Cox Forum Forum Index Cox Forum
Cox Forum
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Alex's Xmas Blog: 2005.12.23 - 7/7
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Cox Forum Forum Index -> Cox Blog Discussions
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
alkmyst



Joined: 19 Jan 2006
Posts: 3
Location: UK

PostPosted: Fri Jan 20, 2006 8:39 am    Post subject: Objectivity vs Emotion Reply with quote

www.spiritualalchemy.com/product_info.php/cPath/1_246/products_id/6795

Follow this link to the DVD produced by a guy called Ian Crane, which looks at the similarity between the events of 9/11 and 7/7; it also includes recordings of the July 7 Radio 5 Live and ITV interviews with Peter Power of Visor Consultants. The DVD documents the evidence which points towards the prior planning of the 9/11 events and the 'necessity' of 7/7 to take the media attention away from the G8 discussions at Gleneagles.

Crane is not your bulk standard 'conspiracy theorist'. Apparently he is a retired ex-Oilfield Services executive, who has lived and worked in both the Middle East and in the USA.

Rachel should go along to one of his presentations, just to hear what he has to say. He appears to have no agenda other than to point out the glaring anomolies between the 'official' versions of 9/11 & 7/7 and the accumulated evidence. Last year he gave about 20 talks on the subject and seems to really know his stuff. I went along to a talk that he gave in Blackpool, which was absolutely brilliant, he also discussed Peak Oil and presented the evidence that pointed at the coming attack on Iran.

Crane is to objectivity what Rachel is to emotion!

On the back of the DVD cover it says, " Ian is not offering specific answers ..... but for those who truly value democracy, it is imperative that they are aware of these extremely important and, as yet, unanswered questions."

I posted this immediately prior to Rachel's last 'Eastenders' style response. There is a pattern of such aggression, vitriol and self-righteousness to postings under the name of 'Rachel', that one can only wonder if she (or is it perhaps 'they'?) is a scriptwriter for the soap? Hiding behind the role of 'victim' is understandable ........ up to a point ...but it is a poor excuse for excessive one-dimensional ranting.

I see people asking genuine questions, only for Rachel to dismiss the questioner as a 'Troll' .... or worse.

It is my experience that the sceptic community are generally well-researched and (generally) ask valid questions that deserve the appropriate investigation and/or response.

Surely, at the end of the day, we are all only really interested in achieving the truth. Aren't we?

Al K Myst
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message  
Rachel



Joined: 02 Jan 2006
Posts: 24

PostPosted: Fri Jan 20, 2006 9:33 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

''
I see people asking genuine questions, only for Rachel to dismiss the questioner as a 'Troll' .... or worse. ''

*Sigh*



Chavez IS clearly trolling , have a look at his posts. I said this in the post before last

''I can now see that some of you are trolls like Chavez, some of you are deeply sceptical and some of you are polite and well –intentioned and think you are onto something'' and went to some trouble to post some data that I know is pertinent to questions that some of you are answering.

And if I am angry it is because I am totally fed up of people like Chavez repeatedly calling me liar, here and on my blog, people claiming I am some kind of government agent or spook disinformation team in order to further their own wild theories. It is insulting and tiresome. I am a real person, who was really on the train that was really bombed. The fact that you can't separate truth from fantasy is your problem, not mine, but my God, it is irritating.

Instead of dismissing what I say as emotive disinfo, why not answer or consider some of the points I have repeatedly raised: if you think this is some kind of black ops, what evidence makes you think so, and why, since it has clearly done nothing to further the causes fo the war on terror, as I have just pointed out...and nobody has yet tried to answer.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message  
chavez



Joined: 06 Jan 2006
Posts: 10

PostPosted: Fri Jan 20, 2006 10:27 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

If you didn't continually repeat yourself with such vaccous posts Rachel then people with brain wouldn't question your motives for relentlessly attacking those who see no proof and thoroughly disbelieve everything Tony Bliar and Ian Bliar have said since 7/7.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message  
Rachel



Joined: 02 Jan 2006
Posts: 24

PostPosted: Fri Jan 20, 2006 10:38 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

And your motives for popping up every 5 minutes, calling me a liar (like a stuck record) and failing to answer any question asked of you , Chavez, notably, what proof do you expect me to provide you with to answer what questions....remind me again? What the point of your contributions on this board are?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message  
Prole



Joined: 03 Jan 2006
Posts: 12
Location: London UK

PostPosted: Fri Jan 20, 2006 12:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Another of the things that has never made sense to me re: the Piccadilly Line train is:

The train was at crush capacity, more packed than usual due to delays at Caledonian Road (a fire, apparantly, that has never been reported on in the MSM).

