Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
London bombings 7/7
07-06-2009, 05:58 PM,
#1
London bombings 7/7
I recently watched 7/7 Ripple Effect, personally I thought it was very poor. Rather than stating facts it merely presents suppositions, leaving the viewer to join the dots and come to their own conclusion that MI5 did it.

People are usually in one of two camps.

A: I believe nearly all of it, some of those "facts" are undeniable.
B: I just don't believe it, some of those "facts" are just unbelievable.

Take the 7/7 Ripple Effect video as an example. If I understood the claims correctly this is a summary of what Mr Hill the producer believes.

01: MI5 holds drills in London approx 1 year ahead of the time to practise for the real event.

02: They then recruit 4 "patsies" who believe they are taking part in a drill. Although for some reason they never mention it to anyone at all, and aren't suspicious that there is no point because nobody else in the drill can see them anyway.

03: MI5 hold another event on the day - apparently as a cover for being prepared. Although as far as I know there were no emergency services on stand-by, and the people in the event were merely watching power point slides in a large room. MI5 then told the guy organising this event to go on TV and tell the world......right.

04: The "patsies" missed their trains and were later shot in Canary Wharf. Although the only report of this was "A reporter in New Zealand heard from an UNNAMED Reuters employee that they had heard from two UNNAMED Reuters employees that they had witnessed it" - a bit far fetched. More far fetched was the fact that despite 8,000 people in Canary Wharf being told to stay indoors for 6 hours not one of them were on the news at any point talking about it.

05: MI5 planted bombs on numerous underground trains (just in case the paties missed the right train) to blow them up. On the day the trains were so full that people were rejoicing in their decisions to wait for the next train - so how MI5 expected the patsie to stand in the correct place and get blown up I do not know, especially considering how mercifully few people died in comparison to how packed the trains apparently were. In my opinion the patsie would have been likely to survive, and start mouthing off about "the drill".

06: To attack the correct street via bus MI5 got the 4th patsie to
A: Catch a number 30 bus
B: Ride it to the end of the road
C: Wait for another 30 bus coming the other way
D: Get on that and ride it back
E: MI5 then redirected it down the target road and blew it up

One of the people getting off the bus was "an explosives expert" (really an electrician who worked at an explosives factory decades ago), after planting the bomb and getting off he was then free to tell the press about his explosives experience in an interview.

07: Some kind of get-away vehicle was parked nearby, which was not used to "get away", and had "DEMOLITION" prominently emblasoned on it (the company apparently do no kind of explosive demolition).


So...
1: Catch train to London
2: Catch 3 trains
3: Blow up pre-planted bombs on trains
4: Risk patsies not being on trains and having to shoot them in public
5: Risk patsies being on wrong part of train and not being killed
6: Remove bombs from all other trains after the explosion
7: Instead of using number 91 bus which goes the right way, get patsie to take 2 buses and risk raising suspicion by redirecting a bus a way it normally doesn't go
8: Get two major players in the operation to go on the news and perform interviews.

WHAT?

I write complex business software applications for a living. The plan I see above is akin to a software application which was written with absolutely no planned what so ever which subsequently fails miserably, gets scrapped, and then gets rewritten at great expense. Is this REALLY how people think MI5 would execute a plan?

How about this much more simple plan

1: Get an Asian who is familiar with the Qur'an to brain wash 4 young kids.
2: Get 3 of them to blow up 3 specific stations.
3: Get the 4th to ride the number 30 bus until it's quite full, then blow it up.

End of plan.

Problem 1: Kids go to the authorities.
Solution: Thank them, go to arrest the brainwasher who will now have disappeared - discover he was using a fake name - no photos available.

Problem 2: The bombers change their minds at the last minute.
Solution: Shoot them dead. They cannot tell anyone anything, and the services look good for preventing a serious attack.

an the final most ingenious part of the plan?

4: Start some really crappy conspiracy theory about a plan that is so ridiculously complicated that the majority of people will not believe it.

This way when you hear "MI5 did it" people automatically find information about the elaborate conspiracy rather than a simple one, they read it, evaluate it, and most will reject it; concluding that MI5 DIDN'T do it.

In addition, with X% of people believing the ridiculous theory, and Y% not believing it, you have virtually eliminated the number of people looking for the true events to zero.

I am not saying MI5 did or didn't do it, I am saying that MI5 didn't do it with bombs on trains and patsies, those guys blew themselves up!
Reply
07-06-2009, 06:00 PM, (This post was last modified: 07-06-2009, 06:02 PM by ---.)
#2
London bombings 7/7
Hello Peter,

glad you made it. Welcome to concen. I hope some of our members will engage in this debate like I promised.:)

if it's okay with you, I will post up our correspondence thus far onto the board, so everyone can get up to speed with where you are coming from....
Reply
07-06-2009, 06:26 PM, (This post was last modified: 07-06-2009, 06:32 PM by ---.)
#3
London bombings 7/7
July 3 at 8:46pm
Thanks for the message.

I had a suspiscion that 'muad dib' would somehow be related to the 'jahtruth' website.

I do not know what the motivating impulses are for you to be waging a campaign to discredit this man.

Be it as it may be that the character you attempt to assassinate could well indeed harbour delusions of grandeur verging on narcissistic fantasism .. this doesn't preclude somethings...

1) it doesn't preclude the fact that the current charges levied against him are vastly unbalanced and entirely prejudicial.The very comments of the judge in how the jury should be lead evidence this.

2) the video - contains a great deal of legitimate enquiry into anolmalies, coincidences, pulled news stories and plain conflicting official versions of events - these stand alone and the fact that this man may have some personal issues is largely irrelevant.

Some of the highest regarded literature and academic discourse recorded in human history - a large proportion - was created by people who may be referred to as 'atypical'.

So other than your meandering adhominem attack on his character and the gaudy 'union jack' tie, what exactly are you trying to prove..?

