Cox Forum

Joined: 02 Jan 2006 Posts: 49

@ Prole - as you seem to be engaging in cut and paste post replication of your posts on other fora, so I'll pop my reply over here as well, shall I?

If you would look at my blog, you will find several links to other survivors voices, you can read their blogs - and I know you do so. I pass on the numerous requests from the media to other survivors and their voices have been published and will be published in the months coming up to 7/7/06. I was asked to take the media facing role by the group to handle the storm of media enquiries and have done so at some cost to myself. I turn down far more media enquiries than I do - I have had hundreds of requests and have done less than a dozen, with the full support and agreement of the group, on their behalf.

As you bloody well know, because you read my blog, though traffic from you I can do without, frankly.

For the last time, I strongly object to your repeated untruthful and poisonous smears.

I have explained, repeatedly, my role since I was caught up on this, and it is there for all the world to read on my blog and on every published piece I write.

You only see what you want to see, don't you? In your case, it is your professed orthodoxy that I am the sole voice of the survivors. But this is a load of nonsense! So let me put you straight, Bridget...

You can stop this 'sole voice of the survivors' crap right now please>

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4346812.stm

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2099-1891957,00.html

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2092-1937542,00.html

See also forthcoming article in B magazine, play ' yestrday was a wierd day' , Radio 4 Frank Gardner interview - all from requests to me passed onto the group, all featuring survivor voices.

See also 9 fellow survivors blogs linked on my website. See articles by Peter Zimonovich, survivor of the Aldgate bomb. See John Tulloch, who is writing a book.

May I recommend you reaqaint yourself with google?

Most survivors are unwilling to put themselves through what I put myself through, namely endless demands by the media, and bullying and lies from the likes of you. And anyone reading this thread and the personal attacks on me can quite see why.

You seem angry and jealous because I have a voice, people ask me to speak and write, and meanwhile your 'research ' recieves almost no attention because nobody is interested in your paranoid imaginings, apart from your fellow conspiracy theorists, sorry, 'British nine eleven truth movement'. Of whom there seem to be barely enough to fill a third of a room at a pub.

Well. Too bad for you that more people want to read what I say, than what you say. Why don't you just deal with it, instead of carrying out these personal and public attacks, insinuations and smears? And why, when I gave you my number in a PM and invited you to address your concerns to me personally did you not even pick up the phone?

What does that tell you?

Scared to find out that you have been busy slagging off a real woman, a real survivor all along, and of finding out just how contemptible your behaviour is?

Would you do this to someone who ran out of the Twin Towers as they fell? To the widow of a fire fighter killed on 9/11?

So why do you feel that it is acceptable to attack and insult me?

No need to answer that dear, it is all too clear what sort of person you are.

Joined: 21 Feb 2006 Posts: 4

The families of those who died on United Airlines Flight 93 demanded, and were eventually allowed by the FBI, to hear the cockpit voice recordings of the final moments before the crash (OK, OK, let's not get into whether there actually was a crash).

Why don't KCU and other survivor and family groups demand to see the Luton Station CCTV footage?

Samantha Lewthwaite has seen it apparently:

Joined: 02 Jan 2006 Posts: 49

Yes and even if I did see it, you'd all just call me a lying COINTELPRO shill, wouldn't you?

Nothing I do, nothing I say is good enough for you to drop your fantasies and lies. I know Lindsey killed himself by detonating a bomb on my train. I have just had dinner with someone who lay next to his torso. Drop it, it is sick. Please.

Joined: 07 Jan 2006 Posts: 13

Joined: 07 Jan 2006 Posts: 13

Rachel, in response specifically to your request that we 'drop it', that is just impossible now when I have seen so many suspicious aspects to what happened that day. If that is your ultimate goal, then I would implore you to conserve your energy for other matters, because you're just going to keep getting upset and angry. In fact, whenever I see your posts on boards like this one, and see how upset and angry you are, and other survivors also, it only makes me more determined to get to the truth for the sake of everyone affected by this.

