7/7/2005

[sammi jo]

Today is the first anniversary of the 7/7 London tube and bus bombings. 56 were killed and over 700 hurt. But once again, just like 9/11, there are insurmountable problems with the UK government's version of events.

The alleged perpetrators had taken the 0740 Thameslink train from Luton to Kings Cross on the morning of July 7th. Unfortunately for the authorities, this is where they have been caught in a lie: That train was CANCELED that morning, and all trains that morning were subject to heavy delays, meaning that the alleged bombers COULD NOT HAVE reached London that morning in the manner the UK government claimed.

To quote from the 7/7/ Inquiry (http://julyseventh.co.uk/index.html) There is much more problematic material explored on this website.

An eyewitness later stated that she had been at Luton station that morning and that the 0740 had been cancelled. Thameslink Rail later confirmed that not only had the 0740 been cancelled but that all trains that morning ran with heavy delays due to problems further up the line. This confirmation first came from Marie Bernes at Thameslink Customer Relations and then from Chris Hudson, the Communications Manager for Thameslink Rail at Luton Station at the time.

There is also the parallel with 9/11 of mock terrorist attack rehearsals/drills, which by some extraordinary coincidence on 7/7, happened at exactly the same times, on the same tube stations as the actual attacks. This company was involved in the drills (http://www.visorconsultants.com/)

See this page also (http://julyseventh.co.uk/july-7-terror-rehearsal.html)

Before someone derails the thread with the monotonously predictable "conspiracy theory" yawn, I am just stating a known fact... a simple, verifiable item like a train timetable and a service cancelation, which screws up the officially sanctioned timeline, and thus catches the UK government and law enforcement in a series of lies. If just one aspect of the UK government's version has been proven either wrong (or fabricated), then logic dictates that we all have to call the rest of it into question.

Simple Question: If the UK government's story is watertight and authentic, and those men knowingly really did plant live bombs on London Transport trains and buses, why did Scotland Yard have to lie about it?

edited because of incorrect URL (doh!)

[segovius]

More questions:

Why was it reported that the explosives used were military in origin but then the story changed to say they were homemade?

Why did eyewitnesses on the train say the explosion came from underneath? ANd why did the police initially agree based on the floor of the train being blown upwards?

Why did the cameras on the targeted bus malfunction that day? Why was the bus diverted from its usual route?

Who were the mysterious inspectors who checked the CCTV cameras on the bus days before the bombings - taking two entire days to carry out tasks which normally take just hours to complete.

Who profited from short-selling the British Pound in the ten days before the attack? The pound fell 6% for no particular reason. Fortunes were made after the pound dropped even further in the aftermath of the attacks. This directly mirrors short selling of United and American Airline stocks in the days before 9/11.

[midwinter]

Feh. It was a power surge. That's what the conductor on the Circle Line told me that morning at 9:00 after I'd slept in and missed my Piccadily line out of Gloucester Road Station at 8:40 that I'd been taking every morning.

[Harald]

Originally posted by segovius
More questions:

Why did eyewitnesses on the train say the explosion came from underneath? ANd why did the police initially agree based on the floor of the train being blown upwards?

Why did the Guardian journalist who kicked this meme off write an entire article decrying how the conspiracy rumour mill works, and how an early mistake in reporting came back to haunt him?

For God's sake. If a bunch of murderous bastards blew themselves and others up last July, it does not make 'the West' any less responsible for the climate in which this could happen.

[segovius]

Originally posted by Harald
Why did the Guardian journalist who kicked this meme off write an entire article decrying how the conspiracy rumour mill works, and how an early mistake in reporting came back to haunt him?

For God's sake. If a bunch of murderous bastards blew themselves and others up last July, it does not make 'the West' any less responsible for the climate in which this could happen.

I really think it's far worse than that. Far worse.

The first thing we really need to take on board s this: to explain is not to condone.

I am not saying you are claiming this but I hear it all the time. Someone says something like "this happened because of Iraq" and the counter is always "nothing justifies this...".

No-one is trying to justify. We all know the bombers were to blame. We need to apportion the degree of Blair's blame too - and I believe it goes far deeper than just Iraq.

Secondly: there are anomalies. No harm in noting that. As I say, it excuses nothing but there ARE things that the UK government does not want asked or looked at. Why would I go along with that? Anything they don't want looked at needs viewing under the Hubble Space Telescope.

Finally, you need to realize how Islamist 'Jihadi' cells work and who is control.

If you discount the Iraqi Insurgents - certainly the Shi'i and local Sunni resistance (as opposed to foreign al-Qaeda) - then the Islamist/Jihadi phenomena is 100% Wahabi/Salafi. Ie 100% Saudi originated.

If you study this you will find that virtually all such activity worldwide is Wahabi, from Darfur to Nigeria to Yemen. As I say, leave out Iraq (though they are active there) because of the natural resistance.

I won't bore you with stuff about Saudi and Wahabism you already know but suffice to say that the British were instrumental in the creation of the doctrine and the new idea that it was ok for Muslims to kill Muslims which had previously been forbidden and consequently a thorn in the side of Britain's aspirations in the region.