That due to the alleged mental health issues of the filmaker the conjecture in the video is not worth even appraising? Sorry, as a rule I try and avoid logical fallacy. Or, that the same gives license for the govt. to use the crown as it's own personal legal pick and mix ?

As, you may not have delved as deep as some of us into these things, I offer you the advice to perhaps become somewhat more cogent with the work of Andrej Puharich at the SRI in the 60's - the 'channelling' of the council of nine,the employ of classic egyptian archetypes (ennead) - the connection between Rodenberry and the SRI - the creation of star trek..you might just find that his claim has MUCH more validity than you give it credit. Psy op rather than telepathy, I'd say.

Have a good day.

Peg




Peter Leslie Morris
Add as Friend
July 3 at 9:24pm
Report Message
Hi

Firstly I want to say that I am not waging a campaign against this guy, I am just taking the piss out of him because quite frankly, he is a twat :-)

Now onto your points...

1: Charges against him.
All I know is that he sent members of a jury information which

A: Consists mainly of questions and not answers.
B: Lots of speculation.
C: What appear to be false claims against innocent 3rd parties.

The fact is that what he sent would not be admissible in evidence, and in addition to this his opinions on the "evidence" were not worth noting because he is most likely not an expert on any of the matters involved.

Perverting the cause of justice is a serious offence and should be treated as such, and that is exactly what he did.


2: Video anomalies.
I have watched the video and agree that 1 or 2 things did leave me asking questions. However, "asking questions" does not mean "suspicious of the truth". They merely left me thinking "I would like to know the answer to that question".

Nearly every other point in his video was pure speculation. Pulled news stories for example are not uncommon in situations like this. When lots has happened and there is very little information news stations start to speculate, they also listen to stories from complete strangers who relay gossip "I heard that 3 men were shot near Canary Warf" for example. Which probably started something like

"There have been 3 bombs on subways, I am surprised they didn't attack Canary warf"..

"There have been 3 bombs on subways, they were trying to get to Canary Warf but were stopped"

"3 people tried to blow up Canary Warf but were stopped"

"3 suicide bombers have been shot for trying to blow up Canary Warf"

It only takes a few "Chinese Whispers" for the story to become completely unrecognisable, and with no information at all the media tend to report anything they hear on the off-chance that they can later claim to have "broke" the story.

The figure he came up with for the probability of the attacks taking place on the same day as the training event sparked no recognition with me at all. How he came up with such an impossibly large number I have no idea (note that he didn't reveal his formula) - There had apparently been a similar seminar shortly before the 7th too.

He said the likely hood of the same scenario being practised 1 year in advance was very low, and I agree, but this is no big deal. Any half sensible person would think "maybe the terrorists based their idea on the report they saw 1 year before". This would not be the first time either, I remember a documentary about the 9/11 attacks where a building security expert for the towers had warned of attack by air.

Then the number 30 bus. How ridiculous! If you want to pull something off without getting caught you do stuff which looks as normal as possible, this includes

A: Buying a 7 day parking ticket for your car. Obviously a cover because *IF* they were patsies they would have known they would be back the same or next day.

B: Buying return tickets, because everyone buys return tickets and it will look less suspicious.

C: Catching the number 91 bus which would take you down the correct route.

This does NOT include

A: Catching the number 30 bus. Getting off at the other end, getting back on to come back, having a secret agent direct it down a road that it doesn't normally go down, and then blowing up a strategic target on the diverted route.

B: Letting your "explosives expert" conduct an interview with the press next to the bus (who is actually an electrician that happened to work in an explosives factory decades ago).

C: Letting the "master mind" if your plan come on TV news and say "We were just planning this *exact* scenario!"

D: Parking your demolition van next to the exploded bus, which turns out in fact to be a demolition firm which has nothing to do with explosives.

Another example was the "doctored photo". His argument was that the railings pass in front of the person's body. As a keen photoshop user I know that it is impossible to do this by accident, you would have to cut out the railings separately or cut railing shapes out of the person's body - both of which would require deliberate actions, take at least 5 minutes, and serve absolutely no purpose.

I watched the documentary thoroughly and saw so many immediate holes it was laughable. I watched film footage of Dr Nasseem from the mosque up the road from my house showing this film to as many Muslims as possible, trying to convince them that Muslims are not to blame and that MI5 did it all. How foolish he must look now that he knows Muad Dib blasphemes against his religion, and calls Muslims fanatics who are easily mislead into killing in the name of God. Lesson there, don't trust anonymous sources.

I am not a closed minded person however. Only days before seeing the documentary I said to my wife "It wouldn't surprise me if our special forces are behind these bombings", but I don't believe they orchestrated it all directly because that would be too obvious for the bombers. I was merely entertaining the thought that MI5 (for example) might employ the services of Asian Muslims to brainwash people into committing suicide by blowing themselves up, making the British public feel vulnerable; as a result they get

A: More money
B: More resource
C: More powers (not that I expect they obey the law anyway)

So before you think I am closed minded believe that I am not. Only when you are utterly convinced of something to the point you refuse to believe anything else are you closed minded. The fact is that the truth usually lies somewhere in the middle.

The Ripple Effect was simply full of inaccuracies and I feel compelled to mock them, along with the nut-case producer who considering is the son of God is not even consistent in the writing of his "Bible", where in some cases he capitalises the "h" in "His" and "Him" and yet in others he doesn't. God would NOT make such errors, God is infallible.

Peg Gerrin
July 3 at 10:17pm
We a pretty good forum which has had a number of incarnations and has been going for many years now, much more reasoned than a lot of them out there in 'conspiracyland'.

I'm sure a fair few people would be enthusiastic to discuss many of the intracacies of 7/7 with you, if you were up for it.

It's a pretty diverse forum with much conflicting opnion, which stimulates articulate debate tbh. There are for sure people there who would agree with your assertions about 'muad dib' and others who would disagree with much of the expressed above.