YET: Germaine Lindsey manages to enter the carriage, move to the middle of the carriage between the second set of double doors and then place his rucksack on the floor?

How was this possible? How was he even able to make it further than being beside the door let alone place a rucksack on the floor?

It is these kinds of questions that prevent me from believing that we are being told the truth about these events. There are far too many unanswered questions and anomalies to believe the official narrative is a cohesive and verifiable account.
_________________
In times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act. George Orwell
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website  
Prole



Joined: 03 Jan 2006
Posts: 12
Location: London UK

PostPosted: Fri Jan 20, 2006 12:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

As someone who has no science O Level, I defer to others where explosives are concerned. One thing that does interest me is the fact that the story changed from military explosives (with timers) to home-made explosives (made in a bathtub?) detonated with button like devices by suicide bombers.

Someone who does know their stuff I've copied and pasted here:

Thus far we have been told that the explosives were:

1. "C-4" - London Times and UPI, quoting French antiterror officials Christian Chaboud an Roland Jacquard

2. "not home-made explosive. Whether it is military explosive, whether it is commercial explosive, whether it is plastic explosive we do not want to say at this stage." - Scotland Yard Deputy Assistant Commissioner Brian Paddick http://abc.net.au

3. "simple, relatively easy-to-obtain plastic explosives, not the higher-grade military plastics like Semtex that would have killed far more people" - Andy Oppenheimer, consultant for Jane's Information Group (Oppenheimer then changed his story to TATP)

4. "TATP" - the current spin based on the "discovery" of the bomb bathtub and the 2nd batch of "miraculous dud bombs" on 7/21 that were hailed as a "forensic goldmine."

Explosives 101

How do explosives blow up? The operative word is "blow," i.e. gas expansion. A more or less rapid chemically-produced gas expansion can go from bruising your face, as in an auto airbag, to severe wounds, as in a fireworks accident, to knocking your head off, as with high explosive like TATP, TNT, or C-4.

The power of an explosive depends on:

1. the top speed of the expanding gas, called detonation velocity. If it's supersonic, the shock wave adds to the force of the explosion and you have a high explosive (dynamite, TNT, C-4, TATP). If it's subsonic, you no longer have a detonation but a deflagration (black powder, rocket propellant, hydrocarbon explosions). RDX, the explosive that C-4 is made of, has a detonation velocity of 27,000 fps. Of the explosives used by Palestinians, TNT has a DV of 22,300 fps, and TATP has one of 17, 200 fps.

2. the time it takes for the gas to reach that top speed, called brisance. The combined effect of DV and brisance make RDX almost twice as powerful as TATP.

3. the heat generated by the chemical reaction, which almost always is what makes the gases expand so rapidly. The heat of the explosion also causes flash burns in victims and emits light, which is why almost all bangs are associated with a flash. All except one: TATP. TATP produces no heat and no light. Consequently, no one can see the "flash" of a TATP explosion or suffer flash burns from it.

TATP burns the spinmeisters, not the victims

The following story blows two large and one medium-sized holes in the current TATP story for 7/7: Nobody can be burned by a TATP bomb, nobody can see the "flash" of a TATP bomb, and TATP can be identified on a bomb site.

Israeli invention detects TATP explosives
Israel Insider, January 27, 2005

Researchers from Israel's Technion in Haifa have developed a device to detect the kind of improvised explosives increasingly used by Arab terror groups. The new detector, named the Peroxide Explosive Tester (PET), looks like a three-color ball-point pen. The device releases three chemical mixtures that change color upon interaction with the suspected explosive materials.
(. . .)
"To our great surprise," PET's inventor, Prof. Ehud Keinan, Dean of the Technion's Faculty of Chemistry, wrote in the Journal of the American Chemical Society, "we discovered that TATP is very different from all other conventional explosives in that it does not release heat during the explosion. It explodes by rapid decomposition of every solid-state molecule to four gas-phase molecules. This rare phenomenon, scientifically known as 'Entropic Explosion', is reminiscent of the rapid reaction that produces gas in the safety air-bags of cars during accidents."