Nobody sits round a table 'planning' these massive conspiracies. It doesn't work like that. Of course they believe what they are doing - but if you think that Western Intelligence does not monitor and infiltrate these groups it is not feasible.

And from infiltration it is a short step to sowing a seed here and a seed there - the undercover operative withdraws and the group hatch an original plan based on the impetus.

No blame - but equal responsibility imo.

[segovius]

One more thing: the conspiracy could well be to obscure the fact that the Government have failed in their duties.

For example: London bomber Khan was under MI5 surveillance for months before the bombings.

Times Article (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-2179602,00.html)

Here's another one (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-2242598,00.html) detailing how a tracking bug was recovered from his car.

And this doesn't cause any questions in the public mind. That alone is worrying.

[Harald]

Your points about the bigger conspiracy are well made. Not sure if it was obvious, but that was exactly what I meant. Double negatives.

But the smaller conspiracy concerns whether or not floors blew up or down (and so on), and that's the level you opened the thread with ... so don't change the frame of reference SVP.

(and you think Bacon wrote Shakespeare -- am I wrong -- so you 5-star need to check yourself for sure)

[sammi jo]

Originally posted by segovius
[B]I really think it's far worse than that. Far worse.

The first thing we really need to take on board s this: to explain is not to condone.

I am not saying you are claiming this but I hear it all the time. Someone says something like "this happened because of Iraq" and the counter is always "nothing justifies this...".

No-one is trying to justify. We all know the bombers were to blame. We need to apportion the degree of Blair's blame too - and I believe it goes far deeper than just Iraq.

Secondly: there are anomalies. No harm in noting that. As I say, it excuses nothing but there ARE things that the UK government does not want asked or looked at. Why would I go along with that? Anything they don't want looked at needs viewing under the Hubble Space Telescope.

Finally, you need to realize how Islamist 'Jihadi' cells work and who is control.

If you discount the Iraqi Insurgents - certainly the Shi'i and local Sunni resistance (as opposed to foreign al-Qaeda) - then the Islamist/Jihadi phenomena is 100% Wahabi/Salafi. Ie 100% Saudi originated.

If you study this you will find that virtually all such activity worldwide is Wahabi, from Darfur to Nigeria to Yemen. As I say, leave out Iraq (though they are active there) because of the natural resistance.

I won't bore you with stuff about Saudi and Wahabism you already know but suffice to say that the British were instrumental in the creation of the doctrine and the new idea that it was ok for Muslims to kill Muslims which had previously been forbidden and consequently a thorn in the side of Britain's aspirations in the region.

Nobody sits round a table 'planning' these massive conspiracies. It doesn't work like that. Of course they believe what they are doing - but if you think that Western Intelligence does not monitor and infiltrate these groups it is not feasible.

And from infiltration it is a short step to sowing a seed here and a seed there - the undercover operative withdraws and the group hatch an original plan based on the impetus.

No blame - but equal responsibility imo.

There are too many unknowns in this case for anyone, from no matter what political stripe, to be comfortable. I would like to know the real reason why PM Blair has repeatedly refused to allow an inquiry into the 7/7 attacks.

**

"Al Qaida": "We attacked them because we hate their freedoms".
Response: Trash the Constitution, take away freedoms and civil rights, then the terrorists won't attack us again.

Easy. Problem solved.

[segovius]

Originally posted by Harald
(and you think Bacon wrote Shakespeare -- am I wrong -- so you 5-star need to check yourself for sure)

Err....no, I think Edward de Vere the Earl of Oxford headed a group that together produced the plays attributed to the actor William Shakespeare......

[Hassan i Sabbah]

Originally posted by segovius
Err....no, I think Edward de Vere the Earl of Oxford headed a group that together produced the plays attributed to the actor William Shakespeare......
This deserves a thread of its own.

In the meantime, a bunch of trains and a bus in London were blown up by terrorists inspired by Islam last year. Yes they were, and instead of using our time to consider our responsibility, or lack of it, our how we can change things to prevent it happening again, and stuff like that, you're doing everyone a great disservice by going round the houses to arrive at a 'truth' that depends on your ignoring the ridiculously abundant evidence.

[segovius]

Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
This deserves a thread of its own.

In the meantime, a bunch of trains and a bus in London were blown up by terrorists inspired by Islam last year. Yes they were, and instead of using our time to consider our responsibility, or lack of it, our how we can change things to prevent it happening again, and stuff like that, you're doing everyone a great disservice by going round the houses to arrive at a 'truth' that depends on your ignoring the ridiculously abundant evidence.

This could be an interesting discussion. Let me outline my thought process on this and I think you will see (I hope) that the analysis above is actually a dis-service.

I don't start from a fixed belief in a conspiracy (ie incident X was an inside job) and work backwards to find evidence to 'prove' it, though this is the method of mist 'conspiracy buffs'. Instead I start from the following premises:

1) There is (imo) a fixed agenda by certain parties on Governmental level to change the workings of society in a radical manner.