I'd be certainly very happy to discuss all the points you've raised -very much so..but I would prefer to do so in open debate rather than facebook messages..

In sum from what you've written though - I don't quite see how the logic works that you completely reject that idea that those men weren't in the employ [of a group] within the SIS considering you openly speculate about govt. complicity.

Anyhow, let me know about the offer, it may prove worthwhile for all concened - all there's more to 7/7 than just this one film anyhow.

peg


Peg Gerrin
July 3 at 10:18pm
*intricacies excuse typos and grammar- bit busy here right now. cheers

Peter Leslie Morris
Add as Friend
July 3 at 10:44pm
Report Message
I didn't reject that they were in the employe of a group, I am merely saying that I don't believe any of it was done the way this video suggests.

For a start if the plan was to blow up these people with their bombs the perpetrators would have given them real explosives and remotely detonated them or detonated them via a timer (I doubt they would know what real explosives look like, I certainly wouldn't). Instead this film suggests the explosives were already on the trains. Having been on the London underground during rush hour I can say that

A: Unless all underground trains were running 100% on time it wouldn't be easy to ensure they could identify the correct train to board.
B: There is no way they can ensure that they would even get on board the correct train due to how busy it was.
C: Even if all 3 got on the correct trains it is reaching too far to make a plan depend on them getting on the correct carriage. Considering so many people survived the explosions it would be imperative that they would need to be close enough to the bomb to die.

There are far too many variables, it would be far too risky!

As for MI5 involvement, this is what I would have done

1: Recruit Asian Muslims who know the religion.
2: Train them how to brain wash.
3: Get them to choose people and brain wash them.
4: Get them to really carry out a plan with real explosives.

A: It's very simple, no intricate details to get messed up.
B: The recruits would not be suspicious.
C: There is a level of indirection so no direct involvement.

The plan outlined in The Ripple Effect was so intricate that it could not possibly go 100% right, my suggestion was so simple it would be very difficult to go wrong.

Peg Gerrin
July 3 at 11:17pm
well, the photographic evidence of the floor 'blowing up' as accounted of by some survivors would not be indicative of a rucksack bomb unless you suppose it were a fuel air weapon.

Why do you suggest that the alleged planning would stretch to only rigging up one train per bomber? I'm not saying it's the case but this surely overlooks simple things like, as said, a number of trains running on those lines between certain times being rigged up.

They were supposedly, according to the official account, carrying homemade propellant gas nail bombs. Not only would these not blow a hole in the underside of a tube train carriage but they create very little temperature ergo one would expect a lower incidence of burn injuries..this was certainly not the case in physical reality..ergo, the explosives stated by the govt.as to having been used in the attacks,were not the actual form of explosives used.

Personally I could quite easily draw up a synthesis from the stronger aspects of ripple effect with tenets of your own..should any show to hold water.. I would agree that the film does not represent a foolproof 100% on the mark breakdown synopsis of the events that occurred.

I would disasgree that he hasn't turned up some important information in his research into it.

It matters little to me if he used to exhort people to send a few hundred quid in an unmarked envelope to a PO Box in London, in order to be assured place amongst the 144,000.

Of course, all that stuff is complete shite - but I'm not interested in the personalities or any either or binary thinking tbh.


Do you not find it odd that the verint cameras were malfunctioning on the day? In the UK of all places! Classic English literally irony in effect on the day?

We should talk about the bus into Tavistock sqaure for sure. And the Canary Wharf shootings too imo.

Consider the offer to discuss it all on our forum.. Long messages as this are not great at facilitating point by point discourse..

peg

Peg Gerrin
July 3 at 11:25pm
Also, I think the level of prejudice that the state is now showing against him warrants a healthy suspiscion.

Perverting the course of justice is a stretch. I listened to an interview withhim on an American talk radio show just last week - he explains exactly what he actually did. Perversion of Justice is pushing it nd even in it's applicability come the letter of the law, it is nevertheless a very determined campaign to make sure he prosecuted with the maximum weight of law possible. This is rather incredible considering what else is going on in the nation..the law has become entirely arbitrary..if it ever was actually just, in the first place.

How plain can I make it without being rude? We're livestock.





Peg Gerrin
July 3 at 11:25pm
you can find the interview on the tracker at our site btw.

Peg Gerrin
July 4 at 12:27am
I didn't reject that they were in the employe of a group, I am merely saying that I don't believe any of it was done the way this video suggests.

your way wouldn't necessitate a 'pulling' of all the camera footage or switching off of said cameras though..



Loading...
Peter Leslie Morris
Add as Friend
July 4 at 12:41pm
Report Message
Firstly I am not too keen on forums. Mainly because there are always twats who just talk shit, have closed minds, refuse to listen to the other side of the argument, and most annoyingly for me just act in a rude and baiting manner. It's bad enough in programming forums, let alone conspiracy ones.

So far you have not been rude, you have paid attention, you have put forward intelligent and logical (although I still believe incorrect) arguments. We can disagree as long as we are civilised, that's life. Forums attract trolls and I cannot stand them. If there were some kind of vetted forum I might join it, for example where people are only invited after a discussion such as ours. I would invite you because of my experience with you so far :-)


"The photographs"
My only thoughts are this. I am sure I could research what explosive effects look like quite quickly, but how they look on a moving train which then becomes derailed I think would be too open to opinion.

"Cameras"
I have heard *many* times of every-day crimes being committed and that either the cameras weren't working or weren't pointing in the correct direction. There were no conspiracies there so I accept it to be quite common for them not to work - although there is footage of the 4 walking into the train station (you'd have to verify identities), it's on my youtube channel (mrpmorris).

"livestock"
Oh don't worry about that, I am well aware that we are cattle, it's obvious.

"done the way the video suggests" - my quote.
No, my way wouldn't require the pulling of video cameras, or the redirecting of buses, or having to plant bombs on multiple trains, etc. Which is why if such a plan were carried out I think it would have been done my way.

1: Less evidence of MI5 intervention.
2: Less fallible to failure.
3: Easier to implement.
4: Less expensive.
5: Less people involved.

It's all round a better plan, I can't see them going for such an elaborate plan when a far better one existed.

"one train per bomber"
But you still must take into account that they would have to get the "patsie" close enough to where the bomb was planted in order to kill them.

King's cross : 26 dead
Edgware : 6 dead
Aldgate : 7 dead

Take into account how many people were on those trains. There were reports that trains were so packed that day that people were waiting for successive trains.

There is no way they could have ensured the bomber got close enough to the bomb to be killed by it. The bomber thinking it was an exercise would think "Well, nobody can see me, I am close enough", I see no reason they would stand in an exact spot unless they were led to believe something was going to happen at that exact spot, and how would you explain all the innocent people not knowing / consenting to some kind of "stunt"?

Now also take into account what would have happened if the bomb had gone off and NOT killed the bomber! I for one would have started shouting "MI5 told me it was an exercise, fucking MI5 did it the bastards, they blew us up!" etc. Of course you would! Then what? MI5 would have to kill everyone on the train! The whole "bomb on the train" is a huge weakness in the whole argument for certain!

As for the bus, you either have to accept

A: He got on the wrong bus and his had to be redirected.
Thoughts -
1: The bomb therefore must have been in his bag
2: If prepared to put a bomb in 1 bag why not in all 4 bags, and would they have noticed the other 3 were different?
3: The 4th bag would have had to have had a timer or remote detonator in it, which means they would have had to have given them specific bags for no apparent reason.

B: He got on the right bus
1: They had to either plant bombs on multiple buses OR risk 1 train + 1 bus might be significantly delayed to make him miss his bus.
2: Redirecting the bus to a significant target was dodgy to say the least, they would have put him on the 91.

His trial:
The jury in a case is only permitted to look at evidence which is not subjective, or if it is then both prosecution and defence get to research it and present witnesses. Sending subjective information such as in this DVD was a huge breach of our legal system, anyone breaching it in such a way SHOULD be prosecuted. He should probably only spend a couple of months in prison though, I'd expect a sentence of 2 and a serving of 1. If he is held in remand for longer than 2 months I expect the sentence will match exactly the duration he has already been held.

Finally, the nut case.
I am taking the piss out of this guy because he thinks he is Jesus, Archangel Michael, and the person come to rapture us all. I cannot resist taking the piss out of someone like that, it's just my nature.


Peter Leslie Morris
Add as Friend
July 4 at 12:52pm
Report Message
One more thing. The shootings at Canary Wharf.

If these occurred how many witnesses are there? The place is full of newspaper reporters isn't it? Police apparently told people to stay away from the windows, isn't it in a reporter's nature to look and report? It's in mine for certain!

But the only account of this I have seen so far is that two colleagues of a reporter saw the police shoot 2 people outside HSBC. Two people shot dead outside HSBC in Canary Wharf and only 2 people saw it?

Very questionable.

Peter Leslie Morris
Add as Friend
July 4 at 1:26pm
Report Message
The NZ reporter was told by a UK Reuters employee who he will not name. The person he will not name was told by two other UK Reuters employees that he will not name.

So, two unnamed people told an unnamed person who told a reporter in NZ. Riiiiiight :-)

And nobody since has been able to find a corroborative story from a single person of the 8,000 asked to remain in their building for 6 hours? In addition to that none of the many people walking outside the building at 10:30am have given a statement either?

A simple case of inaccurate reporting in my opinion.

Peter Leslie Morris
Add as Friend
July 4 at 1:26pm
Report Message
The NZ reporter was told by a UK Reuters employee who he will not name. The person he will not name was told by two other UK Reuters employees that he will not name.

So, two unnamed people told an unnamed person who told a reporter in NZ. Riiiiiight :-)

And nobody since has been able to find a corroborative story from a single person of the 8,000 asked to remain in their building for 6 hours? In addition to that none of the many people walking outside the building at 10:30am have given a statement either?

A simple case of inaccurate reporting in my opinion.

Peg Gerrin
July 4 at 11:01pm
Firstly I am not too keen on forums. Mainly because there are always twats who just talk shit, have closed minds, refuse to listen to the other side of the argument, and most annoyingly for me just act in a rude and baiting manner. It's bad enough in programming forums, let alone conspiracy ones.

that's all I#ve readthus far..I might take a break because of it..lol..no, I understand that the vast majority of forums are ridiculous.. however this is a good one and since I was invited onto staff 3 years ago I have done my 'best' to make it intelligent and more lively. Join us in debate if you will..I#ve invited now 3 times. We're have a VERY diverse membership...many people are too nervous to present their ideas at ous forum in 'conspiracyland'. We have a guy who designed the safeties on nuclear subs for the MOD...he is a prof. chemtrail debunker...I invited him to our reputable but underground site because he was getting kicked off all the pro chemtrails forums and blogs...seeing as he's an actual atmospheric scientist..I invited him..now he's a member and it has spawned a fuelled a great debate! We are a creme de la creme 'conspiracy site'.. come join us to klather about 7/7 if you wish..4th time on the invites...or not.

but,I must say ..you're pejorative view of boards in no way extends to ours...people in conspiracy land come and see what we are talking about often enough.#

so, are yousticking with a 'no' or do you only live once (as far as you know) and wish to hone your argument against muad dib?

now I'll read the rest of the message:)

Peg Gerrin
July 4 at 11:13pm
this software is dumbed down bollox.. I have lost a message to you twice now. that's FAR TOO MUCHexpended effort for facefookery.

I said something about journalists and what I know of journalists in terms of anonymity of source and the protocols therein..

also I made a friendly jibe about enquiring minds that have not yet over the parapets had glimpses.

I hate faceblah for dialogue - it is designed to inhibit it imo..come to our INTELLIGENT undeground forum to talk about 7/7 if you wish..otherwise..i dunno..i'mnot up for thisd msg msg palava..

