Cox Forum Forum Index Cox Forum
Cox Forum
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups 
 ProfileProfile   You have no new messagesYou have no new messages   Log out [ spotter ]Log out [ ] 

Alex's Xmas Blog: 2005.12.23 - 7/7
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Cox Forum Forum Index -> Cox Blog Discussions
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Guest






PostPosted: Wed Feb 15, 2006 10:53 pm    Post subject: The Angel Of King's Cross Reply with quote

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

PostPosted: Wed Feb 15, 2006 11:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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. Twisted Evil


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
View user's profile Send private message  
alkmyst



Joined: 19 Jan 2006
Posts: 10
Location: UK

PostPosted: Wed Feb 15, 2006 11:43 pm    Post subject: Welcome back! Reply with quote

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
View user's profile Send private message  
Rachel



Joined: 02 Jan 2006
Posts: 50

PostPosted: Wed Feb 15, 2006 11:45 pm    Post subject: more insults and patronising aggression... Reply with quote

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
View user's profile Send private message  
Rachel



Joined: 02 Jan 2006
Posts: 50

PostPosted: Wed Feb 15, 2006 11:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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
View user's profile Send private message  
Guest






PostPosted: Thu Feb 16, 2006 12:16 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

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 nave 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

PostPosted: Thu Feb 16, 2006 12:24 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

what is your point?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message  
Rachel



Joined: 02 Jan 2006
Posts: 50

PostPosted: Thu Feb 16, 2006 12:29 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

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
View user's profile Send private message  
Guest






PostPosted: Thu Feb 16, 2006 12:33 am    Post subject: @rachel Reply with quote

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






PostPosted: Thu Feb 16, 2006 12:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

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

PostPosted: Thu Feb 16, 2006 1:14 am    Post subject: Dogma? Reply with quote

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
View user's profile Send private message  
Prole



Joined: 03 Jan 2006
Posts: 23
Location: London UK

PostPosted: Thu Feb 16, 2006 10:32 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

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
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website  
chavez



Joined: 06 Jan 2006
Posts: 15

PostPosted: Thu Feb 16, 2006 1:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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
View user's profile Send private message  
Rachel



Joined: 02 Jan 2006
Posts: 50

PostPosted: Thu Feb 16, 2006 5:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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
View user's profile Send private message  
Rachel



Joined: 02 Jan 2006
Posts: 50

PostPosted: Fri Feb 17, 2006 10:06 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

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
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, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next
Page 6 of 9
Watch this topic for replies
 
Jump to:  
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