From my pov, I would call this a slide to totalitarianism but from the pov of the said parties they might sincerely believe in the project. the point is that it exists and is happening.

2) Bush and Blair are united in support of this agenda regardless of whether they are the prime movers.

3) Bush and Blair are prepared to lie to the public in furtherance of this agenda.

4) They will also use any incidents that occur as part of the fallout of that agenda (or if you prefer, as part of the root-causes of their agenda) as a justification to press on with the agenda, alter it, increase it.

So really it all comes down to a simple question: do you trust the government? My answer is no, not on anything. Imo nothing they say can be taken on face value.

Of course they do not lie all the time and about everything but that is all the more reason to pay special attention when anomalies are present. And they are in this case.

Look, you oppose the war in Iraq and iirc, believed Blair lied about the WMD. Why do you not believe he may be lying about aspects of 7/7 ?

It does not necessarily mean that the attack was orchestrated by the government - we don't know what it means or where the trail may lead if we actually followed it.

All I am saying is that there is more to it and stuff we are not being told.

[segovius]

Also I meant to say that the links between Islamist ideology and the Bush/Blair project are quite strong if you think about it.

I recently read an article in a Middle East journal which attempted to address the issue of why Iran is seemingly not afraid of the US. The theory was that the Iranians know the US will not invade as the US agenda is to support and install Islamist regimes - for whatever reason was not explained - and as Iran already is such a regime it is safe.

You may think this ridiculous as I did but the more you look at what is happening - not think about it but just LOOK - then it starts to look feasible.

Who is the chief Arab US ally in the region? Saudi. Wahabi regime. utterly no chance whatsoever of regime-change. None whatsoever.

Ditto Yemen, UAE, Dubai, Turkey, Kuwait etc - all Islamist regimes of one stripe or another and all utterly safe with no question of invasion. All key allies.

Who have the US actually attacked? Iraq and Afghanistan.

Iraq was a secular regime. It has now been replaced with a religious Islamic government.

Afghanistan was Taleban. Replaced with religious government - Taleban back on the throne and controlling key areas.

Who did the US support in the Afghan campaign? Hekmatyar - if he had ben opposed to the US (or if the US had opposed him) this guy would have been painted as worse than Zarqawi. Which he is. At the time the US were funding him he was throwing acid in the faces of unveiled women in downtown Kabul. Then the US chose him as their 'man in Afghanistan'. For this reason you won't read too many media reports of his atrocities but they are legion.

The Northern Alliance - ditto. A bigger bunch of extremist thugs you will never meet. But no, it is the Taleban that are demonized purely because they are on the other side.

And remember the CIA was running and funding many of the Mujahidin camps and groups at the time of the Soviet occupation. None of the Arabs that went to these camps were fighters - the Afghans were the fighters and the Afghans defeated the Russians. When did you really here of Arab fighters there significantly? Never. They were there for another reason.

Ie to spread their doctrine of extremism. And this is exactly what happened. And they were being funded by the US to do it - albeit, as I say, it was called 'funding for fighting' but this is not what it was.

It was purely and simply to rationalize the presence of Saudi 'missionaries' whose purpose was to perpetuate an Islamist movement.

And these are the camps that the London bombers allegedly (yes, there is some question of doubt - that is we do not know whether they attended these camps or not despite many claims) attended.

So what is going on?

[Harald]

All true. And not the thread you started.

We -- we, segovius -- need to stay sane and level headed and not let faith guide our words or actions. The floors blew down.

[segovius]

Originally posted by Harald
All true. And not the thread you started.

We -- we, segovius -- need to stay sane and level headed and not let faith guide our words or actions. The floors blew down.

I didn't start the thread Harald but I absolutely agree.

Emotion and faith can cloud clear vision - we are stuck in the middle of two factions who utilize both on us. We have to be clear headed, not always easy!

[sammi jo]

Originally posted by segovius
I didn't start the thread Harald but I absolutely agree.

I think the thread, and its original points are as valid now as they were the day the attacks happened. It's been a year since the bombings, and none of the questions mentioned have even been addressed, (let alone answered), by the Blair government.

Have supposedly democratic governments now become so unapproachable/unaccountable that it is considered out of bounds to even ask simple questions to stories that are clearly impossible, and defy logic or the laws of nature?

Or have we become so immersed in a 'faith-based' mode of (mis)perception, where no matter what governments tell you, they remain unquestionable? Is this a sympton of the subtle but ongoing war on science?

[sammi jo]

Here is a very well put together documentary/analysis of the London 7/7 attacks, and how they initiated the UK government do the "job of the terrorists", namely the dismantling and destruction of the British way of life, and the freedoms associated with it.

How can the weasels answer these charges?

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4943675105275097719

[MarcUK]

Here is a very well put together documentary/analysis of the London 7/7 attacks, and how they initiated the UK government do the "job of the terrorists", namely the dismantling and destruction of the British way of life, and the freedoms associated with it.

How can the weasels answer these charges?

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4943675105275097719

I think the reality of life, is that the weasels will never have to answer to any charges as long as they can maintain a working majority of sheep who will never bring them to court.