Peter Leslie Morris
Add as Friend
July 5 at 9:26am
Report Message
Well if you need an invite to be there then hopefully you have people with a minimum level of intelligence and (hopefully) manners to go with it.

Send me the URL and I will take a look.

Pete

Peg Gerrin
July 5 at 11:06pm
http://www.concen.org

you'll need to make an account to post..

and a different account from that should you wish to use the tracker, I hope you decide to start a thread about 7/7, it should prove interesting.

we're a pretty intelligent board and we try and keep flaming to a minimum.

hope to see you there.

peg
Reply
07-06-2009, 06:29 PM, (This post was last modified: 07-06-2009, 06:31 PM by ---.)
#4
London bombings 7/7
Quote:Now also take into account what would have happened if the bomb had gone off and NOT killed the bomber! I for one would have started shouting "MI5 told me it was an exercise, fucking MI5 did it the bastards, they blew us up!" etc. Of course you would! Then what? MI5 would have to kill everyone on the train! The whole "bomb on the train" is a huge weakness in the whole argument for certain!

the fact the cameras all happened to malfunction on that day certainly muddies it up, eh? :rolleyes:
Reply
07-07-2009, 09:56 AM,
#5
London bombings 7/7
Quote:the fact the cameras all happened to malfunction on that day certainly muddies it up, eh? :rolleyes:

So, you are saying that MI5 would have killed everyone on the train because the cameras weren't working? As far as I know the cameras which weren't working were at the stations they boarded. At least one was working at a destination because we have footage of the platform and the blast.

To kill all of the survivors they would have to blow them up, having the entire train blow up would require multiple bombs, it's getting too complicated.

In addition they would have to deal with witnesses at the stations who weren't on the train but at the platform, or on the stairs etc who would have seen or heard multiple explosions - now it is getting FAR too complicated! The risk that someone would escape and report something is far too high.

I'm sorry, but if MI5 really did have anything to do with this then it wasn't in the way this complicated plan tries to implicate.

As I said before

1: Execute a very simple plan, where errors are easily covered up.
2: Start a wildly over complicated conspiracy theory.

That is what *I* would do, it's much more manageable, and I am certain I am not the most highly trained strategist in the world:)
Reply
07-07-2009, 11:19 AM, (This post was last modified: 07-07-2009, 11:39 AM by ---.)
#6
London bombings 7/7
Quote:
Quote:the fact the cameras all happened to malfunction on that day certainly muddies it up, eh? :rolleyes:

So, you are saying that MI5 would have killed everyone on the train because the cameras weren't working? As far as I know the cameras which weren't working were at the stations they boarded. At least one was working at a destination because we have footage of the platform and the blast.

To kill all of the survivors they would have to blow them up, having the entire train blow up would require multiple bombs, it's getting too complicated.

In addition they would have to deal with witnesses at the stations who weren't on the train but at the platform, or on the stairs etc who would have seen or heard multiple explosions - now it is getting FAR too complicated! The risk that someone would escape and report something is far too high.

I'm sorry, but if MI5 really did have anything to do with this then it wasn't in the way this complicated plan tries to implicate.

As I said before

1: Execute a very simple plan, where errors are easily covered up.
2: Start a wildly over complicated conspiracy theory.

That is what *I* would do, it's much more manageable, and I am certain I am not the most highly trained strategist in the world:)

Quote:So, you are saying that MI5 would have killed everyone on the train because the cameras weren't working?

No not at all, I don't know how you derived that. If you don't think it was strange that the cameras were down, that's up to you...on the diverted bus the cameras seem to have malfunctioned as well.

Quote:THE SECOND BUS EXPLOSION AND STRANGE REPORTING OF THE DEATH OF A WITNESS

A New Zealand doctor, Richmal Marie Oates-Whitehead, who had been in the BMA building when the bus exploded outside, mentioned that there had been a second, controlled explosion on the bus.

"There was no room for hesitation - I wasn't thinking at that level. It was the moral and ethical thing to do," she said, before going on to describe how police then carried out a controlled explosion on a second suspect bomb. Scotland Yard, however, said there was no record of a second, controlled explosion at Tavistock Square."

There are other reports which correlate with her account of a second explosion on the bus.

�€œAll the time they were conscious of a microwave box which had been left beside a window and was causing people to fear a secondary explosion.Eventually a bomb disposal unit were called and they destroyed the package.�€�

Ms. Oates-Whitehead was found dead at her flat in Shepherd�€™s Bush, London at the age of 35, two weeks later. There was an active media campaign to discredit her, this was highly apparent. The article from which her above quote was taken referred to her in the headline as a "bogus" doctor, yet Richmal Oates-Whitehead, was indeed a doctor.

It seems strange, when reporting the death of a young woman under strange circumstances to concentrate solely on the veracity of certain things she had said or done throughout her life. This is not generally the way unexpected deaths are reported.

Quote:What about the report in the Cambridge Evening News by an injured passenger, who claims not only that nobody was standing at he spot where one of the explosions occurred, right in front of him, BUT he also claimed that the policeman who led him off the train, warned him to avoid the jagged metal that had been blown up into the carriage from underneath. ThomasT | 02.12.09 - 10:01 am | #

Quote:"Brian Paddick of the Metropolitan Police was even asked at a press conference whether he could confirm these reports, and replied “We have no reports of any police sniper shooting at anybody today”.
Let that be an end to it.(sarcasm)
I saw the report of the executions on television. The fact that the media did not repeat the report suggests, strongly, that they were ordered not to repeat.
Ripple is a speculative film in places : there is nothing wrong with that.
It is an excellent contribution to the debate.
Pat Rattigan | Homepage | 05.02.08 - 8:16 am | #

I'm assuming you've read these comments before as you posted one after them with a link to your/the "Ripple Effect - Muad Dib - John Anthony Hill - Is a mental case" group on facegrok in the same thread..
Reply
07-07-2009, 11:31 AM,
#7
London bombings 7/7
Then I don't know what you meant by this
Quote:the fact the cameras all happened to malfunction on that day certainly muddies it up, eh? :rolleyes:


Quote:
Quote:So, you are saying that MI5 would have killed everyone on the train because the cameras weren't working?
No not at all, I don't know how you derived that.

Because it seemed you were responding directly beneath my statement that the "patsie" would probably not have been killed in the explosion and then told everyone. Obviously not.


Quote:If you don't think it was strange that the cameras were down, that's up to you...on the diverted bus the cameras seem to have malfunctioned as well.

How many times on TV have you seen reports of crimes where the camera either wasn't working or was pointing at slightly the wrong place? I've seen it loads of times, in fact well before these attacks I was under the impression that for the most part these cameras are quite useless because they are so often broken, or are time-lapsed and don't capture enough information, or are pointing at the wrong spot.

It's not an opinion I have concluded since these attacks, it's one I already held.


Quote:THE SECOND BUS EXPLOSION AND STRANGE REPORTING OF THE DEATH OF A WITNESS

I am always suspicious of suicides (for the record I do not believe in suicide, so if ever it is reported I killed myself it is not true!). However in this case the facts as I see them are

1: She experienced something very traumatic.
2: She got a lot of positive press coverage for her heroism for being a doctor that treated people on the scene, later to be exposed as a fraud. When the papers catch whiff of something like this they are very vicious and relentless.

So I am not surprised she was attacked so nastily. I am not surprised that they concentrated mostly on the bad part of the story considering she had fooled them previously. I must therefore entertain the possibility that under these circumstances someone might kill themself, so it is not as deeply suspicious as you imply.

As for the other witnesses of a secondary explosion on the bus, I would like to hear direct statements rather than rumours of statements.

Reply
07-07-2009, 12:00 PM, (This post was last modified: 07-07-2009, 01:48 PM by ---.)
#8
London bombings 7/7
Quote:How many times on TV have you seen reports of crimes where the camera either wasn't working or was pointing at slightly the wrong place? I've seen it loads of times, in fact well before these attacks I was under the impression that for the most part these cameras are quite useless because they are so often broken, or are time-lapsed and don't capture enough information, or are pointing at the wrong spot.

It's not an opinion I have concluded since these attacks, it's one I already held.

I'll agree with you that it's a point of view.


Quote:I am always suspicious of suicides (for the record I do not believe in suicide, so if ever it is reported I killed myself it is not true!). However in this case the facts as I see them are

1: She experienced something very traumatic.
2: She got a lot of positive press coverage for her heroism for being a doctor that treated people on the scene, later to be exposed as a fraud. When the papers catch whiff of something like this they are very vicious and relentless.

So I am not surprised she was attacked so nastily. I am not surprised that they concentrated mostly on the bad part of the story considering she had fooled them previously. I must therefore entertain the possibility that under these circumstances someone might kill themself, so it is not as deeply suspicious as you imply.

As for the other witnesses of a secondary explosion on the bus, I would like to hear direct statements rather than rumours of statements.

well obviously she can't give one seeing as she's dead. She wasn't 'exposed' as a fraud simply because she wasn't a fraud..a full scale media assault was waged against her. Doesn't sound like you're suspicious enough imo.

Posted on 2005.07.07 at 12:54
Quote:I've just had a text message from Rachel (my little Rae of Sunshine). She's in London as was called in for holiday cover at Mirror Group where she works. She is locked in Canary Wharf Tower. The police have just shot a suicide bomber. She is safe but a bit freaked out.

http://evildrem.livejournal.com/92416.html

Posted by: Colm | July 07, 2005 at 03:27 PM

Quote:It must be a very surreal situation, Colm. I spoke to someone in our London office...everyone there is accounted for...but still worried about friends and family. They're being to told to stay in the Canary Warf area for the time being. We're getting mixed reports on fatalities as well. You're in our prayers, Colm.

http://atangledweb.typepad.com/weblog/2005...comment-6988295

Quote:'Police shot bombers' reports New Zealander

Saturday July 09, 2005

A New Zealander working for Reuters in London says two colleagues witnessed the unconfirmed shooting by police of two apparent suicide bombers outside the HSBC tower at Canary Wharf in London.

The New Zealander, who did not want to be named, said the killing of the two men wearing bombs happened at 10.30am on Thursday (London time).

Following the shooting, the 8000 workers in the 44-storey tower were told to stay away from windows and remain in the building for at least six hours, the New Zealand man said.

He was not prepared to give the names of his two English colleagues, who he said witnessed the shooting from a building across the road from the tower.

Reports of attacks carried out by suicide bombers have been rife in London.

Canada's Globe and Mail newspaper reported an unconfirmed incident of police shooting a bomber outside the HSBC tower.

Canadian Brendan Spinks, who works on the 18th floor of the tower, said he saw a "massive rush of policemen" outside the building after London was rocked by the bombings.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/artic...jectid=10334992

Bolding in comment of your underpinning claim that if there had been shooting in Canary Wharf why didn't office workers witness this..yes, I am aware that the rationale was to avoid injury from any flying glass but I'm just pointing out how if someone was consciously avoiding going near a window there's a good chance they wouldn't see anything happening through it.

Tbh, I'm not interested in trying to defend the 7/7 ripple effect in it's totality as I think I already told you? But, having said that, I will contend the view that Hill hasn't pulled up some info and lines of enquiry and I will contend that the current proceedings against him are reflective of an equanimous and just legal system, it has been blatantly clear that the legal system is corrupted from the meddlings of civil service and successive govts. and it 'looks' very much like somewhere someone wants this man shut up.
Reply
07-07-2009, 01:51 PM,
#9
London bombings 7/7
Quote:Ms. Oates-Whitehead was found dead at her flat in Shepherd�€™s Bush, London at the age of 35, two weeks later. There was an active media campaign to discredit her, this was highly apparent. The article from which her above quote was taken referred to her in the headline as a "bogus" doctor, yet Richmal Oates-Whitehead, was indeed a doctor.

It seems strange, when reporting the death of a young woman under strange circumstances to concentrate solely on the veracity of certain things she had said or done throughout her life. This is not generally the way unexpected deaths are reported
.

Quote:What about the report in the Cambridge Evening News by an injured passenger, who claims not only that nobody was standing at he spot where one of the explosions occurred, right in front of him, BUT he also claimed that the policeman who led him off the train, warned him to avoid the jagged metal that had been blown up into the carriage from underneath. ThomasT | 02.12.09 - 10:01 am | #

Quote:"Brian Paddick of the Metropolitan Police was even asked at a press conference whether he could confirm these reports, and replied “We have no reports of any police sniper shooting at anybody today”.
Let that be an end to it.(sarcasm)
I saw the report of the executions on television. The fact that the media did not repeat the report suggests, strongly, that they were ordered not to repeat.
Ripple is a speculative film in places : there is nothing wrong with that.
It is an excellent contribution to the debate.
Pat Rattigan | Homepage | 05.02.08 - 8:16 am | #


Reply
07-07-2009, 03:05 PM,
#10
London bombings 7/7
Quote:well obviously she can't give one seeing as she's dead.

Obviously I don't want a quote from her, which is why I asked for quotes from "witnesses".



Quote:She wasn't 'exposed' as a fraud simply because she wasn't a fraud..a full scale media assault was waged against her.

The article I read claims that she was asked by fire fighters to help whilst they cut people out of wreckage and that she claimed to be a doctor but was not qualified as one. It later said that she later started to call herself "professor" and that she also falsely claimed she had lost twins (as a consequence of the event I think it said).


Quote:Doesn't sound like you're suspicious enough imo.

Well I've never heard of her. I don't read newspapers because I tired years ago of reading the utter lies within them. I also don't walk through life being suspicious of stuff either, I do get annoyed though when I see scenarios which are absolute fantasy touted as if they were fact. I watched Loose Change a few nights ago, a MUCH better film in my opinion - mainly because of the credibility of sources of the information they presented.


Quote:I've just had a text message from Rachel (my little Rae of Sunshine). She's in London as was called in for holiday cover at Mirror Group where she works. She is locked in Canary Wharf Tower. The police have just shot a suicide bomber. She is safe but a bit freaked out.

BUT, did she SEE someone get shot or merely hear about it? If the police suspected Canary Wharf might be a target (which is likely) then they may have asked people to stay inside whilst they ensured their safety. Speculation can easily progress to rumour in such a situation especially when people are not updated with events as the unfold.

Have you heard..."Trains have been blown up, they might be after Canary Wharf"
Have you heard..."Suicide bombers are after Canary Wharf, so the police are here"
Have you heard..."Armed police are after suicide bombers in Canary Wharf"
Have you heard..."Armed police have caught some suicide bombers in Canary Wharf"
Have you heard..."Armed police have shot some suicide bombers in Canary Wharf"

6 hours in a block with little or no information is not a reliable source for an account of what apparently happened outside. What I want is a statement by multiple witnesses (as there would have been) that they saw someone shot by the police. A reporter in NZ being told by an unnamed person who was told by two unnamed people doesn't count. First person accounts, anything other than that is rumour and speculation.

Considering there were so many reporters in Canary Wharf I would have expected photographs, well documented witness accounts as they wrote down what they saw from their windows, possibly video footage, and so on. So far all I have seen is accounts from people who have heard about it. A bit like Tae Kwon Do - I've heard how brilliant it is from so many people who have never actually seen it.

Quote:'Police shot bombers' reports New Zealander
A New Zealander [Who did not want to be named] working for Reuters in London says two colleagues witnessed the unconfirmed shooting by police of two apparent suicide bombers outside the HSBC tower at Canary Wharf in London.

Exactly, the information pipeline here is

Two people tell a person.
Person tells NZ reporter but won't pass on the "witness's" identities.
NZ reporter tells us but won't pass on their source's identity.

Coincidentally, someone who I won't name has just told me that two people who he won't name saw the person shot and he had no bombs on him or anything. Except for the fact that you know I just made this up, the credibility is the same - none.

I repeat. All those journalists and this is the best we have for proof that bombers were shot in Canary Wharf? Please forgive me for being skeptical on that one :-)

Quote:'Police shot bombers' reports New Zealander
Tbh, I'm not interested in trying to defend the 7/7 ripple effect in it's totality as I think I already told you? But, having said that, I will contend the view that Hill hasn't pulled up some info and lines of enquiry and I will contend that the current proceedings against him are reflective of an equanimous and just legal system, it has been blatantly clear that the legal system is corrupted from the meddlings of civil service and successive govts. and it 'looks' very much like somewhere someone wants this man shut up.

The thing with films such as his is they paint things in a certain way to make you form certain conclusions. For example, what are the chances that the government can stage the exact right scenario (3 trains + one road vehicle) a year in advance? This is used as proof that the drill before was to practise what MI5 were planning, in my opinion though it is far more likely that the plan in 2005 was based on what they had seen on the news - suddenly all coincidence is gone because there is none.

The number 30 doesn't normally go down that road, so how could the bomber target that road without the bus being redirected? Who says the bomber targeted that road? That is just an assumption! Maybe his goal was to ride on the bus until it was full enough to kill as many people as possible. This would explain

1: Why he rode one way, got off, got back on another number 30 and came back.
2: Why he detonated on the road he did, because it wasn't the bus's normal route and people were getting off.

Hardly conspiracy worthy.

And the point that if it weren't MI5 who set up the bomber would have just caught the number 91 which DOES go down that road, that is just laughable. MI5 must have been involved to get the 30 to go down that specific route.....I don't think so! More likely the bus redirect was just a panic to avoid an affected area, or due to stationary traffic ahead or something. MI5 would certainly have made the guy go on the number 91 because redirecting the 30 would be too suspicious! He seemed to be going the right way by analysing bus routes etc, and then came to a conclusion which went against everything he just said!

The 7/7 Ripple Effect argument is flawed, and far too complicated.

Did MI5 do it? No idea! But they certainly didn't do it THAT way!
Reply
07-07-2009, 05:08 PM,
#11
London bombings 7/7
Quote:What about the report in the Cambridge Evening News by an injured passenger, who claims not only that nobody was standing at he spot where one of the explosions occurred, right in front of him,

On Loose Change I remember 3 accounts of people watching the plane fly over on its way to the Pentagon.

1 person said it was a commercial jet but couldn't work out any livery.
1 person said it was a small private jet, pure white, no livery on it at all.
1 person said it was a large commercial jet with AA livery clearly visible.

In this situation something unusual was happening so you are likely to pay attention, yet here we have 2 slightly similar and 1 completely inaccurate account of the plane itself.

Now onto the witness on the train.
1: Did the floor blow up AS they were actually looking at it?

2: They "don't remember seeing anyone there" is more likely. You tend not to notice uninteresting things. You notice someone is there *if* they catch your eye, but if they are uninteresting you don't notice them. On the way to pick my kids up I noticed a woman pushing a pushchair between two trees, but I didn't explicitly notice NOBODY at other points on the road.

3: Maybe the witness did explicitly think "Nice clear exit to the door for my next stop" - but then what happened? Bomb went off as they were looking at the blank space, or they turned and looked around the train, or used their mobile, or any number of other things they may have done to distract their attention. The thing is when your attention is distracted you don't notice that the 3 seconds was really 30 seconds. Whilst they were momentarily distracted by thoughts about what paperwork needs doing when they get to work the bomber could have stood up, walked to the open space and exploded their bomb.

Now if I had multiple witnesses saying that they were looking at the spot and watched an explosion come from under the floor that would be more credible.

Quote:BUT he also claimed that the policeman who led him off the train, warned him to avoid the jagged metal that had been blown up into the carriage from underneath.

Am I correct in assuming the train was moving? Also that it was derailed? What happens when trains get derailed? Stuff comes up through the floor, I don't believe it is uncommon to see jagged metal pointing upwards in a train wreck. Another thing to consider is this, how much of the floor which took the explosion had solid material directly beneath it, such as supporting metal beams?

When I was a kid I took a 9V electric motor and, on the advice of my friend, decided to wire it into the main electrical socket to "see how much faster it would go". Needless to say it blew up, the tiled floor in my parent's bedroom had a hole in it and was all blackened, and guess what? The jagged edges of the tiles all pointed upwards, I clearly remember the shape of it plus the blackened edges and thinking "It looks just like a volcano". I expect it was because the energy from the blast transferred into the tiles, couldn't continue through the solid floor so then burst upwards. So upward pointing jagged metal alone is not evidence enough unless you test an explosion on a moving train to prove that

A: It was not forced up due to derailment.
B: It was not forced up due to the construction of the floor.

Someone should get Myth Busters on the case!
Reply
07-07-2009, 05:57 PM,
#12
London bombings 7/7
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.
Reply
07-08-2009, 09:17 AM,
#13
London bombings 7/7
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.
Reply
07-08-2009, 11:24 AM,
#14
London bombings 7/7
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!


Ah, Britain. Where you can be fined for saying 'f..k' in a private conversation. Where every single child will soon be fingerprinted. Where all people will be ordered to carry an I.D. card at all times, to be swiped every time they withdraw a fairly small amount of money from the bank, buy an airline ticket, apply for a fishing license, purchase property, apply for a library card, get a prescription filled, and so on. Where you can be sentenced to 80 hours of community service for wearing the wrong T-shirt. Where having a pen knife in your car can get you arrested. Where being too fat can get you carted off to a mental institution. Where government workers will come to your home to verify you're not using too much electricity, and to note whether or not you smoke. Where all vehicles' whereabouts will soon be monitored by satellite 24/7. Where you'll get fined for using a pencil instead of a pen when filling out a form. Where people are captured by video surveillance cameras some 300 times a day. Where officials tell you how to go to the bathroom.

The government are keeping many secret that are beneficial to humanity.That is to say that what benefits the majority is suppressed or classified as top secret. They are the enemy of the people. We are their slaves they leech off us like a cancer and the only cure is true knowledge or the truth.
Reply
07-08-2009, 01:20 PM,
#15
London bombings 7/7
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.
Reply


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  'Mysterious plane' with no callsign spotted circling London for two hours Frank2 0 195 07-28-2014, 12:36 AM
Last Post: Frank2
  7/7 London bombings (British Intelligence) drummer 0 590 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 3 726 04-17-2010, 09:39 AM
Last Post: h3rm35
  Pakistan arrests man linked to 2005 London bombs --- 0 469 01-22-2009, 01:15 PM
Last Post: ---
  Protests in London on Sunday & Monday TriWooOx 39 4,336 01-06-2009, 08:43 PM
Last Post: mastermg
  london bombings 7/7 updates. link metaspiral25 2 605 01-20-2008, 12:28 PM
Last Post: metaspiral25
  Fifth 21/7 London bomber jailed nataraja 1 433 11-20-2007, 07:00 PM
Last Post: nataraja
  Fifth 21/7 London bomber jailed (confesses) nataraja 0 426 11-20-2007, 06:59 PM
Last Post: nataraja
  London 7/7 Bombings - Bus Bomb Witness Writes Book nataraja 6 737 10-30-2007, 05:10 PM
Last Post: nataraja
  Madrid Bombings Redux - What Really Happened FighterFromAfar 0 335 06-02-2007, 07:49 AM
Last Post: FighterFromAfar

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)