7/7 London Bombings

tunaman

Here is an excellent new documentary, which reveals that the official story is based on withheld evidence, dodgy eyewitness accounts and outright lies.

Ludicrous Diversion - 7/7 London Bombings Documentary

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

mike65

27 mins of speculation. That they talk about the Birmingham Six etc like we'd never heard of them suggets this is designed for the gullible and foreign.

Whos' behind this?

Actually its not even a speculation, merely a political tract about CCTV and anti/state paranoia.

Mike.

So Glad

Another sad attempt at securing a new world order. Although, people don't really care.

Ciaran500

Got any Madrid bombings vids?

So Glad

Is it mearly a coincidence that on September 11th and July 7th security forces were conducting "war-games" or "drills" simulating attacks EXSACTLY the same as were unfolding?

September 11th seen US air forces being sent all over America simulating what to do when three planes are hijacked and are plotting to fly into buildings. The air-force never knew if they should respond with urgency because of the fact they thought they were doing an excercise.

July 7th seen the same old story. Police and emergency force were doing simulations of terrorist bombings happening in the subway and on busses. When the event they were practising on unfolded in front of their eyes they didn't know whether to react seriously or not.

Don't worry, they are just more coincidences..

oscarBravo

So Glad wrote:

September 11th seen US air forces being sent all over America simulating what to do when three planes are hijacked and are plotting to fly into buildings.

Have you got a source for this? Because I don't think it's true.

bonkey

So Glad wrote:

Is it mearly a coincidence that on September 11th and July 7th security forces were conducting "war-games" or "drills" simulating attacks EXSACTLY the same as were unfolding?

EXACTLY??? Not one whit of a difference?

I would suggest you are exaggerating the similarities.

Nick_oliveri

oscarBravo wrote:

Have you got a source for this? Because I don't think it's true.

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline&before_9/11=militaryExercises

Not exactly three planes, but close enough.

I dont know if this site is bullshít, but it was linked from this wiki article.

Edit: Jaysus!!

June 1-2, 2001: Military Conducts Exercises Based on Scenario in which Cruise Missiles Are Launched against US

Bin Laden is pictured on the cover of the first Amalgam Virgo exercise. [Source: NORAD]Bin Laden is pictured on the cover of the first Amalgam Virgo exercise.



The US military conducts Amalgam Virgo 01, a multi-agency planning exercise sponsored by NORAD involving the hypothetical scenario of a cruise missile being launched by “a rogue [government] or somebody” from a barge off the East Coast.

Bin Laden is pictured on the cover of the proposal for the exercise. [American Forces Press Service, 6/4/2002] The exercise takes place at Tyndall Air Force Base in Florida. [GlobalSecurity (.org), 4/14/2002]

The next Amalgam Virgo exercise, scheduled to take place the following year, will involve two simultaneous commercial aircraft hijackings.

Planning for the exercises begins before 9/11 (see Before September 11, 2001).

oscarBravo

Nick_oliveri wrote:

Not exactly three planes, but close enough.

I could be missing something, but I see very little of relevance to what actually happened on 9/11, apart from a discussion of emergency procedures in the event of an accidental plane crash at the Pentagon (which is pretty much on the flight path to Reagan Airport).

If there's something on that page that indicates that "...on September 11th... security forces were conducting "war-games" or "drills" simulating attacks EXSACTLY the same as were unfolding...", please point it out to me.

civdef

July 7th seen the same old story. Police and emergency force were doing simulations of terrorist bombings happening in the subway and on busses. When the event they were practising on unfolded in front of their eyes they didn't know whether to react seriously or not.

What are you basing that on?

So Glad

Just search on Google, it's all there.

bonkey

So Glad wrote:

Just search on Google, it's all there.

By that token, so is pretty-much everything here, posted by either side of the argument.

Given that you should presumably know your own sources, surely it would make more sense for you to defend you claims by pulling up said sources.

After all, if anyone were to turn up google stuff that says, for example, other to your claims that it was exactly the same....all you have to do is tell them google again, until they find what it is you used.

