 |
Cox Forum
Cox Forum
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Guest
|
 Posted: Wed Feb 15, 2006 10:53 pm Post subject: The Angel Of King's Cross |
 |
|
This is a repeat of a post that vanished in the hacking. Fingers crossed.
| Quote: | ANGEL OF 7/7 SAVED MY LIFE
Evening Standard (London), Nov 1, 2005 by DAVID COHEN
A WOMAN who helped to save fellow passengers amid the carnage of 7/7 today tells her remarkable story for the first time.
Alison Macarthy suffered appalling injuries yet fought for an hour to
treat those trapped amid the wreckage of the King's Cross Tube train.
One man who would not be alive today but for her efforts said this
afternoon: "She's my guardian angel, a remarkable human being."
Garri Holness was speaking as he arrived at St Paul's Cathedral for
amemorial service in which the Archbishop of Canterbury spoke of the
"precious and unique" 7 July victims.
Mr Holness added: "I have met her a couple of times since the
bombings but it will be nice to share an experience like today
together. It's like a form of closure for all of us I suppose.
"A time to come together and think about what happened just as it
is time to remember those who died and to get our heads together."
Mr Holness, 37, from Streatham, who lost his left leg below the
knee, said he was trying to "stay positive" about his injuries. The
carriage he was in - 346A - took the full blast and Ms Macarthy was one
of the few able to move around.
She could have followed a man who staggered out towards the
emergency lights she could see in the distance. Instead she chose to
stay and treat the injured.
A total of 26 people died at King's Cross, the other 26 fatalities
were on Tube trains at Edgware Road and Aldgate and on the No30 bus at
Tavistock Square. More than 700 were injured.
Ms Macarthy, 30, was on her way to work when suicide bomber Jermaine Lindsay detonated the device. He was just three feet from her but a woman sitting between them took the full impact. |
How could the bomber have got a seat? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Rachel
Joined: 02 Jan 2006
Posts: 50
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 15, 2006 11:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Personal insults?
| chavez wrote: | Rachel is 100% COINTELPRO
No evidence to support her claims. |
| commanderson wrote: | | my
my, nerves do get fraught, in the realm of information dispersal and
disposal, wherein rachaels task lies, to dilute and distract from folks
openly sharing pertinent information. I must entirely agree with chavez
that rachael seems to have far too much time on her hands to be
re-educating us poor deluded conspiracy theorists, evangelising for
just an acceptance that it was ofcource those angry arabs, rather than
an investagation of the facts. As she laments over the terrible mauling
metered out by the savage wingnuts on a poor bombing victim, you can
even hear the splash of crocidle tears. Maybe she is a lizard? |
| chavez wrote: |
Stop bloody lying Rachel and show us some proof please. |
| chavez wrote : |
| Typical disinfo shill, all BS and no evidence. |
| chavez wrote: | | 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. |
| chavez wrote: | 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.  |
| alwun wrote: | | Rachel(rachel
smachel), it's your tone of voice that is the giveaway. You also seem
to think that having been involved directly in the events of the
day(were you really?) confers upon you some special status and insight,
but all it seems to have done is open the floodgates of hysteria. I
would recommend that you stay off line for a year or two and cease
taking up space on the few sites where sensible folks are beginning to
communicate about the real terror of the ongoing situation that Brits
are facing today. ?.. |
| chavez wrote: | It should be clear from Rachel's disinfo tactics she's part of the same lying media and police who set up this scam.
Bet it ain't even female. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
alkmyst
Joined: 19 Jan 2006
Posts: 10
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 15, 2006 11:43 pm Post subject: Welcome back! |
|
|
Rachel North Blog - Feb 10, 2006
| Quote: | | There
will always be those who tell us not to ask questions, of ourselves or
each other. Who say they, and only they, speak the truth, the only
truth. |
Oh Rachel, why do you feel it to be necessary to adopt such a pompous,
self-righteous and aggressive stance when you post on this forum?
I take the quote above from your blog on Feb 10 and it is indeed a
sound observation. So why do you embed yourself in dogma and take it
upon yourself to insist that your comprehension of what transpired on
July 7th is the only possible explanation? As I may have mentioned once
or twice before, surely we share the objective of establishing the
unequivocal truth?