The London tube trains had no fuel that the blasts could ignite and the double decker's fuel tank did not catch fire. Therefore if TATP was what blew up the London tube trains, no one should have suffered burns. So if the government is right about TATP, all these people are lying about seeing flashes, and they're cheating the health care system by pretending to have burns.

http://www.tos4truth.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=9603
_________________
In times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act. George Orwell
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website  
Rachel



Joined: 02 Jan 2006
Posts: 24

PostPosted: Fri Jan 20, 2006 12:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The train stopped at Kings Cross, remember - a major getting on and getting off point. Loads of people pushed off. Loads of people surged on. The part of the carriage I was on saw at least twenty five - thirty people get off at KX, freeing up some space temporarily beween the doors, so some people includsing myself moved back a bit, others left seats freeing them up for standing passengers. Then a similar number of people got on and stuffed themselves into the carriage. If Germaine Lindsey was standing at the front of the platform, which was about 5 people deep, with his ruck sack held in his arms, or worn backwards over his chest instead of his back, he would have surged onto the train with the other passengers pushing behind and then detonated his bomb in the middle of the carriage between the double doors. I hope that helps. You might try getting on the Westbound Piccadilly line carriage one at the KX interchange at 8.50am on a weekday as an experiement and you will see exactly what I mean.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message  
Rachel



Joined: 02 Jan 2006
Posts: 24

PostPosted: Fri Jan 20, 2006 12:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Oh - and I don't think anyone suffered burns from the blast. Wounds, yes, burns, no. One person I know has burns from falling out of the train onto cabling which was still live.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message  
Prole



Joined: 03 Jan 2006
Posts: 12
Location: London UK

PostPosted: Fri Jan 20, 2006 12:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thanks for that Rachel, doesn't explain how he managed to put his rucksack on the floor. As for surging forward, you told me on other forums that Germaine Lindsay was identified by a fellow passenger who was standing next to him on the platform as they both tried to enter the carriage, who had to give up attempting to get on the carriage as it was so packed.
My experience of getting onto packed trains is that it is hard not to get squashed next to the doors.
_________________
In times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act. George Orwell
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website  
Rachel



Joined: 02 Jan 2006
Posts: 24

PostPosted: Fri Jan 20, 2006 1:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Yes - the other passenger was at the edge of the door.

If you are at the front of the platform waiting to get on the train but not directly facing the door when the train stops, when queueing to get on, it is much harder to get into the train through the door. So the other KCU passenger gave up and heaved his way in th eopposite direction to the next carriage down . He is not a pushy person! And I'm bloody pleased that he isn't - because that's why he survived.

Try getting on a train with a rucksack in your arms and puitting it on the floor. I often get on a train with my gym kit and then put it between my feet.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message  
Prole



Joined: 03 Jan 2006
Posts: 12
Location: London UK

PostPosted: Fri Jan 20, 2006 1:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Rachel said:
Quote:
There was a yellowy-orange flash, then I fell to the floor because of the blast to the side of me which physically threw me forwards towards the drivers cab.


Yet:
Quote:
3. the heat generated by the chemical reaction, which almost always is what makes the gases expand so rapidly. The heat of the explosion also causes flash burns in victims and emits light, which is why almost all bangs are associated with a flash. All except one: TATP. TATP produces no heat and no light. Consequently, no one can see the "flash" of a TATP explosion or suffer flash burns from it.


Quote:
Oh - and I don't think anyone suffered burns from the blast. Wounds, yes, burns, no. One person I know has burns from falling out of the train onto cabling which was still live.


As for burns victims, one story here from the Piccadilly Line (let alone the famous front page of the woman with severe burns to her face from the Edgware Road blast),

Quote:
He was travelling with his friend Patrick Barnes, 22, who survived the explosion and is currently recovering with severe burns and tendon damage.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/beds/bucks/herts/4686123.stm

Quote:
Concerned about the city's capacity for dealing with mass burns injuries, she asked the Department of Health to put burns units on standby across the country. "You start big," she explains, "and then you start reducing once you know what it is you're facing."

http://www.paramedic.org.uk/news_archive/2005/07/news21070501/view

I'm sure Rachel will have an 'explanation' for all of these!
_________________
In times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act. George Orwell
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website  
Prole



Joined: 03 Jan 2006
Posts: 12
Location: London UK

PostPosted: Fri Jan 20, 2006 1:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Front Page burns victim


_________________
In times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act. George Orwell
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website  
Rachel



Joined: 02 Jan 2006
Posts: 24

PostPosted: Fri Jan 20, 2006 3:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I do not know anyone with burns from the Piccadilly line apart from the person who fell out of the train and was burned by cabling.