Not a terribly convincing defence of a position, in this poster's opinion.

Gordon

So Glad wrote:

Just search on Google, it's all there.

I know bonkey has gone through this but I want to reiterate that point. Telling people to search on Google to find the answer is not just pointless, it's quite insulting to the interested readers. I'm linking this also with people that say 'check the website I linked to' when the poster linked to the front page of the website containing a myriad of links. And people on this forum will also say 'check the video' which is an hour, or longer, long video containing a myriad of possible facts. Not only is it annoying to attempt to download said videos but more annoying to sift through the facts.

Sometimes I think that many people on this particular forum think that they can fire a shotgun of information throwing out hundreds of wee pellets of info in hope that something will strike the target. That's fair enough for some, many people will be happy with one or two solid looking bits of evidence, but for others (like me) it's extremely frustrating to be barraged with data and no focussed reference point to hone in on initially.

Nick_oliveri

oscarBravo wrote:

I could be missing something, but I see very little of relevance to what actually happened on 9/11, apart from a discussion of emergency procedures in the event of an accidental plane crash at the Pentagon (which is pretty much on the flight path to Reagan Airport).

If there's something on that page that indicates that "...on September 11th... security forces were conducting "war-games" or "drills" simulating attacks EXSACTLY the same as were unfolding...", please point it out to me.

Woah sorry, i was just giving the link, i didnt mean to imply that the drills were "Exactly" the same.

:rolleyes: I should have copped that.

Diogenes

So Glad wrote:

Is it mearly a coincidence that on September 11th and July 7th security forces were conducting "war-games" or "drills" simulating attacks EXSACTLY the same as were unfolding?

No that isn't true a crisis management company (no the police and security services) A company which supply some logistics to part of the underground was running a logistical exerise, in Kings Cross, and not in all four stations as is erronously stated in the documentary.

Thats just the start of the collection of lies, distortion and utter bull**** contained in the piece.

Particularly of note is its denegration of eye witness accounts, while gripping firmly as proof any minor inconsistency in the offical story as events unfold. Essentially having it's cake and eating it behaviour. Eye witnesses which disagree with him can be ignored as they are unrealible, while any mistakes in the offical story as events unfold is proof of the conspiracy.

The 7/7 conspiraloons make the 9/11 conspiraloons look like a fine oiled coherent machine, their "evidence" of a conspiracy is that evidence has been not been released (tell me to the police regularly hand over DNA evidence just because someone asks for it) The fact that Khan doesn't talk about blowing himself up (he does talk about maytrdom, that bit they ignore), some of the most laughable claims that video of the guys has been photoshopped, and timestamps on CCTVs cameras are off (because they live in a world where all CCTV camera are wired to atomic clocks and never two clocks never give different times. They've even accused Rachel North (a edgeware road bomb survivor) of the 7/7 victims group of being contilpro.

tunaman

bonkey wrote:

By that token, so is pretty-much everything here, posted by either side of the argument.

Given that you should presumably know your own sources, surely it would make more sense for you to defend you claims by pulling up said sources.

After all, if anyone were to turn up google stuff that says, for example, other to your claims that it was exactly the same....all you have to do is tell them google again, until they find what it is you used.

Not a terribly convincing defence of a position, in this poster's opinion.

You have some cheek berating somebody else for an unconvincing defence...

Here we are 5 years later, and no one has come CLOSE to explaining the fall of building 7 other than by demolition...

Yet you still try to deny the evidence of your eyes...

Here is Peter Power who was running the drill at the time, admitting that the bombs went off at EXACTLY the same place as the drill had planned.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aGE9FiuM06o

So now that we have confirmed that the drill was an exactly copy of what happened, that is much more than any ridiculous coincidence defence...

Nothing to say about the rest of the facts brought up in the 30 minute documentary?

gilroyb

tunaman wrote:

You have some cheek berating somebody else for an unconvincing defence...