Every time I think of that pathetic, crappy CCTV image of four men outside Luton station, where you can't even make out a single feature on any of their faces apart from a digitalised nose on Hasib Hussain and a strange pointy beard that is non-existant in the other image of him - and the fact that we're expected to accept that as proof that they were in London - I don't know whether to laugh with the irony of it or yell with frustration. There can surely be no other crime where this would be acceptable as evidence of culpability - an image from a camera that has been proven by the quality of the images it took on June 28th of those men that it can capture a very sharp image indeed, yet on this day it doesn't, and proving what? That there were possibly at a location 30 miles away. If I'm expected to believe they were in London then I expect to see footage of them in London. One feeble image of Hasib Hussain exiting a Boots store - again - does not automatically prove they were all there. For the purposes of the police attempting to 'jog potential witness' memories' surely anybody can see that it is hardly worth even bothering. For any other crime they would release every bit of CCTV they had in order to jog people's memories as much as possible.

Please don't respond to this by assuming that since I appear to find fault with the official version in general of who exactly perpetrated the atrocity then there is nothing you can do or say that is good enough for me to stop asking the questions. Incidentally, in the Milan Rai book '7/7 The London Bombings', on page 39 in the chapter on Lindsay, it is stated that his widow Samantha Lewthwaite was actually shown the footage of the men on the platform at Kings Cross Station, not simply the elusive Luton footage. So ,like numeral asks, why has it not been shown to everyone? It's a fair enough question.

Joined: 03 Jan 2006 Posts: 80 Location: London UK

Rachel posts her reply to me from another forum

http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=811&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=225

but fails to mention the following threat:

Joined: 07 Jan 2006 Posts: 13

"If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all."
-Noam Chomsky

Joined: 02 Jan 2006 Posts: 49

Hello Bridget. Mmmm. I note in your pious points about ''free speech '' and ''questions'' you also do not address the fact that I have been now seemingly barred from contributing to and defending myself in a thread about who I am and what I believe, a 16-page thread on a public board calleed 'Rachel from North London on Alex Cox's forum' filled with poisonous and untruthful smears, and personal attacks - such as the lies in your own posts which I have pointed out to you ( some of which I replicate below)

Here's the thread madam, so you can refresh your memory.

http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=811

Perhaps you might like to point this out to your freedom of speech pals on that board? That I should appreciate a right of reply in my own defence and that banning me from the site is not doing you any favours in your positioning of your selves as free debaters who only want to explore the ''truth''?

I repeatedly and politely asked that lies and unsubstantiated smears should not be made against me on that board. Only after 16 pages did I finally make the point that I was now considering legal action. Having a point of view is one thing: pages and pages of being called a liar, another. I was sorry to have it get that far, but perhaps that is the only language bullies understand, certainly repeated polite requests got me nowhere, as did clearly refuting your baseless claims. With the kind addition of credible sources, something you notably lack.

And while we are at it... I wonder whether you are ready to have the good grace to apologise now for repeated smears on the nineeleven thread entirely devoted to discussing and insulting me, the one I am no longer allowed to defend myself on? You know, you oft-repeated yet baseless claim that I am the 'sole voice of the survivors' for example?

As you clearly read my blog, ( and regularly leave comments on it) you might want to pop over to the left links and view the eight other survivor blogs clearly visible? And perhaps you'd like to turn on the TV or open the newspaper and see lots of survivors making their points about 7th July yesterday? I should like you to consider whether your pious little point about free speech can be communicated back to the administrators of your beloved 'nineeleven truth' forum, where I note that I have been banned from contributing to and defending myself in a poisonous thread entirely about me and who I am and what I believe. You know, the one where I am called a 'liar' and a 'shill' and an 'M15 disinformation agent'? Yes, you do know, Bridget 'concerned' Prole because you are a regular contributor to said thread making points like this:

'Whether Rachel wittingly or un-wittingly co-operates in what is a racist media is her choice.'

'So KCU could be construed as a way of making sure everyone has got their story straight?'

