Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
London bombings 7/7
07-08-2009, 08:40 PM,
#16
London bombings 7/7
Quote:
Quote:this is black ops man, it is not known by the entire agency. but they use methods of compartmentalization to integrate the public into the lie. the training exercise is one such method, it create an environment of confusion. the systems were infiltrated to do this or they were compromised. people receive information that end up telling the media what happened, which creates a group think consensus, a big lie.

it is only when you forget what the media pumps out and look at the facts, train times, tangible evidence etc then you can come to your own conclusions about an event.

It's exactly things like train times that make me think people who believe this scenario will believe anything. The argument is

"They could not have caught the 7:40 train because it was cancelled. The next train would arrived in London after the tube trains had already left (or blown up, I don't recall)". How about this for a theory....

They planned to get to the station for 7:30 so that they could get on the 7:40, but knowing the importance of being punctual they all turned up at 7:25 so decided to get on the 7:30 train just in case there were delays.

Be honest, how many people here have NOT done something like this when they felt their "appointment" was important? I've been to job interviews an hour early when I was younger just to make sure I was not late - because when I was younger the interview was very important. I'd expect anyone prepared to end their life would consider it an important event.

It's not that I need to ignore what the media pumps out. Quite the contrary, you should ignore NOTHING and question EVERYTHING. Believe me, I do that on both sides of the argument - but in addition I make no conclusions until I know the official "why" to every question. Such as "why did Peter Power choose those 3 stations".

If the answer is "it was random" then the probability of coincidence is low. If the answer is something like "Those are the 3 busiest train stations near a business area mainly populated by Israeli owned business" then it is likely that both parties chose the same stations for exactly the same reason and probability doesn't even come into it.

It's no good talking about probabilities of coincidence to prove a fact, because that just assumes there are only 2 options.
1: A single party organised the conference AND the bombings.
2: Pure random chance.

Whereas I have already demonstrated one possibility which should be considered and investigated, and there are probably more, such as "Were those stations chosen before, could the bombers have read about a previous exercise using those stations or maybe even attended a lecture".

There are many possibilities which are not ruled out so how can I know that none of those are more likely? My opinion of conspiracies is that for the most part they do this

1: Point out something odd.
2: Describe the oddity of the situation in such a way as to lead the viewer/reader into asking specific questions. When you ask ONLY those questions of yourself you end up with your brain being led down a particular path and then 'all on your own' reaching a certain theory.

If all of the other questions were also asked then people would come to a multitude of different conclusions.

You're suggesting the train times weren't amended after the fact to fit sequentially into the official account of events?
Reply
07-08-2009, 08:42 PM,
#17
London bombings 7/7
Quote:
Quote:I cant be bothered to quote but i read somewhere in this thread that "how many time do you see the camera not working or pointing in the wrong direction"
Or something to that effect,anyways that is a fair a valid point,but it still raises the question why were the camera's not working.

Notice i said camera's, ie a multude of them,not a single one you used as an example. I would also like to add that i find it amazing that the malfunctions all happened
at the scene of "the terrorist attacks", so 4 locations, 4 malfunctions,and all this when they are running a near identical "drill" on the same day in the same city.

With that many coincidences im going to get me a lottery ticket LOL!

It's only unbelievable if you assume that

1: The cameras are usually reliable.
2: They were the only cameras broken on the day.

You are assuming that they were only down on that day, they could have been down for days or weeks for all we know, it could be a regular occurrence.

But what else don't we know about the cameras? If for example the cameras are structured on small networks it is possible that 1 or more networks were down on the day and therefore there could have been any number of broken cameras and not just 4 as you are assuming.

I have often been told that I am not suspicious enough, I think my problem is that I am too suspicious. For example I just watched a really interesting YouTube video about Disney hiding sexual references in cartoons. I checked one of the videos (The Rescuers) and the video was fake.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eAD6mdp6J5E

I don't believe anything until it is demonstrated to me unquestionably, and I am the sort of person who has a lot of questions.

Your argument hinges onthe supposed fact that cameras are incredibly unreliable ergo it was not unusual that they failed at all the critical locations on the day. I do find this a weak argument.
Reply
07-08-2009, 11:17 PM,
#18
London bombings 7/7
Quote:Your argument hinges onthe supposed fact that cameras are incredibly unreliable ergo it was not unusual that they failed at all the critical locations on the day. I do find this a weak argument.

No. I am saying that I am not automatically suspicious of the cameras not working because I have heard of it so many times in other cases. Assaults taking place and cameras not working etc. The fact that the cameras were not working is not enough for me to be as suspicious as you guys are.

Give me multiple witnesses who claim to have seen the explosion come from under the floor where nobody was standing, that would be credible. If the sentence starts "don't you find it odd..." or "don't you think it is suspicious..." or "what are the chances of..." then it is not credible.

Quite frankly if it won't stand up in court it is useless.
Reply
07-08-2009, 11:19 PM,
#19
London bombings 7/7
Quote:You're suggesting the train times weren't amended after the fact to fit sequentially into the official account of events?

No, I have never said that at all. I am saying 7/7 Ripple Effect claims it was impossible for them to be on those trains because their 7:40 train was cancelled and they would have had to have caught a later train. I am merely saying that it is quite feasible that they were too early and just caught an earlier train.

Sure the official account had to change. Someone somewhere probably assumed they caught the train they had booked tickets for and didn't think to check if the train had actually run or not.
Reply
07-08-2009, 11:27 PM, (This post was last modified: 07-08-2009, 11:28 PM by ---.)
#20
London bombings 7/7
Quote:" or "what are the chances of..." then it is not credible.

your whole reasoning is founded on such!
Reply
07-08-2009, 11:28 PM,
#21
London bombings 7/7
Quote:
Quote:You're suggesting the train times weren't amended after the fact to fit sequentially into the official account of events?