Here we are 5 years later, and no one has come CLOSE to explaining the fall of building 7 other than by demolition...

Yet you still try to deny the evidence of your eyes...

Here is Peter Power who was running the drill at the time, admitting that the bombs went off at EXACTLY the same place as the drill had planned.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aGE9FiuM06o

So now that we have confirmed that the drill was an exactly copy of what happened, that is much more than any ridiculous coincidence defence...

Nothing to say about the rest of the facts brought up in the 30 minute documentary?

So it was explosives placed in the Twin Towers that caused the 7/7 bombing in London? Try and stick to one topic at a time

tunaman

gilroyb wrote:

So it was explosives placed in the Twin Towers that caused the 7/7 bombing in London? Try and stick to one topic at a time

The official story of 9/11 and 7/7 are both conspiracy theories...

9/11 was brought up and linked to 7/7 by many others in the thread...

Diogenes

tunaman wrote:

Here is Peter Power who was running the drill at the time, admitting that the bombs went off at EXACTLY the same place as the drill had planned.

Theres three real points here.

1) Kings Cross is one of the busiest train stations in Europe, if you were planning on running an emergency drill this would be (along with say Victoria or Waterloo) the most plausible place to run drills. So I think what we have here is another tenuious "I told them to pull it" moment.

2) The report due out later this month is according to leaks going to praise the actions of individual members of the emergency service and underground staff, but overall condemn the "chaotic" structure of overall command. Not a ringing endorsement that command was in on it now is it?

3) What is the merit of the above? Are you suggesting Powers is? Are you suggesting he was in on it? If so why was he running a drill? If he wasn't "in on it" why would the "gubivment" have had the drill go forward on that day?

Waving around claiming its more "than a coincidence", when you cannot explain the significance of a training excerise and how it relates, seems like you're clutching at straws.

Nothing to say about the rest of the facts brought up in the 30 minute documentary?

Which facts in particular? As had been said before, it's phenominally lazy of you to keep linking to video after video, without presenting a written case that you will stand behind. It's weary and tedious of you to link to video that forces whomever you're talking to, to stop start, goggle and response, only to find you not bothering to rebut facts, merely use ad homien's hurl abuse and then link to another bloody video.

bonkey

tunaman wrote:

Here is Peter Power who was running the drill at the time, admitting that the bombs went off at EXACTLY the same place as the drill had planned.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aGE9FiuM06o

So now that we have confirmed that the drill was an exactly copy of what happened, that is much more than any ridiculous coincidence defence...

I'm reminded of a discussion we had previously concerning Romero and his claims. Then, as now, you took someone's initial comments and neglected to mention that the person in question has since backed away from their initial assertion.

Power has clarified since the original "Precisely" comments that he didn't really mean that they were identical, but rather that there were similarities, and that one scenario of their training program in particular was disconcertingly similar to one of the bombs.

In short, he no longer stands by the assertion that they were identical, and hasn't done so for over a year now.

As with Romero...I ask why you omitted to tell anyone this. Then, as now, you are apparently selecting which subset of information to present (assuming you were aware of his change in stance) in order to portray it in a less questionable light than it should be.

(Aside - you may also note that in a seperate thread, I have acknowledged that even an expert may be led to a desired conclusion, regardless of its correctness, by selecting the right subset of information to let them see).

I fully accept that its possible that Parker's original version could be the accurate one, before you take that approach as you did with Romero.

However, as with Romero, I also accept that its possible his revised position is the accurate one.

Until it is determined which position is correct, I believe it to be disingenuous for anyone to favour one version over the other without making it clear that both are possible and explaining why they chose one over the other. You failed to do this.

The only exception to this would be where someone was not aware that Parker's "clarification" of his comments is, in effect, a revision of just how similar the events were. In such a case, it clearly couldn't be disingenuity. Instead, it would be indicative of sloppy research.

jc

Jocksereire

Sources: August terror plot is a 'fiction' underscoring police failures

Nafeez Ahmed | September 18 2006

British Army expert casts doubt on 'liquid explosives' threat, Al Qaeda network in UK Identified

Lieutenant-Colonel (ret.) Nigel Wylde, a former senior British Army Intelligence Officer, has suggested that the police and government story about the "terror plot" revealed on 10th August was part of a "pattern of lies and deceit."