'I must say that I get very fed up with the arrogance of the white middle-class voices that purport to understand what drives young British-born Muslim men into becoming alleged suicide bombers.'

'The very busy Rachel North, or should that be the only voice of the survivors of July 7th?, seems to have had quite a week'

'...Rachel will really have served her purpose for the State. There are advantages to having 'only one voice' of the survivors of July 7th, it can then be the 'voice' that says the things the State wants us all to hear'

Indeed, Bridget, heaven forbid that a survivor should have a contribution to a thread about 7/7, and her position in it, and her thoughts on it, and heaven forbid that she should speak out against your brainwashed orthodoxy that It Is All A Giant Conspiracy and The Government Did It. What a little charmer you are.And good luck to you.

I see you have stopped blogging. I wonder why? * yawn*

*tumbleweed*

How maddening it must be when nobody shares your hobby.

Edited to add: pop down to the bottom of this post, there's a love, and find the voices of other survivors, do. Speaking out yesterday. For 5 hours. On the record. On a transcript. On a webcast. As you know, because YOU FLIPPING WELL POSTED THE WEBCAST LINK.

http://rachelnorthlondon.blogspot.com/2006/03/ready-to-speak-out.html

You know - the ones on BBC, ITN, News at 10, London Tonight, The Guardian, Times, Mail, Standard, Express and Metro. Capisce?

You can PM me the apology if you are too ashamed to do so publicly.

Joined: 02 Jan 2006 Posts: 49

Joined: 07 Jan 2006 Posts: 13

Rachel, I want to put something to you and see if you can or can't see the parallels. I am not a member of the nineeleven forum, so I can't comment on whether or not you've been banned and if so, why. The following is just a view.

The forum of nineeleven.co.uk is not a debating forum, but a forum for those dedicated to researching the available evidence regarding 9/11 to have discussions with each other. I believe a section devoted to 7/7 was set up because the organisers believed there were significant similarities between 9/11 and 7/7 to warrant a discussion on that subject.

A thread was started on that section in order for members of nineeleven.co.uk to discuss this very thread here in Alex Cox's forum. You, understandably, wanted to make a contribution to that thread and were allowed to do so. I have seen the thread, since it is a forum open to public view, and I have seen some of the varied responses you received to what you said. I also saw that, as I have previously pointed out, you responded to the negative posts in a similar fashion. This is not a criticism - perhaps I would have done the same if I were in your position and held the same views as you.

I do believe you must surely have realistically expected some negative response to the contributions you made to that thread simply because of the nature and ethos of the forum, and I would also say because of your impatience with 'conspiracy theorists', whose backs would get put up simply by being referred to thus.

Where I can see a parallel is when I have seen you say that you delete comments made by people such as those who are members of research forums when they have come to your personal blog. I saw an entry on your blog where you were extremely disparaging towards 'vile conspiracy theorists', who duly came along to defend themselves and their views. You then say you deleted those comments - presumably because you did not feel they were making a valid or positive contribution to your blog.

I can't see any difference between the administrators on the nineeleven forum possibly preventing you from making any further contribution to their discussions and you - by equal merit - not wishing to give space on your blog to comments made by those whose opinions offend you and which you vehemently disagree with. Do you genuinely believe there is a difference? It could be said that from both sides there would be a repression of free speech.

In short, I would not expect to be given freedom of speech on a privately hosted forum which was set up by people who do not believe the official explanation for certain world events. Just as I would expect, if I came and made a comment on your blog that you didn't like, that you would probably delete it and would probably request that I made no further comments there.

Joined: 03 Jan 2006 Posts: 80 Location: London UK

Rachel said:

Joined: 02 Jan 2006 Posts: 49

I think posting my point of view as I am rachel From N. London on a thread called 'RACHEL NORTH LONDON ON ALEX COX'#S FORUM' is an entrely reasonable thing to do... since here were a bunch of people discussing me, who I am and what I believe on a public board. Moreover, they were being extremely offensive, or speculating about me , in a highly personal manner, when I had made it abundantly clear through a variety of sources seen by millions of people who I am and why I am doing what I am doing.