With regard to the London Assembly, it is most interesting that the
aspects of July 7th that the Review Committe are investigating are
exactly the issues that Peter Power said his organisation were
addressing on the morning of July 7th when they,".....realised that this was the real thing and went from slow time thinking to quick time thinking......"
Do you think that Peter Power will be asked to present his experiences
to the Review Committee? If not, why not? After all, he is apparently
the Preferred Supplier to H.M. Government for Crisis Management!
From Visor Consultants website:
| Quote: | | Visor
Consultants have been able to support many domestic and global
organisations to prevent chaos in a crisis and increase their overall
resilience. Our clients include one of the top seven companies in the
USA and key Departments of the UK Government. |
I know that you have previously implied that you subscribe to the view
that it was pure co-incidence that Peter Power was running an exercise
on the morning of July 7th, "....involving 1000 people.... at exactly the same three stations where the bombs went off .....". As he was to state in interviews conducted with Radio 5 Live and ITV, "......the hairs on the back of my neck are still standing on end ......"
So when, exactly, will Peter Power be appearing before the 7th July
Review Committee to answer a few pertinent questions regarding this
most remarkable co-incidence?
Rachel, this question is rhetorical ........... so please don't
feel that you have to get on your high horse and offer a response! I
only offer this observation so that you won't feel quite so upset that
you have not yet been invited to give your input to this Committee
......... After all, if they haven't asked the UK specialist on Crisis
Management to present his experience of the days events ...... what can
a mere eye-witness have to offer?
Just in case you are not aware, the co-incidence of Peter Power running an 'exercise' on the morning of July 7 ("....at exactly the same three stations where the bombs went off ......"),
is even more remarkable because the Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) arrived in New York on the evening of September 10, 2001 to
conduct a bio-warfare exercise the following day. Doesn't it strike you
as remarkable that specialist 'Mop-up' teams were scheduled to be
conducting exercises in New York and London on 9/11 and 7/7
respectively? The term 'Damage Limitation' comes to mind!
There is indeed a possibility that these could indeed be remarkable
co-incidences ........ but call me a 'conspiraloon' if you wish but
don't you think that such serendipity raises some interesting, valid
and pertinent questions?
Meanwhile, I trust that you had an interesting evening at the theatre and did not find the re-enactment too stressful.
Al K Myst |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rachel
Joined: 02 Jan 2006
Posts: 50
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 15, 2006 11:45 pm Post subject: more insults and patronising aggression... |
|
|
| alwun wrote: | Whatever
can be said about 'rachel', at least the bluster and constant referrals
to her suffering ad naseum points up the absolute lack of evidence to
support the official conspiracy theory or 'narrative' as it has now
become.
. |
| chavez wrote: | | 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. |
| alkmyst wrote: | I
am baffled as to why 'Rachel' feels that she (they?) have to offer
answers to each and every question that gets raised. ..why does she
feel the need to behave as though every question is an affront to her
personal integrity?
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.
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 |
| alkmyst wrote: | . It is evident from her rants that she is either unwilling or incapable of participating in a forum such as this.
Of course, it is highly likely that 'Rachel' is still encountering
some serious PTSD and has taken the opportunity to vent her
frustrations via this forum. In which case, perhaps her postings here
have been therapeutic.
If this is not the case, I can only ecourage Rachel to continue with
the counselling that was made available to all the victims of the July
events. We can only hope that she may be ready, willing and able to
participate in rational debate at some future juncture.
Alternatively, I may be being overly generous in my assessment of
Rachel's behaviour and there may be an entirely different explanation
for what has been witnessed here over the past couple of days!
I
Al K Myst |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rachel
Joined: 02 Jan 2006
Posts: 50
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 15, 2006 11:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Pompous?
Look at your posts!.... how funny! You have no idea, do you?
Aggressive - look at how aggressively I have been spoken to! Just look - I have just pasted in some of the choicest insults,..
Dogma?
I was there sunshine. Nothing I have seen or read or heard has
made me think it was not a suicide bomb - and I have read, seen and
spoken to a lot more people than you.
and as to the Power/Visor thing - see channel 4 news, and try and
keep up...that was debunked ages ago ... as you well know, if you have
been reading my blog. Which you clearly have...
I'll be giving evidence at the London Assembly, with my fellow
survivors. And the play was shit - and Time Out agreed. As did 3 fellow
passengers who I went with...
Anyone want to play nice?
If I come over as fed up with you people, well, I wonder why that
could be? Because you are patronising and rude? Because I don't think
you want to find the truth at all?
Because you ignore facts to run with fantastical agendas?
*yawn* |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 16, 2006 12:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
The Antagonist has a very nice interpretation of the first three pages of yesterday's Independent.
| Quote: | Now this is subtle but very clever indeed.
Today's Independent ran the following front and three page article
about the politics of fear and the lying liars and their incessant
lies. Three whole pages about fake terror and the politics of fear,
just one mention of the events on July 7th and yet the largest photo in
the article - the one taking up half of page three - is a large,
full-colour photograph of the back of the number 30 bus that exploded
on July 7th in Tavistock Square.
Subtle, but very clever.
|
| Quote: | The politics of fear (or how Tony Blair misled us over the war on terror)
By Peter Oborne
Published: 15 February 2006
HOW TONY BLAIR MISLED THE NATION
On 28 February 2005, with the Prevention of Terrorism Bill being
discussed in Parliament, Tony Blair made the following comment to
listeners to Women's Hour: "What they [the security services] say is
that you have got to give us powers in between mere surveillance of
these people - there are several hundred of them in this country who we
believe are engaged in plotting or trying to commit terrorist acts -
you have got to give us power in between just surveying them and being
sure enough to prosecute them beyond reasonable doubt. There are people
out there who are determined to destroy our way of life and there is no
point in us being naïve about it. "
Anyone listening to the Prime Minister's remarks must have felt
that, within days of the Prevention of Terrorism Act being passed, the
"several hundred" individuals plotting to wreak devastation through
Britain would have been under lock and key. And yet that is not the
case at all. Nearly a year has gone by and yet no more than 17
individuals have been made subject to control orders. The Prime
Minister's suggestion that the security services were demanding new
powers in order to deal with a new category of terrorist suspect turns
out to have been nonsense. His figure of " several hundred" terrorists
plotting mayhem seems to have been plucked out of thin air.
THE POLITICISATION OF TERROR
In the immediate aftermath of the 7 July outrages the Home
Secretary, Charles Clarke, was swift to make contact with his opposite
numbers the shadow Home Secretary, David Davis, and the Liberal
Democrat home affairs spokesman, Mark Oaten. Parallel lines of
communication were developed between their staff members and cemented
by a regular exchange of letters and e-mails. There seemed to be a real
chance that some good could come out of the calamity of the London
bombings: politicians of all parties coming together to fight a
ruthless common enemy.
By the start of August, there was a general agreement that
everything was on course for announcements at the party conference
season and the passing of an anti-terrorism Act, with cross-party
support, by Christmas. Clarke, Davis and Oaten each set off on holiday.
They had taken the precaution of sharing contact numbers in case of an
emergency.
On the afternoon of 4 August, both Oaten and Davis were surprised
to receive a call from the Home Office minister Hazel Blears. Oaten was
in St Tropez when he took his, while Davis was in the north of England.
According to both, Blears gave the impression that the call was little
more a formality. She told them that there would be an announcement on
terrorism by the Prime Minister the following day, but it would not go
further than had already been agreed between the three parties.
The following day, in his monthly Downing Street press conference,
the Prime Minister went far beyond anything agreed, or even discussed
with, the opposition parties. He dramatically announced a "12-point
plan" which put forward new measures which he surely knew that the
opposition parties could not support. This 12-point plan at once
shattered the harmonious working relationship between the three main
parties.
Charles Clarke, it must be said, rebuts any suggestion that he was
put under pressure from Downing Street or kept out of loop, saying: "I
was on holiday in America at that time, and I was on the phone to the
Prime Minister a great deal during that time, right up to the
statements that he actually made. I was fully involved, fully supported
it and thought it was the right thing to do." Be that as it may, there
are grounds for speculation that 10 Downing Street had seized control
of the terrorism agenda from the Home Office.
The context is important: the Prime Minister had been confronted by
a concerted campaign in the tabloid press for new anti-terror laws. He
may well have concluded that the thoughtful, consensual strategy worked
out with the two main opposition parties came at too great a political
cost. He may have decided that it was more profitable to give an
impression of acting tough. That was the impression gained by many MPs,
including his own supporters. John Denham, a former Home Office
minister and chairman of the Home Affairs Committee, described the
proposals as "half-baked". He told me later: "There must be concern
that the Government agenda is sometimes driven by public and media
pressure in this area, rather than a concern for what is most
effective."
Tony Blair's terror initiative showed numerous signs of having been
cobbled together in a hurry. Some of the measures proved ill
thought-out and unworkable. However, it may have achieved the result
that the Prime Minister, who left the following day for the West Indies
to stay at Cliff Richard's holiday home, wanted. For days before the
plan was announced, he had been under heavy pressure from a tabloid
campaign, led by The Sun, claiming that holidaying politicians were not
taking the terror threat seriously enough.
On 3 August, The Sun raged against holidaying MPs: "LET'S HOPE THE
BOMBERS ARE ON HOLIDAY TOO". On 5 August an open letter from Trevor
Kavanagh, political editor of The Sun, was headlined: "DEAR MPs, SIX
WEEKS HOLIDAY IS ENOUGH FOR ANYONE". Then on 6 August, as Tony Blair
flew to the West Indies with his family, The Sun headline was much more
reassuring: "VICTORY FOR SUN OVER NEW TERROR LAWS."
RICIN
In early 2003 just as the Government was seeking to persuade the
British people to wage war against Saddam Hussein in order to prevent
him distributing weapons of mass destruction to terrorists, the police
made a significant announcement. They had, they said, foiled a
terrorist ring in its attempt to launch a chemical attack in Britain
using the deadly poison ricin.
According to a press release from Scotland Yard issued in the names
of the deputy chief medical officer, Dr Pat Troop, and Assistant
Commissioner David Veness of the Metropolitan Police, ricin had been
found in a flat in Wood Green, north London. The Government latched on
to the news. On 7 January, the Home Secretary, David Blunkett, and the
Health Secretary, John Reid, issued a joint statement stating that
"traces of ricin" had been found. The Prime Minister joined in by
warning that the discovery highlighted the dangers from weapons of mass
destruction, adding: "The arrests which were made show this danger is
present and real and with us now. Its potential is huge."
It is unusual, and potentially prejudicial, for ministers to
comment on upcoming court cases. Nevertheless, as the ricin case moved
towards trial, ministers continued to regard the ricin trial as an
important publicity resource. In due course, the trial judge was
provoked into warning the Home Secretary to curb his public remarks for
fear of prejudicing the case.
No ricin was ever found in the Wood Green flat - just a small
number of ingredients for the manufacture of ricin. The announcement
from David Veness and Pat Troop that "a small amount of the material
recovered from the Wood Green premises has tested positive for the
presence of ricin poison" was misleading: the tests were only capable
of indicating that ricin might be present. But they did not establish
its presence.
On 7 January, chemical weapons experts at the government research
facility at Porton Down carried out more accurate tests into the
presence of ricin. These tests established that there was no ricin.
Curiously, Porton Down apparently did not pass on this information to
the British Government until late March. And apparently the Government
never asked for the results of this definitive test. The existence of
ricin continued to be proclaimed for over two years.
OLD TRAFFORD
In April 2004, the British people were alerted to an amazing coup.
They learned how the police had seized a terrorist gang just as it
prepared to launch an audacious bomb attack on Old Trafford stadium on
match day, an attack which could have killed thousands of people. It
was a national sensation. And yet there was not a shred of truth in the
story. Unlike in the ricin case, the Government cannot be blamed. The
police and, to an extent the media, are responsible for the invention.
On the morning of Monday 19 April 2004, more than 400 officers from
four police forces, many of them armed, raided half a dozen houses,
flats and businesses in and around Manchester. They arrested eight men,
one woman and a 16-year-old boy. They were held for several days and
intensively interrogated. In due course the suspects were released. No
charges were ever laid.
The newspapers, by contrast, had no doubt about what the story was.
The front page of The Sun proclaimed: "MAN U SUICIDE BOMB PLOT". On
pages four and five the paper claimed: "EXCLUSIVE: MAN UTD SUICIDE
BLASTS FOILED".