British and American government officials have described the operation which resulting in the arrest of 24 mostly British Muslim suspects, as a resounding success. Thirteen of the suspects have been charged, and two released without charges.

According to security sources, the terror suspects were planning to board up to ten civilian airliners and detonate highly volatile liquid explosives on the planes in a spectacular terrorist operation. The liquid explosives -- either TATP (Triacetone Triperoxide), DADP (diacetone diperoxide) or the less sensitive HMTD (hexamethylene triperoxide diamine) -- were reportedly to be made on board the planes by mixing sports drinks with a peroxide-based household gel and then be detonated using an MP3 player or mobile phone.

But Lt. Col. Wylde, who was awarded the Queen's Gallantry Medal for his command of the Belfast Explosive Ordnance Disposal Unit in 1974, described this scenario as a "fiction." Creating liquid explosives is a "highly dangerous and sophisticated task," he states, one that requires not only significant chemical expertise but also appropriate equipment.

Terror plot scenario "untenable"

"The idea that these people could sit in the plane toilet and simply mix together these normal household fluids to create a high explosive capable of blowing up the entire aircraft is untenable," said Lt. Col. Wylde, who was trained as an ammunition technical officer responsible for terrorist bomb disposal at the Royal Army Ordnance Corps in Sandhurst.

After working as a bomb defuser in Northern Ireland, Lt. Col. Wylde became a senior officer in British Army Intelligence in 1977. During the Cold War, he collected intelligence as part of an undercover East German "liaison unit," then went on to work in the Ministry of Defense to review its communications systems.

"So who came up with the idea that a bomb could be made on board? Not Al Qaeda for sure. It would not work. Bin Laden is interested in success not deterrence by failure," Wylde stated.

"This story has been blown out of all proportion. The liquids would need to be carefully distilled at freezing temperatures to extract the required chemicals, which are very difficult to obtain in the purities needed."

Once the fluids have been extracted, the process of mixing them produces significant amounts of heat and vile fumes. "The resulting liquid then needs some hours at room temperature for the white crystals that are the explosive to develop." The whole process, which can take between 12 and 36 hours, is "very dangerous, even in a lab, and can lead to premature detonation," said Lt. Col. Wylde.

If there was a conspiracy, he added, "it did not involve manufacturing the explosives in the loo," as this simply "could not have worked." The process would be quickly and easily detected. The fumes of the chemicals in the toilet "would be smelt by anybody in the area." They would also inevitably "cause the alarms in the toilet and in the air change system in the aircraft to be triggered. The pilot has the ability to dump all the air from an aircraft as a fire-fighting measure, leaving people to use oxygen masks. All this means the planned attack would be detected long before the queues outside the loo had grown to enormous lengths."

Government silent on detonators

Even if it was possible for the explosive to have been made on the aircraft, a detonator, probably made from TATP, would be needed to set it off. "It is very dangerous and risky to the individual," Wylde said. "As the quantity involved would be small this would injure the would-be suicide bomber but not endanger the aircraft, thus defeating the object of bringing down an aircraft."

Despite the implausibility of this scenario, it has been used to justify wide-ranging new security measures that threaten to permanently curtail civil liberties and to suspend sections of the United Kingdom's Human Rights Act of 1998. "Why were the public delicately informed of an alleged conspiracy which the authorities knew, or should have known, could not have worked?" asked Lt. Col. Wylde.

"This is not a new problem," he added, noting that 'shoe-bomber' Richard Reid had attempted to use this type of explosive on a plane in December 2001. "If this threat is real, what has been done to develop explosive test kits capable of detecting peroxide based explosives?" asked Wylde. "These are the real issues about protecting the public that have not been publicised. Instead we are going to get demands for more internment without trial."

Lt. Col. Wylde also raised questions about the criminal investigation into the 7th July terrorist attacks in London last year. He noted that police and government sources have maintained "total silence" about the detonation devices used in the bombs on the London Underground and the bus at Tavistock Square. "Whatever the nature of the primary explosive materials, even if it was home-made TATP, the detonator that must be used to trigger an explosion is an extremely dangerous device to make, requiring a high level of expertise that cannot be simply self-taught or picked-up over the internet," Wylde stated.

The government's silence on the detonation device used in the attacks is "disturbing," he said, as the creation of the devices requires the involvement of trained explosives experts. Wylde speculated that such individuals would have to be present either inside the country or outside, perhaps in Eastern Europe, where they would be active participants in an international supply-chain to UK operatives. "In either case, we are talking about something far more dangerous than home-grown radicals here."

Spy slams police inaction against terrorists

Wylde's concerns are echoed by others familiar with British terrorism-related intelligence operations, such as Glen Jenvey, who is profiled in the bestselling book, The Terror Tracker, by terrorism investigator Neil Doyle. Jenvey worked for several military attaches monitoring terrorist groups in London and obtained crucial video and surveillance evidence used by British police to arrest radical cleric Abu Hamza al-Masri, who was convicted last February.

"I've been closely monitoring the internet communications of extremist Muslim groups inside the UK both before and after 7/7, and they are intimately interconnected," said Jenvey, who is affiliated with the London-based terror watch group VIGIL. "We've identified a coordinated leadership of at least 20 and up to 60 people, extremist preachers with blatant international al-Qaeda terrorist connections."

Jenvey noted that even though they are known to the authorities and are monitored while breaking the law with impunity, particularly in their private sermons, the police have failed to take appropriate action against them. "The police don't need to round up and detain thousands of British Muslims. If they only arrested, charged and prosecuted these 20 key terrorist leaders, they will have a struck a fatal blow against the epicentres of al-Qaeda extremism in the UK. But they're sitting on this."

Jenvey points to Omar Bakri Mohammed, a colleague of convicted terrorist Abu Hamza who headed the now-banned Islamist group al-Muhajiroun in the United Kingdom. Despite being exiled to Lebanon, Omar Bakri continues to communicate with UK-based extremist groups which are believed to be successors of al-Muhajiroun operating under new names, including the Saved Sect and al-Ghurabaa. British security sources have confirmed that the 7/7 bombers were associates of Omar Bakri's network, and Bakri himself publicly boasted a year before the London bombings that an al-Qaeda cell in London was planning a terrorist strike.

An investigation by the counterterrorism unit in the New York Police Department found that Bakri's al-Muhajiroun had formed 81 front groups and support networks in six countries, most of them based in London, the home counties bordering London, the Midlands, Lancashire and West Yorkshire. By the time Home Secretary Dr. John Reid moved in July to proscribe the latest incarnation of al-Muhajiroun, al-Ghurabaa, this sprawling interconnected network was fully functioning and continues to operate namelessly, despite proscription. Bakri's network has recently adopted the name "Al Sabiqoon Al-Awwaloon".

Jenvey complains that, despite the arrest in early September of radical cleric Abu Abdullah, convicted terrorist Abu Hamza's successor at the Finsbury Park Mosque, a "hardcore group of 20 or more extremists operating around Omar Bakri" remains at large. "The police have every reason to act, and they know who these people are. Their failure to do so has only exacerbated unjustified demonization of Muslims. These extremists are not Muslims in any meaningful sense, they are simply terrorists obsessed with violence."

MI5, MI6 recruiting extremists?

Even the arrest of Abu Abdullah only occurred after his support for terrorism was widely reported in the British and American media in late August. On 23rd August, he justified the killing of Westerners and told CNN correspondent Dan Rivers that Tony Blair is a "legitimate target" of jihad. The Sunday Times remarked that he "is apparently being allowed to operate unchecked by the authorities five months after a law was passed making it a criminal offence to glorify terrorism."

Torture may have been used to extract evidence for the weekend police raids which resulted in the arrest of 14 British Muslims, including Abdullah. Sources confirm that information came from detainees at Camp X-Ray in Guantanamo, where interrogation techniques classified as torture under international law are routinely used.

The reluctance to take decisive action against the leadership of the extremist network in the UK has a long history. According to John Loftus, a former Justice Department prosecutor, Omar Bakri and Abu Hamza, as well as the suspected mastermind of the London bombings Haroon Aswat, were all recruited by MI6 in the mid-1990s to draft up British Muslims to fight in Kosovo. American and French security sources corroborate the revelation. The MI6 connection raises questions about Bakri's relationship with British authorities today. Exiled to Lebanon and outside British jurisdiction, he is effectively immune to prosecution.

Other London-based radical clerics with terrorist connections also had a relationship to the security services. Abu Qatada, described as al-Qaeda's European ambassador, was, according to French sources a long-time MI5 informant. Pakistani government insiders similarly believe that Ahmed Omar Sheikh Saeed, the British al-Qaeda finance chief from Forest Gate, not only worked with the ISI, Pakistani's military intelligence service, but was also recruited by the CIA as an informant. Saeed, who reportedly wired several hundred thousand dollars to alleged chief 9/11 hijacker Mohamed Atta, is currently in Pakistani custody for the murder of Wall Street Journal journalist Daniel Pearl.

Omar Bakri regularly uses the internet to communicate from Lebanon with his followers in Britain. On Sunday evening, 3rd September, Omar Bakri told participants in an online chat forum that he had been pulled in by the Lebanese authorities at the request of the US and British governments and questioned in relation to the "terror plot". Although he denied involvement in the plot, he claimed that some of the 24 British Muslim suspects were known to him. When asked to confirm or deny whether Bakri had indeed been arrested at the request of the British, the Foreign Office had no comment. Bakri said that he was regularly questioned by Lebanese officials on behalf of the British government.

The official reluctance to act against Bakri and his active associates in the UK does not match the government's willingness to act pre-emptively to foil a plot of doubtful reality. Official reluctance to acknowledge the significance of the detonators used in the 7/7 terrorist operation suggests that the threat is far more sophisticated than authorities have admitted, and that emphasis on home-grown amateurs is mistaken. Lt. Col. Wylde's observations would seem to indicate that the terror-threat narrative is being manipulated for reasons of political expediency.

tunaman

Diogenes wrote:

Waving around claiming its more "than a coincidence", when you cannot explain the significance of a training excerise and how it relates, seems like you're clutching at straws.

I am presenting FACTS, but if you are gullible enough to believe it was merely a coincidence, then there is no hope for you...

Which facts in particular? As had been said before, it's phenominally lazy of you to keep linking to video after video, without presenting a written case that you will stand behind.

Storytelling is our mode of thought, as all conscious understanding is narrative...

It's weary and tedious of you to link to video that forces whomever you're talking to, to stop start, goggle and response, only to find you not bothering to rebut facts, merely use ad homien's hurl abuse and then link to another bloody video.

What's really weary and tedious is the likes of you, who keep trying to AVOID the facts being presented...

Even more importantly you are so SCARED of the IMPLICATION of these facts, that you pretend they don't exist...

tunaman

bonkey wrote:

Power has clarified since the original "Precisely" comments that he didn't really mean that they were identical, but rather that there were similarities, and that one scenario of their training program in particular was disconcertingly similar to one of the bombs.

Is it a FACT that he initially said the drill was EXACTLY the same?

In short, he no longer stands by the assertion that they were identical, and hasn't done so for over a year now.

So he changed his story, just like Romero...

I fully accept that its possible that Parker's original version could be the accurate one, before you take that approach as you did with Romero.

However, as with Romero, I also accept that its possible his revised position is the accurate one.

Just because you REALLY want to believe the NEW story, doesn't mean it's true...

Until it is determined which position is correct, I believe it to be disingenuous for anyone to favour one version over the other without making it clear that both are possible and explaining why they chose one over the other. You failed to do this.

The official conspiracy theories of both 9/11 and 7/7 are IMPOSSIBLE, as they TOTALLY contradict many known facts...

The only exception to this would be where someone was not aware that Parker's "clarification" of his comments is, in effect, a revision of just how similar the events were. In such a case, it clearly couldn't be disingenuity. Instead, it would be indicative of sloppy research.

Power or Romero both CHANGED their minds, without any explanation, which is a long way off merely clarifying their initial statements, as you would like people to believe...

bonkey

tunaman wrote:

Is it a FACT that he initially said the drill was EXACTLY the same?

I haven't suggested otherwise. In fact, I've already agreed point-blank with this.

I notive you don't ask whether or not it is also a fact that Power has since been questioned on that statement, and is no longer fully supporting it.

Yes, it is. that Too is a fact - capitalised or not.

Just because you REALLY want to believe the NEW story, doesn't mean it's true...

Thats supposition on your part. I don't particularly care which is true, nor is what I want to believe relevant to the point I'm making here.

I don't know which is true and am not willing to merely choose one possibility over another because it suits whatever overall explanation I may believe in.

I do know, however, that its intellectually dishonest to present only one side of this story unless one isn't aware that the other side exists.

I was aware that the other side exists and felt that it needed to be pointed out because you failed to do so. Whether you didn't know about it or whether you chose not to provide the information....that I don't know.

And again, I'm presenting all the options I'm aware exist here and working from there. I'm not deciding which of these possibilties suits me better and not mentioning the other. I'm presenting all the options, and seeing what each suggests.

The official conspiracy theories of both 9/11 and 7/7 are IMPOSSIBLE, as they TOTALLY contradict many known facts...

This response has nothing to do with what it is suppsoed to be responding to.

I was referring to the details of 7/7 and whether or not they are the exact match to the scenarious in the exercise - as Power initially claimed - or merely bore close resemblance to them, as Power now maintains.

You don't know which is true (it was exact, or just similar), because you can't know which is true. This didn't stop you deciding to only present one of the two possibilities without even acknowledging the existence of the other.

If you had even mentioned it and offered a one-liner as to why you don't believe it, I wouldn't have a problem, but as I've said repeatedly before, the only excuses for what you did are sloppy research or a wilful attempt to only present the evidence that suits you (which I refer repeatedly to as intellectual dishonesty).

Power or Romero both CHANGED their minds, without any explanation, which is a long way off merely clarifying their initial statements, as you would like people to believe...

What I want people to believe is that the edited sub-set of facts that you offered is just that - only a sub-set of the facts. What I want them to believe is that there is no credible reason whatsoever for you to offer them anything less than the full facts.

What excuse you retroactively come up with for explaining away your tactics is, quite frankly, irrelevant. You have twice demonstrated either that you have not researched the basic facts of something you are repeatedly handing out as gospel fact, or you are wilfully deciding what the reader should and should not be presented with, giving an incomplete and incorrect overview of the known facts.

In the former case, you're showing that you haven't researched your position sufficiently well to be considered credible.

In the latter case, you're showing that you are only interested in leading people to your conclusion, rather than giving them all the facts making your argument, and allownig the to think for themselves. This too is an indication that you should not be considered credible.

That is what I'm pointing out. I'm not suggesting Powers games were or were not identical to what happened. I'm suggesting that, just like with Romero, we don't know which is true, nor the real reason(s) why they changed their accounts.

In other words, I'm making sure that people have the evidence so that they can form their own conclusions, rather than being led to the one that suits me. I'm showing that I know the details of what I'm talking about, so that what I say can be taken credibly. And I'm suggesting that at least one of these two traits cannot be common to you and I.

jc

mike65

Lieutenant-Colonel (ret.) Nigel Wylde quoted above is cited as an expert in exposives but he also may have an axe to grind. He was arrested after his home was raided in 1998 on the back of a publication by Tony Geraghty called The Dirty War. Wylde was suspected of having broken the offical secrets act. The case was withdrawn by the Atorney General in 2000. He also gave evidence at the Monaghan/Dublin bombings inquiry which was less than 'helpful' to the British government.

Mike

Diogenes

tunaman wrote:

I am presenting FACTS, but if you are gullible enough to believe it was merely a coincidence, then there is no hope for you...

You are not presenting facts, you are presenting videos, theres a difference.

Theres a perfectly logical reason for the training, and it's location. You've yet to explain the significance of the fact. Was Powers in on the conspiracy? What was the importance of the training excerise?

Storytelling is our mode of thought, as all conscious understanding is narrative...

I'm sorry Robert McKee-esque bollocks aside. Other posters have had the courtsey of explaining their position, you just link to youtube.

What's really weary and tedious is the likes of you, who keep trying to AVOID the facts being presented...

WHICH FACTS? Specifically list off, write them down? The CCTV Cameras? The Al Qaida video confessions? Which?

Even more importantly you are so SCARED of the IMPLICATION of these facts, that you pretend they don't exist...

MAYBE its JUST the RANDOM CAPITALISATION of your POSTS. BUT the above AD HOMINEN isn't a rebuttal it's just a PERSONAL ATTACK. SomeTHing you CLAiM those WHO DISMISS conspiracy THEORIES engage IN!

civdef

Using caps in the above fashion seems to be a common feature among the more confused/whacked out types.

mike65

More of this sort of thing here

Mike.

tunaman

bonkey wrote:

I notive you don't ask whether or not it is also a fact that Power has since been questioned on that statement, and is no longer fully supporting it.

Another fact is that he repeated his initial statement later the same day of the bombings...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JKvkhe3rqtc

I don't know which is true and am not willing to merely choose one possibility over another because it suits whatever overall explanation I may believe in.

So what's your explanation for him repeating his initial statement?

I do know, however, that its intellectually dishonest to present only one side of this story unless one isn't aware that the other side exists.

Which is exactly what the UK police and government did...

This video is presenting facts, which have been kept from the public...

I was referring to the details of 7/7 and whether or not they are the exact match to the scenarious in the exercise - as Power initially claimed - or merely bore close resemblance to them, as Power now maintains.

We only know of the drills, because he told us...

You don't know which is true (it was exact, or just similar), because you can't know which is true. This didn't stop you deciding to only present one of the two possibilities without even acknowledging the existence of the other.

So either he lied, or was he merely mistaken when he twice claimed that the drills were exactly the same as the attacks?

What I want them to believe is that there is no credible reason whatsoever for you to offer them anything less than the full facts.

I think you need to take it up with the UK government...

That is what I'm pointing out. I'm not suggesting Powers games were or were not identical to what happened. I'm suggesting that, just like with Romero, we don't know which is true, nor the real reason(s) why they changed their accounts.

Do you really want people to think that anything can be believed, but nothing can be known?

In other words, I'm making sure that people have the evidence so that they can form their own conclusions, rather than being led to the one that suits me.

Since when?

All you do is continue to parrot cover stories for known liars...

I'm showing that I know the details of what I'm talking about, so that what I say can be taken credibly.

Not when you are defending liars...

tunaman

Diogenes wrote:

You are not presenting facts, you are presenting videos, theres a difference.

The thread is about the video being presented, so if you have nothing constructive to say about it, then you really have no business here...

Theres a perfectly logical reason for the training, and it's location. You've yet to explain the significance of the fact.

Are you trying to claim that these drills happen all the time?

If so, then what evidence are you basing this on?

WHICH FACTS? Specifically list off, write them down? The CCTV Cameras? The Al Qaida video confessions? Which?

Why should I write them down for you, when they are presented in the video...

If you still believe in the official conspiracy theory, then tell us what facts and evidence are you basing this on?

billy the squid

I have watched the initial video on the 7/7 bombings, And I have to say that it came accross as something you might find on Indymedia about "the man" watching everything you do.