I should make it clear - I only delete comments on my board that are racist or hate-filled, or utterly off-topic spam. I do not delete those who disgree with me. But I now moderate comments, since it is distressing to me and my family to have endless repeated malicious spam posted on a personal diary website. I think this is fair.

Free speech does not mean opening yourself up to nasty personal attacks: Inviting guests is not the same as letting every gatecrashing stranger walk in and trash the party. The UK media did not publish baseless and inflamatory anti Muslim cartoons for the same reason.

I have given conspiracy theorists a great deal of time and patience; I discovered that they were actually twisting my words to infer that there were no bombs on July 7th. This led me to their sites, where I was utterly horrified to find ehat they were saying . I tackled the subject and invited comment, none of which was moderated... and here it is.

http://rachelnorthlondon.blogspot.com/2006/01/conspiracy-theorists.html
http://rachelnorthlondon.blogspot.com/2006/01/if-you-are-conspiracy-theorist.html

I gave them fair right of reply on my site: I think it is fair to have them allow me to do so on theirs. And they, remember are the ones coming onto my blog and twisting my words on their sites, moreover they have no personal inviolvement in July 7th. With me it is personal, which makes it all the more abhorrent that people like ally should post stuff like 'The stuff that rachshil posts on her blog makes me want to puke - comes straight from tavistock' and call me 'liar'.

There is a very great deal of difference between deleting comments that say things like this, ( from someone called 'Protocols of Zion')

: ' THE KING OF THE JEWS WILL BE THE REAL POPE OF THE UNIVERSE, THE PATRIARCH OF THE INTERNATIONAL CHURCH

5. But, IN THE MEANTIME, while we are re-educating youth in new traditional religions and afterwards in ours, WE SHALL NOT OVERTLY LAY A FINGER ON EXISTING CHURCHES, BUT WE SHALL FIGHT AGAINST THEM BY CRITICISM CALCULATED TO PRODUCE SCHISM . . .

Very odd, in a post about bronchitis!

Or this by 'Jai': ( in a thread about Charles Clarke!)

'we don't witness radicalized Christians strapping explosives on and blowing up innocents. A starry fundamentalist Christian believes in the Garden of Eden, a fundamentalist Muslim flies airliners into our skyscrapers. Furthermore, you would unlikely see a Christian sawing the head off of a POW, a tactic that the Jihadis all over the Muslim world from Iraq to Indonesia seems to relish. Its unfortunate that you seem to offer excuses for this barbaric behavior...You have refused to explain why Muslims and not Christians have a monopoly on terrorisms today'

I hope you can see why I remove such trollish off topic spamming comments.

Now then. Defending yourself whilst strangers speculate that I am a liar, a fake, a team, a shill, a racist is entirely different. Or do you think I should simply let such people slate me, untruthfully and poisonously in such a way, read it and say nothing?

There is no parallel, none.

Joined: 02 Jan 2006 Posts: 49

Joined: 07 Jan 2006 Posts: 13

Joined: 03 Jan 2006 Posts: 80 Location: London UK

Rachel, let me make it clear that I have never said that you were the only survivor, just that your voice in the one that we hear above all the others in a consistent way in the media. Even to the extent that you spoke about the ambulances not arriving at Russell Square on London Tonight (despite not being badly injured or having had to wait two hours) and at Westminster Abbey.

Now we have the launch of Milan Rai's book '7/7 The London Bombings Islam & The Iraq War'

12 April: PUBLIC MEETING WITH MILAN RAI AND RACHEL NORTH (7/7 SURVIVOR). Part of a national speaking tour to coincide with the publication of Milan Rai's new book.

7-9pm, Friends Meeting House, 173 Euston Road, NW1 2BJ. Organised by JNV, Quaker Peace and Social Witness and Voices UK.

In the same spirit that Milan Rai quotes Chomsky & Herman: