctfull. you deny the viticims closure, regurgitating the same tripe, seeding doubt and anguish, claiming to want the truth, when really only interested in your paranoid fantasies.

you like youtube, go find the Conspiracy Files program iirc, its in there somewhere.

 

[dingodan]

As it was his job to run these drills for companies, how many days that week, month or year was he actually running these scenarios?

I dont know. If you believe it is a coincidence thats on you. I'm only calling it as I see it.

 

[Barrel of Fun]

Maybe I should have been a little bit more level headed, but I imagine that the families and friends involved have sat through hours and hours of footage, briefings, reports, musings and so on at the coroners. The case has been rumbling on for 6 years. I do believe that if there is anything untoward, there would be more than a few youtube videos and mumblings on message boards.

I do believe that if there was a shred of doubt in the minds of a family member or friend of those killed, then we would have some sort of investigation taking place.

As far as I can see, it was an indiscrimante massacre by some fundamentalists and I see no reason as to believe otherwise.

Apologies for the borderline psychopath tag...

 

[Max Paper]

appologies if fixtures, but two things remind me of this day, it was either the same day or the day before that we got the olympics in 2012, I remeber this as I was on my way to the Rosebowl to watch Oasis for the very first time

 

[Titanic]

I dont know. If you believe it is a coincidence thats on you. I'm only calling it as I see it.

You chose to see it in a very strange way. If he was doing this frequently, then it is not a coincidence at all.

 

[DTES]

[MENTION=18559]dingodan[/MENTION] - Another question (if I may) that may seem a slight tangent - do you not believe that religious suicide bombers exist? Do you believe that 9/11, and every single suicide bomb in Iraq, Pakistan & Afghanistan (I can't even begin to remember the number there have been - hundreds) are all fakes and 'inside jobs'?

If you believe these are all lies, then quite frankly you are beyond debating with.

If you believe these are genuine, if you believe that there are people who believe (either off their own backs, or convinced by those evil enough to talk them into it) that they should sacrifice their lives for their God, taking other lives in the process... how can you possibly believe the simplest explanation for 7/7/ is anything other than this, given what we can see? The link that started this off itself calls upon Occam's Razor. To me, Occam's Razor seems to point directly at a religious suicide attack.

 

[DTES]

Maybe I should have been a little bit more level headed, but I imagine that the families and friends involved have sat through hours and hours of footage, briefings, reports, musings and so on at the coroners. The case has been rumbling on for 6 years. I do believe that if there is anything untoward, there would be more than a few youtube videos and mumblings on message boards.

I do believe that if there was a shred of doubt in the minds of a family member or friend of those killed, then we would have some sort of investigation taking place.

Quite. Suggesting otherwise isn't far from questioning the intelligence of every single one of the bereaved - maybe it actually is that.

 

[brunswick]

there are also the small matter CCTV footage of them at King Cross early enough and witnesses of them on the tubes.

refer to my previous posts regarding CCTV.

Let us just leave it that you believe the BBC story post the panorama programme a year before, and i believe it was an inside job to further an agenda. Soon after England was bombing Iraq with a "go get the muslims" attitude from the Sun and NoTW readers (let us look into news corp and the scumbags employed there?).

I am ok with disagreeing and debating, and yes, the kingstar van is not 100% tight. But i do get concerned when people think asking questions is disrespectful even when the families are asking questions.

Lets see how things pan out in the near future and I am sure we will debate again........I am glad to see you have found some holes in the official story.

 

[DTES]

Let us just leave it that you believe the BBC story post the panorama programme a year before

Apologies if I've missed it, but have you referred to the panorama programme in 2009 - the one that gave the Ripple Effect writers enough rope to hang themselves with, and showed how many holes there were in their own theory? Shame it's not still on iPlayer.

i believe it was an inside job to further an agenda

As if our Government (of any party) need any reason to further their agendas. It's hardly like the people supported the war anyway, is it? 2 million marching in London against it...

the kingstar van is not 100% tight.

This is possibly the greatest understatement ever written in a post on NSC...

 

[dingodan]

Maybe I should have been a little bit more level headed, but I imagine that the families and friends involved have sat through hours and hours of footage, briefings, reports, musings and so on at the coroners. The case has been rumbling on for 6 years. I do believe that if there is anything untoward, there would be more than a few youtube videos and mumblings on message boards.

I do believe that if there was a shred of doubt in the minds of a family member or friend of those killed, then we would have some sort of investigation taking place.

As far as I can see, it was an indiscrimante massacre by some fundamentalists and I see no reason as to believe otherwise.

Apologies for the borderline psychopath tag...

Np, I knew you were in there somewhere

People do react so aggressively (not just you) to what I am saying, when the basis for their assumption that I am wrong is basically what you say, that "surely if there was anything to it, we would know".

Fact is that the government and the media are so heavily managed that this is not necessarily the case. Also unfortunately governments and intelligence services have long done very very immoral things for what they see as a "greater good".

But I dont want a fight with you coz I like you

 

[beorhthelm]

But i do get concerned when people think asking questions is disrespectful even when the families are asking questions.

you assume they are asking the same questions as you. most arent, those that do are asking why? why my father/sister/partener/child? why me? the general narrative says many survivors are liars, which is pretty disrespectful.


and to come back to the coincidence of Power's exercises, they dont even serve any purpose. why does the power behind this want to orchestrate a group of private compaies responce? surely their employees are just so much more collateral damage? if they are so special, give them a credible reason to get important people out of the way (say a conference in Excel at 830). hey, carry out the attack later in the morning or at the weekend (always a problem for me with 9/11: you could have had same effect on public with low loss of life with an earlier or weekend attack.)

 

[dingodan]

[MENTION=18559]dingodan[/MENTION] - Another question (if I may) that may seem a slight tangent - do you not believe that religious suicide bombers exist? Do you believe that 9/11, and every single suicide bomb in Iraq, Pakistan & Afghanistan (I can't even begin to remember the number there have been - hundreds) are all fakes and 'inside jobs'?

If you believe these are all lies, then quite frankly you are beyond debating with.

If you believe these are genuine, if you believe that there are people who believe (either off their own backs, or convinced by those evil enough to talk them into it) that they should sacrifice their lives for their God, taking other lives in the process... how can you possibly believe the simplest explanation for 7/7/ is anything other than this, given what we can see? The link that started this off itself calls upon Occam's Razor. To me, Occam's Razor seems to point directly at a religious suicide attack.

Thanks for a well thought out question instead of attacking me

Yes I believe there are suicide bombers. There are a number of possibilities about how the services get involved. This is complex and its hard to know in each case exactly what happened. But there are afew possibilities if you want the right person in the right place at the right time, but you still want control over the situation. One possibility is that certain individuals are identified as people who would do something like this. They are then approached (by someone appearing to be of the same mind) and they are equipped, funded etc. Without ever knowing where this support is coming from.

Its more a case of helping things along, making sure the situation is under some kind of control. You may (if you are of a certain ideological persuasion) think that an attack happening would be good for business, good for politics whatever. But that does not mean you can just "let it happen". Who knows, they might fail, they might do something you dont expect. Infact the biggest risk is they wont be able to pull it off, or they will get caught. This, I believe, is why the intelligence services "hold the hand" of terrorists. The terrorists think that they are striking the Western establishment. But they are only empowering the Western establishment, which, I think, is why they get help.

Take a look at these pictures.

Two SAS soldiers were arrested in Iraq after they fired on police. They were dressed as Arabs and were in a car which was packed with explosives.

BBC NEWS | Middle East | Iraq probe into soldier incident

On the News all they really reported on was the dramatic rescue of the two SAS men who were busted out of the Iraqi jail in dramatic style, this image covered the front pages, but they didnt really ask the obvious question. Why did we have men dressed as arabs with explosives in their car?

If bombs are going off in Iraq, the media and the public have tended to lean towards us staying longer. We cant leave until its stable right? So we make it unstable while we want the war to continue. If violence is dropping, and violence gives us a reason to stay, then perversely we need more violence.

It is sad, but this is a part of what intelligence services do unfortunately.

 

[DTES]

Yes I believe there are suicide bombers. There are a number of possibilities about how the services get involved. This is complex and its hard to know in each case exactly what happened. But there are afew possibilities if you want the right person in the right place at the right time, but you still want control over the situation. One possibility is that certain individuals are identified as people who would do something like this. They are then approached (by someone appearing to be of the same mind) and they are equipped, funded etc. Without ever knowing where this support is coming from.

Or, of course, the other possibility that seems to be completely ignored - despite being the simplest explanation (Occam's Razor, the point that no conspiracy theorist is willing to acknowledge they self-contradict on) - is that the services didn't get involved.