I do not know what explosive mixture was used: as you may be aware if you can read what I post or have bothered to look me up I am a commuter, who works in an office, who was on the train on 7th July not an explosives expert.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message  
Rachel



Joined: 02 Jan 2006
Posts: 24

PostPosted: Fri Jan 20, 2006 4:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

And where by the way, did I say it was TATP?


I did not make the bombs, despite some cretinous remarks that I am an M15 agent and that M15 were responsible.

You know, I wonder wh I put myself out here to be baited by you people: there is a limit to how much I can put myself though.

I never hated the bombers, I was even sorry for them, but my God,. there are times when I really find you objectionable.
'
Prole: '' I'm sure Rachel will have an 'explanation' for all of these!''

Why? Do you think I made the bombs?

Chavez:
''Don't expect Rachel to ask any real questions or provide evidence to support her emotive BS. She is using the skeptics to help police fill holes in their fictional account of 7/7 which frames a bunch of innocent guys from Leeds. There is NO PROOF WHATSOEVER they were even in London on 7/7 regardless of whatever emotion or insult Rachel uses to shroud the truth''
How much you getting paid to troll the Internet everyday lying to everyone Rachel? You seem to have a lot of time on your hands to write these lengthy replies at all times of the day. Wouldn't be suprised if your IP traces back to GCHQ

''Stop bloody lying Rachel and show us some proof please.''
''Typical disinfo shill, all BS and no evidence.''

Me: ''And perhaps you would like to suggest the evidence a commuter on a bombed train might be expected to provide?

Apart from that given to the police in the form of witness statements and clothing worn at the time of the blast for forensic examination? '

I am asking you all, individually TO PUT IT OUT THERE FOR ONCE.

What happened? What do you think REALLY happened?

If you have no answers, then I will say to you, it is easy to ask questions. I am doing my best.


As to you, who are you?

Answers, or the rest is silence.

The rest is silence.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message  
alkmyst



Joined: 19 Jan 2006
Posts: 3
Location: UK

PostPosted: Fri Jan 20, 2006 5:00 pm    Post subject: Is 'Rachel' a collective noun? Reply with quote

From Rachel's blog:
Quote:
a welcome break from engaging with conspiracy theorist fundementalists and those with agendas I do not share.


Earlier I wrote:
Quote:
Surely, at the end of the day, we are all only really interested in achieving the truth. Aren't we?


I am baffled as to why 'Rachel' feels that she (they?) have to offer answers to each and every question that gets raised. Rachel is absolutely correct in her assertion that we know she didn't plant the bombs on July 7th. Neither did she say that four young Muslim men were the perpetrators of the event. I am certain that no one would allege that Rachel is responsible in any way for being the original source to the 'official' account of what transpired on that fateful day. So why does she feel the need to behave as though every question is an affront to her personal integrity?

I can certainly understand Rachel's desire for the official account to be a true and accurate account of what happened. I am sure that the thought of our government deliberately lying is anathema to us all ......... but I am sure that even Rachel would agree that the track record of Tony Blair to date, does not exactly engender much comfort.

It is good to learn that you are in support of the call for a 'Public Enquiry' into the events of July 7th, which should surely be the forum for all pertinent questions to be answered.

Rachel, it would seem that you permit your alter-ego to take over at the keyboard when you post on this forum. As I said in an earlier post, "Hiding behind the role of 'victim' is understandable ........ up to a point ...but it is a poor excuse for excessive one-dimensional ranting"

We all know that you were seven feet from the blast and we know that you endured an extremely traumatic experience. On behalf of you, the 52 victims who were killed, the 700 who were injured, Jean-Charles de Menezes and all the respective families , we ask for no more than the truth.

Rachel, you have an opportunity to be a very imporant part of this process and perhaps those closest to you can help you find ways to maximise that opportunity. Alternatively, you can continue your slanging match with Chavez, Prole or whoever else asks questions that go counter to your apparently entrenched dogma.

Kismet calls!

Al K Myst
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message  
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Cox Forum Forum Index -> Cox Blog Discussions All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4
Page 4 of 4

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB 2.0.11 2001, 2002 phpBB Group