No, I have never said that at all. I am saying 7/7 Ripple Effect claims it was impossible for them to be on those trains because their 7:40 train was cancelled and they would have had to have caught a later train. I am merely saying that it is quite feasible that they were too early and just caught an earlier train.

Sure the official account had to change. Someone somewhere probably assumed they caught the train they had booked tickets for and didn't think to check if the train had actually run or not.

paper thin, Peter
Reply
07-14-2009, 09:06 PM,
#22
London bombings 7/7
what is England's history with regard to false flag terrorism ?

to me the incident seemed staged to re-awaken anti-Muslim fervor in the United States, as well as England.

the one group that had the means, motive, and opportunity to conduct this operation - Mossad.

the day after, i was in San Francisco. i was surprised initially at the cover-to-cover coverage in the front section of the SF Chronicle. it was like "be afraid, be very afraid." every single article was about the London incident and related things like "is BART secure ?" (Bay Area Rapid Transit).

for me, there are fewer clues with 7.7.5. 9-11 had lots of clues that something was awry & did not fit with the official story. the Mr. Powers interview was wierd.

were there any articles about people getting forewarning about the incident ? that was one of the interesting things about 9-11, articles about people like ex-SF mayor Willie Brown and English author Salman Rushdie getting phone calls warning them not to fly.

did anybody report warnings about, "hey, it's a bad day to take mass transit in London/ to go anywhere near London" ?
Reply
07-14-2009, 10:26 PM, (This post was last modified: 07-14-2009, 10:27 PM by ---.)
#23
London bombings 7/7
unfortunately, we're not privvy to such information..as per..

I don't think that mossad alone is responsible for these operations...and state sponsored terrorists within intel aside, the house of saud in conjunction with their anglo-american block chums have indeed formented and encouraged a school of fanaticism from wahabi and deobandist roots that proclaims itself 'islamic' in the best and bloodiest of the eschatological traditions.

With it's 'end of the world' preoccupations all monothesisms have been capitalised upon to the point of disintergration.

I don't subscribe to the 'mossad did it' school of thought vis a vi 7/7 - I believe they were 'part' of it - elements within M15 will have taken a core operational role..it is the/ir 'city', after all..
Reply
07-15-2009, 01:10 AM,
#24
London bombings 7/7
Quote:I don't subscribe to the 'mossad did it' school of thought vis a vi 7/7 - I believe they were 'part' of it - elements within M15 will have taken a core operational role..it is the/ir 'city', after all..

in planning such an operation, you need to be able to count on a number of things
* British MI5 to kill British citizens
* technicians & managers that could be counted on not to squawk/ publish memoirs/ whistleblow
* technicians & managers that would in turn trust the operational top managers not to kill them to keep them quiet

my experience is in managing engineers - to do a good job, they need to be able to "not worry about stuff" - to concentrate on their core mission.

i simply don't think too many Britons can be counted on to kill their fellow countrymen. it was Israel that benefited primarily from the attacks, since what they stoked is the "fear of Muslims" fire.

from working in the defense industry, i know that "risk mitigation" is a typical part of most operational planning. what MI5 manager would go ahead with a plan like this if there was realistically a 10% chance of it blowing up in their face ?

i've worked on programs that needed 100% mission success, and it forces you to be honest about what is feasible logistically.

i hope you're right, i hope it was an MI-5 operation. i think that increases the chance of a confession.

Mossad has agents that will kill Britons with alacrity (cheerfulness and efficiency) if they think it will help Israel.
Reply
07-15-2009, 01:38 AM, (This post was last modified: 07-15-2009, 01:42 AM by ---.)
#25
London bombings 7/7
there's plenty of Britons that would kill other Britons and the British govt./state have benefitted enormously from the heightened public fears.

In regards to access to the radical fringe of Islam in the UK and interfacing with it, steering it- M15 and the CIA have a significantly better on the ground access than the Mossad, at least that's what I read.
Quote:MI5 manager would go ahead with a plan like this if there was realistically a 10% chance of it blowing up in their face ?

Apt turn of phrase.:)I really can't answer that question but it seems 'they' are going more and more balls out with every changing season tidying up loose ends as they go...I think a 10% chance miss would have been acceptable jmo
Reply


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  'Mysterious plane' with no callsign spotted circling London for two hours Frank2 0 201 07-28-2014, 12:36 AM
Last Post: Frank2
  7/7 London bombings (British Intelligence) drummer 0 597 05-02-2010, 12:46 AM
Last Post: drummer
  Osama bin Laden tried to watch 9/11 bombings live on TV but satellite failed TriWooOx 3 734 04-17-2010, 09:39 AM
Last Post: h3rm35
  Pakistan arrests man linked to 2005 London bombs --- 0 472 01-22-2009, 01:15 PM
Last Post: ---
  Protests in London on Sunday & Monday TriWooOx 39 4,375 01-06-2009, 08:43 PM
Last Post: mastermg
  london bombings 7/7 updates. link metaspiral25 2 610 01-20-2008, 12:28 PM
Last Post: metaspiral25
  Fifth 21/7 London bomber jailed nataraja 1 440 11-20-2007, 07:00 PM
Last Post: nataraja
  Fifth 21/7 London bomber jailed (confesses) nataraja 0 429 11-20-2007, 06:59 PM
Last Post: nataraja
  London 7/7 Bombings - Bus Bomb Witness Writes Book nataraja 6 746 10-30-2007, 05:10 PM
Last Post: nataraja
  Madrid Bombings Redux - What Really Happened FighterFromAfar 0 338 06-02-2007, 07:49 AM
Last Post: FighterFromAfar

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)