On the News all they really reported on was the dramatic rescue of the two SAS men who were busted out of the Iraqi jail in dramatic style, this image covered the front pages, but they didnt really ask the obvious question. Why did we have men dressed as arabs with explosives in their car?

One obvious explanation is that the men were dressed as Arabs to not stand out as being SAS. Do you expect them to be wearing top hat & tails, with a big neon sign on the roof saying "WE ARE BRITISH"?

As for the explosives - the obvious answer is it is part of their job to carry weapons. But even this ignores your glaring contradiction between a) The photo of the bombers from CCTV must be fake, and b) The photo of these explosives must be genuine?? Do you really not see that?

If bombs are going off in Iraq, the media and the public have tended to lean towards us staying longer. We cant leave until its stable right? So we make it unstable while we want the war to continue. If violence is dropping, and violence gives us a reason to stay, then perversely we need more violence.

A) You only mention Iraq. We do not have forces in Pakistan; I assume this is why you have completely ignored the point about the suicide bombers there too. I'm not aware of any campaigns (governmental, media or public) for sending forces into Pakistan. You are - again - concentrating on the few pieces of circumstantial 'evidence' that you can twist to fit your narrative (I can find one slightly suspicious photo about one incident in 10 years, and even though that isn't about one of the suicide bombing we're discussing, it must comprehensively prove we're behind them all, right? Er, no), and you're completely ignoring all the other points that may contradict it.

B) Again - 2 million people marched against the war. This did not stop the forces going in. The Government did what they wanted, regardless of public opinion. They wouldn't need to turn opinion around, they could - and did - do what they wanted anyway. Another point you ignore.

C) The public has for years called for the troops to be brought home. They are not leaning towards us staying longer. Even if you were to suggest that opinion isn't quite as strong, you're missing the point. The government doesn't need to do it, it can keep them there anyway.

It is sad, but this is a part of what intelligence services do unfortunately.

This is entirely your speculation, and adds nothing to the debate.

 

[dingodan]

[MENTION=256]DTES[/MENTION]

The photo's are not disputed, and I have never said anything about fake cctv footage.

Yes there are suicide bombings and many are likely not assisted by the intelligence services. On Pakistan, it does serve our interests to destabilise the pakistan government, today drone attacks are taking place in pakistan, justified because of the terrorism that occurs there.

Carrying weapons is one thing and carrying explosives is another. Unattributed explosions take place in Iraq frequently. I believe some of these may be related to this kind of activity. You dont have to believe that, it is what I believe.

Public opinion is powerful, and is heavily managed. Public perceptions of conflicts are managed heavily, they always have been. But again, it is up to you what you believe.

Occams Razor says all things being equal, the simplest explanation tends to be the right one.

Why is what we are told automatically a simple explanation, and the idea that it is a lie complicated?

According to some people Occams Razor proves that there are no conspiracies. Ever. For me, that demonstrates a misunderstanding of Occams Razor.

 

[DTES]

The photo's are not disputed, and I have never said anything about fake cctv footage.

You may not have, but it has been mentioned in support of one conspiracy theory on this very thread. If you don't believe it - if there are two separate conspiracy theories about 7/7 - maybe the two of you should go and have your own debate about why the other's conspiracy theory is wrong. Maybe this way you'll each start to see the holes in your own theories.

Yes there are suicide bombings and many are likely not assisted by the intelligence services. On Pakistan, it does serve our interests to destabilise the pakistan government, today drone attacks are taking place in pakistan, justified because of the terrorism that occurs there. Carrying weapons is one thing and carrying explosives is another. Unattributed explosions take place in Iraq frequently. I believe some of these may be related to this kind of activity. You dont have to believe that, it is what I believe.

Could you clarify what you're saying here? You do or don't believe that "the west" is behind the suicide attacks in Pakistan? If not, why is it so easy to accept they're real in Pakistan but not elsewhere?

Public opinion is powerful, and is heavily managed. Public perceptions of conflicts are managed heavily, they always have been.

Careful logical steps here - point out where you think the mistake is if you disagree with the conclusion: The public fought & campaigned furiously against the war - including TWO MILLION people marching against it - but the government went anyway. Therefore the government did not need public opinion on their side to go. Therefore they had no motive to get public opinion on their side. Therefore the motive that your theory relies so heavily on does not exist. Therefore your theory is flawed.

But again, it is up to you what you believe.

Patronising bullshit - unless you think that's a legitimate sentence, in which case much of your theory is suddenly explained. "It's up to you what you believe"?! No - I believe what the evidence shows. Clear sign here though that, in your opinion, what you believe is a matter of choice - so you're choosing to believe all these theories? Or are you just patronising me?

Occams Razor says all things being equal, the simplest explanation tends to be the right one. Why is what we are told automatically a simple explanation, and the idea that it is a lie complicated?

What we are told isn't automatically a simple explanation, and that wasn't what I was suggesting. What I'm suggesting is that, as above, once you accept that suicide bombings in Pakistan are the work of religious fundamentalists, the simplest explanation for the exact same bombings in Iraq, Afghanistan, and indeed here in the UK, is that they have the same cause. Cherry picking photos here and there, asking questions about some (but not all - ie. Pakistan) and turning a blind eye to all the evidence to support the suicide bomber theory is hardly simpler now, is it?

According to some people Occams Razor proves that there are no conspiracies. Ever. For me, that demonstrates a misunderstanding of Occams Razor.

Not me - see above.

EDIT - just to add, it's past my bedtime now, so I'll read/reply in the morning...

 

[SeagullinExile]

complete inside job....

7/7 Ripple Effect

watch before replying please......

THIS!

If you have'nt seen it, watch it. A horrifying event, but way too many unanswered questions IMHO.

 

[dingodan]

[MENTION=256]DTES[/MENTION]

I'm not being funny but I come across as patronising, and you are frustrating, for one simple reason. You dont know enough about what you are talking about. That is not to be rude to you, because not many people know much at all about this subject. We are both expressing very strong opinions, but only one of us seems to know the subject matter. If you want to hold such strong convictions, I suggest you research the subject.

Not all terrorist attacks are by the intelligence services and not all attacks are by religious fundementalists. But the ability of people who want to commit attacks is limited. Logistically, financially and technically. Large attacks, usually the big media story type attacks often also end up showing evidence that suggest intelligence involvement.

It is important to understand that the intelligence community has transnational and interlocking connections.

The ISI, the Pakistan Intelligence services (from Wiki):
- was the brainchild of Australian-born British Army officer, Major General R. Cawthome, then Deputy Chief of Staff in the Pakistan Army.
- The Soviet war in Afghanistan of the 1980s saw the enhancement of the covert action capabilities of the ISI by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).
- A number of officers from the ISI's Covert Action Division (Special Activities Division) received training in the United States and many covert action experts of the CIA were attached to the ISI to guide it in its operations against the Soviet troops by using the Afghan Mujahideen.

Similar story with other intelligence services.

Yes the public protested the war. But if you think we could have gone to war without creating a seemingly legitimate argument for doing so, which is what you are suggesting, you are wrong. And we have to deal with the international community too, who need convincing that we have a reason to do what we are doing.

I said it is up to you what you believe, I guess what I really meant is it is up to you to research stuff and form your opinions for yourself. I am not going to give you an entire history lesson.

You said:

once you accept that suicide bombings in Pakistan are the work of religious fundamentalists, the simplest explanation for the exact same bombings in Iraq, Afghanistan, and indeed here in the UK, is that they have the same cause.

Sorry but that is complete fallacy. Occams Razor was never meant to be used in this way. By your logic, if you find that someone has had a car crash because they were drunk, then all other car crashes must be caused by people driving drunk.

 

[brightonrock]

Whether or not there are unanswered questions, is a matter of opinion. Whether it is disrespectful to ask these questions, or the ultimate respect for uncovering the 'truth', is a matter of opinion. What is not an opinion is that this is a memorial thread, not a discussion of a conspiracy theory. This is akin to the Christian nutters in America picketing the soldier's funerals, bringing a separate agenda to a situation intended for grieving and rememberance. THERE IS A TIME AND A PLACE FOR ARGUMENT AND DEBATE. Maybe that's another thread on this board. But this thread is not that place.

 

[dingodan]

This is akin to the Christian nutters in America picketing the soldier's funerals, bringing a separate agenda to a situation intended for grieving and rememberance.

Nice one. Well done.

 

[brightonrock]

Nice one. Well done.

Missed my point there I think. Didn't say you were like them- they are reprehensible, whilst your intentions are, I don't doubt, honourable and respectful. What I said was your agenda was being implemented in the wrong forum. I'm not doubting your intentions, but your methods and choice of platform for doing so.