Once the story had started to run, it was further fuelled by the
Manchester police. Rather than issue a cool denial, they played it up
by holding a press conference. The accompanying press release read: "We
are confident that the steps that we have taken to date have
significantly reduced any potential threat in the Greater Manchester
area." With the weekend fixtures looming, it went on: "Greater
Manchester Police and Manchester United Football Club have put in place
extra security measures to reassure the public about the safety of both
matches."
The police and security services have, very properly, refused to
discuss what intelligence led to the raids of 19 April being made. But
the police interrogations of the suspects shed a ray of light. One of
the suspects, a Kurd, suffered so badly from having his name linked to
a terrorist plot that he wants to remain anonymous.
He told me how Old Trafford had cropped up in his interrogation: "I
was in the police station and the interview stopped, like a rest, and
somebody, they bring in the coffee and they ask me what you like? I say
I like the football. Oh, who do you support? They ask me just like a
friendly, who do you support? I say Manchester United. Oh, how long you
support Manchester United? I said a long time I support Manchester
United, when I was tiny, I was small, you know and all my family
supported Manchester United ... they asked me, have you been football
ground? I said, of course I've been to the football ground. Two years
ago, long time ago, I can't remember."
These questions were surely prompted by the discovery, at the
anonymous suspect's flat, of Manchester United paraphernalia: a poster
of Old Trafford, and ticket stubs the suspect had kept as souvenirs of
his only visit to the ground, when he had gone with a friend to watch
United play Arsenal the year before.
The two friends had bought their tickets from touts, which meant
that they sat at different parts of the ground. The Sun reported that
the bombers planned to sit at different parts of the ground, in order
to cause maximum damage with their bombs. This claim can only have been
based on the fact that the old ticket stubs found by the police were
for seats in different parts of the stadium. This information had not
been made public, so The Sun could only have obtained it from the
police.
The Kurds I spoke to had come to Britain in order to escape the
brutality of Saddam Hussein's regime. Perhaps their most meaningful
emotional connection with Britain was a love for Manchester United,
which was why they kept the souvenirs in their flat. The Manchester
police discovered nothing else suspicious. Nevertheless the police
probably viewed the Manchester United souvenirs as potential evidence
of a bomb plot. This evidence was then prematurely leaked, through
unofficial police sources, to the press.
Manchester police then encouraged the story to run by issuing
public statements that, while falling a long way short of giving
outright confirmation, could be read as corroborating the story.
Disgracefully, the Greater Manchester Police refused to launch an
investigation into the numerous leaks.
The reporting of this incident was inflammatory and misleading. It
caused needless alarm among millions of TV viewers and newspaper
readers. It stirred up anti-Islamic prejudice. It ruined the lives of
several of the suspects. They lost their homes, their jobs and their
friends as a result. They have never received a personal apology,
either from the police or from the press.
MUSLIM WORKING GROUPS
In the wake of the London bombings, the Prime Minister made a
series of announcements aimed at averting another catastrophe. One of
the most visible was the setting up of seven task forces to investigate
Muslim extremism and to recommend initiatives for tackling it. This was
a considerable enterprise by any standards, requiring deep learning and
insight, and generous resources.
But Tony Blair's task forces into the roots of Muslim extremism
were given six weeks to do their business. They seem to have met just
three times before reaching their conclusions. One of the Muslim
leaders involved, the Liberal Democrat peer Kishwer Falkner, told us:
"When we agreed to be on the working groups and we were told what the
deadlines were, we were taken aback. We spoke to one another and
queried whether we were just being set up as a tokenistic exercise,
because it didn't seem to me, in the middle of August, when half the
country is on holiday, that two or three meetings of a couple of hours
each would set right a host of intractable and difficult long-term
problems to do with how we co-exist, how we integrate with each other.
Falkner feels that the recommendation of her working parties were
second-guessed by the Prime Minister's 12-point plan, announced just
two weeks after the working parties were set up. She says she was: "...
completely dismayed, within days of being set up, to discover in the
speech the Prime Minister made on 5 August, that he was proceeding full
steam ahead with a raft of measures without waiting for us to come up
with our recommendations, or indeed our analysis of the problems. And
the raft of measures was completely counter to reducing alienation and
extremism. In fact, if anything, it was going to increase alienation in
terms of the Muslim community.
Her criticism was echoed by Haras Rafiq, co-founder of Bridges TV
(UK), a Muslim television organisation which will start broadcasting
later this year. He told us: "The brief was to find ways or find a
solution to the problem of extremism and radicalisation within the
Muslim community. Now let's just reflect on that. Find a solution for
extremism and radicalisation in the Muslim community in the UK, that's
a huge piece of work. It isn't something that can be tackled, you know,
in the space of a month, two months. The whole process smacked to me a
little bit of presentationalism and to be seen to be doing something
rather than actually producing an effective and constructive piece of
work."
It is hard to regard these task forces as a great deal more than
some shallow spin from the Government. In the three years before the
London bombings, the Government had commissioned two major enquiries
into the problems of Muslim segregation and extremism - Ted Cantle's
report in the wake of the Bradford riots and a government report of
2004, Young Muslims and Extremism - and largely dismissed both. The
idea that Tony Blair's h urriedly formed and short-lived Muslim working
groups could provide a better analysis than either of these two earlier
studies was absurd.
CONCLUSION
The Government has persistently failed to tell the truth either to
itself or to the British public about the terror threat in Britain.
These failures of diagnosis have led to failures of response. An
example is the Prime Minister's denial that there is a connection
between the Iraq war and domestic terrorism. That denial is not merely
false. It also inhibits the kind of deep understanding of the motives
of Muslim terrorists which the Prime Minister presumably wants.
The defeat in the House of Commons of the Government's proposals
for 90 days detention without trial for terrorist suspects was
represented at the time as an indication of Tony Blair's political
weakness. This analysis missed the point. That Commons defeat signalled
a national crisis in public trust in politicians, the police and the
security services. Consider this: the Prime Minister of the day, fully
backed by the police, had thrown his weight behind a measure he
described as crucial for national security and the fight against
terrorism. And yet it was comfortably rejected by MPs.
This collapse in trust has come about because few people now
believe what the Prime Minister, the security services and the police
tell us about security matters. This dissonance is a massive problem.
Britain today faces a threat from international and domestic terrorism
which is far more dangerous and insidious than anything it has
confronted before. We need to trust our politicians, our police, and
the media. But that trust has been betrayed.
This is an edited extract taken from The Use and Abuse of Terror -
The Construction of a False Narrative on the Domestic Terror Threat,
published today by the Centre for Policy Studies.
|
Peter Oborne is presenting a Channel 4 documentary 'Dispatches: Spinning Terror' on Monday at 8pm, 20 Feb.
Last edited by Guest on Thu Feb 16, 2006 1:35 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rachel
Joined: 02 Jan 2006
Posts: 50
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 16, 2006 12:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
| what is your point? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rachel
Joined: 02 Jan 2006
Posts: 50
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 16, 2006 12:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Oh yeah, you are the person who thinks there were 2 bombed trains at Kings Cross Russell Square... this should be fun |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 16, 2006 12:33 am Post subject: @rachel |
|
|
| This
is The Independent saying what cannot be said. It is a standard
newspaper technique. Juxtaposition. They are implying that the bus
explosion was as fake as the ricin plot. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 16, 2006 12:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Rachel wrote: | | Oh yeah, you are the person who thinks there were 2 bombed trains at Kings Cross Russell Square... this should be fun |
Rachel, you say 311 was bombed. TfL say 331 was bombed. Who am I to disagree? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
alkmyst
Joined: 19 Jan 2006
Posts: 10
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 16, 2006 1:14 am Post subject: Dogma? |
|
|
| Quote: | Dogma?
I was there sunshine. Nothing I have seen or read or heard has made me
think it was not a suicide bomb - and I have read, seen and spoken to a
lot more people than you.
and as to the Power/Visor thing - see channel 4 news, and try and
keep up...that was debunked ages ago ... as you well know, if you have
been reading my blog. Which you clearly have... |
Rachel, just as you have seen, read or heard nothing that makes you
think that it wasn't a suicide bomb, I have seen, read or heard nothing
that convinces me that Peter Power and Visor Consultants were innocent
bystanders! I am not for one moment suggesting that Peter Power was a
witting or willing accessory but he did state that Visor Consultants
had been engaged by a third party, saying, ("......I won't mention their name ... but they'll know if they're listening...").
The attempt at 'debunking' was singularly unconvincing ........ but if
Peter Power and the other senior players from Visor Consultants have
nothing to hide, they shouldn't have any problem answering a few
questions ...........preferably under oath!
How about the following questions:
1). What was the name of the Company /
organization that contracted Visor Consultants to conduct the ‘Terror
Exercises’ on Thursday July 7th 2005?
2). What are the names of the individuals who established the
contract with Visor Consultants and what is their relationship with the
British (or any other national) Government?
3). What was the full nature of the briefing given to Visor Consultants; and when was it given to them?
4). What is the relationship of Peter Power, or any other member of
Visor Consultants, with the British (or any other national) Security
Services?
5). With whom was the planning of the July 7th ‘Terror Exercise’ shared?
...... & that's just for starters!
Surely you're not suggesting that just because Channel 4 made a
feeble attempt to take Peter Power out of the loop, we should accept
everything that is reported on the 'Tell-A-Vision' at face value?
You'll be telling me next that Becky Wade and Trevor Kavanagh represent
the epitome of the British Media!
Oh, and by the way, I have read, seen and spoken with way more
people, than you perhaps imagine ........ but this is a mere detail.
What is fundamental to our interest and our continued focus on this
subject is the truth!
As you posted earlier:
| Quote: | | There
will always be those who tell us not to ask questions, of ourselves or
each other. Who say they, and only they, speak the truth, the only
truth. |
The irony is that we are asking the questions ......... and you call us 'conspiraloons'!
What is wrong with this picture?
Al K Myst
(The questions quoted above were taken from the DVD 'The 9/11 - 7/7 Connection' available via the following link:
www.spiritualalchemy.com/product_info.php?products_id=6795 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Prole
Joined: 03 Jan 2006
Posts: 23
Location: London UK
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 16, 2006 10:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
Alkymst said to Rachel | Quote: | | Surely
you're not suggesting that just because Channel 4 made a feeble attempt
to take Peter Power out of the loop, we should accept everything that
is reported on the 'Tell-A-Vision' at face value? |
Rachel knows how the media gets it 'wrong' as she contacted the
'authorities' after it was stated that the bomb was by the first set of
doors on the first carriage of the Piccadilly Line train.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/uk/05/london_blasts/html/russell_sq.stm
The following exchange took place on the urban 75 forum where Rachel posts as Badger Kitten:
http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/archive/index.php/t-121209-p-8.html
| Quote: | Badger Kitten
08-07-2005, 04:38 PM
I am hearing on the news that the bombs were on carriage one by the first set of doors.
This is not true. That is where I was. The explosion was behind me. These reports are wrong. |
| Quote: | Badger Kitten
08-07-2005, 04:42 PM
| Quote: | | You should report this information badger. |
I have. I just spent half an hour talking to the Crimial
Investigation line. I've tried the BBC newsdesk, the Surivir/Missing
Person line and eventually I got through to the right people.
I am worried that people are trying to dig out bodies and they are
approaching the wrong end of the train, they should approach it via
Russell Square, not via Kings X. We escaped at the front, the bomb was
behind us. That is the way they need to go in to get the bodies out
|
| Quote: | Badger Kitten
08-07-2005, 04:53 PM
| Quote: | | When
you say behind you, was it in the carriage behind you or could it have
been a couple behind? If it was the carriage directly behind you then
my theory is pants. |
The explosion was so loud I can't tell if it was several carriages behind or the next one behind.
It felt like being punched in the ears. All I know is I walked forward,
escaped out the drivers hatch, it was unbelievably crowded, we escaped
from the front and there was no bomb to my immediate left or right or
in front of me. And I was in the middle by the door, and I fell to the
left, by the doors. Then I got up and left by going straight head and
out front. And the tunnel was intact. |
| Quote: | Badger Kitten
10-07-2005, 03:50 AM
After detailed anti-terrorism staff interview I found out some stuff I needed to share.
The King X bomb was placed at the END of the first carriage, not the
first set of doors on the front carriage as reprted on the news.
The tube tunnel was very narrow here, and the train was very
crowded, which was why most of the people were killed and hurt at the
back of carriage 1/ beginning of carriage 2.
I heard this from the counter-terrorism police who took my statement today: the BBC and ITN were wrong in their first reports.
From being there about 7-10 yards from blast, I can say that there were about 30- 50 behind me therefore who may not have got out alive. About 10 behind me walked to safety. |
Perhaps Rachel is drawn back to these discussions because neither the official story nor hers adds up.
_________________
In times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act. George Orwell |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chavez
Joined: 06 Jan 2006
Posts: 15
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 16, 2006 1:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| rachel wrote: | | Personal insults? |
I've never come across such manipulative hypocrite. Why did you
delete all those abusive posts you aimed at all the people on here who
question your suspect motives for writing so much crap about 7/7?
It's all me me me me and the odd insult thrown in.
Most people here can see your real intentions.
Last edited by chavez on Fri Feb 17, 2006 9:01 am; edited 5 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rachel
Joined: 02 Jan 2006
Posts: 50
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 16, 2006 5:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Alex
Deal with the vicious bullying trolls on your forum and I will re-engage.
I am not coming here to be bullied and insulted and patronised.
To all of you who think it is amusing to attack and insult a
survivor - please take a look at yourselves - are you proud of
yourselves? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rachel
Joined: 02 Jan 2006
Posts: 50
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 17, 2006 10:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
Chavez
- you have deleted the personal insult and instead adopted a hurt tone.
Perhaps Alex has asked you to stop being such a troll. Nonetheless you
see all the previous insults you have thrown at me - and at no point
have you actually engaged with the discussion. So far, so troll-y.
However maybe you want to change? Maybe you want to discuss instead of
abuse?
I will give you a chance and see if you can contain yourself and answer politely.
The posts I deleted were robust, but not abusive: certainly not
compared to yours, and commanderson and alwun's posts which I have put
up so people can see the abuse (and so that you can't go back and edit
your insults later before implying that I am trolling, not you.)
I write about 7th July because I was there and continue to be
deeply involved in it. That should be mainifestly clear and should not
be in dispute. If you can't accept that you are dealing with a real
person then there is no point talking to you or in me being here.
It is all 'me' because I speak from personal experience. My
experience, so that is why I use the first person. I've also pointed
out that it is different when you write about things that you witnessed
as opposed to speculate about things that you did not witness.
Of course, I wriote about what I know from experience and from talking
to other people who were also witnesses - it is not crap, it is true,
and I think this is what worries you - you have no comeback when faced
with a survivor & witness who challenges your versions and your
motives - apart from to disbelieve or mock everything she says, and to
call her a liar.
What does that tell you? If you were really interested in the truth, you'd be talking to me. Instead, all you do is hurl abuse.
Anyone reading this thread can see some very unedifying things -
bullying of an eye witness and random insults, hysterical conspiracies
that I am a disinfo M15 agent - how silly! culminating in me, the eye
witness deleting her posts in frustration.
But, actually, explaining what happened and bearing witness is
important to me, so I am re-engaging and trying once more. It's
probably a waste of my time, but I will try. People read these
conspiracies, so I'd like the truth to be on there amongst the
misconceptions. I'd like the survivor point of view to be up there with
the speculators. And of course it personally affects me, if you were on
the train and you were frends with other survivors it would royally
piss you off to have a lot of nonsense disseminated by people who get
information off the internet and then make up theories. And then to be
nastily abused for trying to clarify and to engage with said people
Amongst the insults on this thread are some apparently sincere
people who say they want the truth, I will engage with them as I have
been invited to do so. We are likely to disagree, the conversation may
become passionate but as long as the contributors are sincere then I
don't mind and I will try to answer questions. I am asking everyone to
play nice, and quit the puerile insults, and in return I will try not
to get so angry with the more obtuse. Deal? Or can't you deal with it?
Last chance. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
Watch this topic for replies
|
You can post new topics in this forum
You can reply to topics in this forum
You can edit your posts in this forum
You can delete your posts in this forum
You can vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB 2.0.11 © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Profile
You have no new messages![Log out [ spotter ]](images/icon_mini_login.gif){kind=icon}
Log out [ ]
