Tuesday, June 27, 2006

The Guardian

Mark Honigsbaum in today's Guardian has shown that journalistic integrity is alive and well.

In his article he mentions many of the anomalies in the official story:
  • the actual train times from Luton that morning (as opposed to the scheduled timetable)
  • the lack of cctv evidence in the public domain
  • the strange bars that go across the image we are told is Khan on the one CCTV image from Luton
  • the amazing indestructible id that led to these 4 being identified so quickly

I was also pleased to see that the Guardian has placed this article in its Attack on London section of the site.
If only other journalists would have the courage to question and investigate these facts and anomalies.

The July 7th Truth Campaign.


65 comments:

Anonymous said...

The article seems to be sceptical of these claims though. Well that's the way I read it.

Bridget Dunne said...

It is a mainstream newspaper but I think Mark has done a great job in highlighting the anomalies.

These are facts rather than views, and therefore cannot be dismissed as some kind of 'conspiracy theory'.

Facts such as the actual train times from Luton do not support the official report. Why not?

Bridget Dunne said...

Thanks fjl but I hardly think I need any sympathy.

I certainly wouldn't describe Honigsbaum as being either spiteful or self-serving. On the contrary, he has put the anomalies out there in the public domain and for that I and other truth campaigners are deeply grateful. As for Rachel North's disingenuous comments about train times, even she knows that we are referring to the actual times the trains left Luton that morning and not the scheduled timetables, after all, we all know that trains don't run on time.

I don't know what tricks you refer to but asking for factual information can hardly be termed as such. We all have a right to know what happened and what the truth is.

Everything can be read and understood on many different levels I believe.

fjl said...

What seems to read is that a journalist promised to engage with your views and give you a link to your site, then treated you as if you were a fool.
Not too nice!

Good luck anyway in spite of our differences.

Stef said...

Sorry Bridget I agree with SJL on this one.

It's a classic hit piece IMHO.

The very fact that the Guardian published it though is a tremendously good sign

What it means is that doubts about the official account of 7/7 are now so widespread that simply ignoring those doubts won't work anyone.

Stef said...

so, congratulations are in order for actually making it into the national press - you are clearly having an impact

Bridget Dunne said...

Having just seen the printed version, the use of the one cctv image that has been the judge and jury on the 4 accused, at Luton, spread across two pages, it is very obvious that the image is suspect.

Why are the bars going through the image that we are told is Khan?

The Antagonist said...

"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win." - Mohandas Gandhi

Stef said...

you've got to love that Gandhi quote

fjl said...

Conclusion; it was a little reprehensible to spin you a line, then paint you as a loon. If I want to say to anyone 'loon'- usually jokingly- I will say it to their face. The Guardian seem to lack this frankness.

However, you need to work on some sensible theories if you want to avoid this hassle. You can't hide behind the right to question, if your hypotheses are foolish.

On the other hand, questioning in itself is safe. The current press hides behind an agenda and refuses to objectively question either the lines or the apparent facts or their resolute campaigning selves. They can talk, in other words.

Basta to it all, I feel.

Daithí said...

Great work, Bridget!

Ná laga Dia do lámh!

"Two Khans, Four Bombs & Many Questions":

http://gaelicstarover.blogspot.com/2006/06/two-khans-four-bombs-many-questions.html

sceptic said...

this is a breakthrough, even if it's flawed. honigsbaum does seem to take the piss, but at the same time he doesn't go out of his way to disprove the problems in the official story that he lists. so not bad really. will make people think.

has anyone read nafeez ahmed's new book, 'london bombings: an independent inquiry'. it's f**king brilliant. covers most of the major holes in the official story quite clinically, links them to british and american blackops in the asia and africa. this is the 77 book that will get us an inquiry, as ahmed is a respected british academic at sussex uni.

Kier said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Kier said...

am surprised to see you here, fjl, since you've spent a lot of time recently tarring all 'conspiranutters' with the same brush and telling them all to be quiet - or rather 'cut it out', and repeatedly stating you have no wish to engage with anyone who questions a widely-accepted account. There is nobody on this blog that you need to defend or protect from 'us'.

I disagree with several things you say here. I do not think Bridget Dunne was treated like a fool, and your constant references to this here make me wonder if that is perhaps yet another attempt to undermine those with concerns over the flaws in the official account of the London bombings.

Mark Honigsbaum engaged with Bridget enough to write of her concerns. I am not aware that he promised to link our website to the article and find it hard to see why you think that should be so. Nobody mentioned in the article had links to their websites or blogs publicised and rightly so. We are able to publicise ourselves quite adequately and Mark Honigsbaum, although he implied in the article that he only visited our site after speaking with Bridget and the Antagonist, actually contacted the site after coming across it himself.

The concerns were raised in the article and that is all that is relevent. Perspective is a strange thing. You saw Bridget Dunne painted as a 'loon', presumably because this is how you yourself think of her - and indeed all of the JulySeventh team. You are certainly unable to differentiate between us and those offering the outlandish theories that you despise so.

On that basis, I find this suggestion extremely odd:

"However, you need to work on some sensible theories if you want to avoid this hassle. You can't hide behind the right to question, if your hypotheses are foolish."

We are not obliged to offer any kind of theory and it is most certainly not a requirement of anybody who asks a question to have an answer of their own. On the JulySeventh site, as mentioned by Mark Honigsbaum, we have outlined numerous theories and the reasons why each have been proposed at various times by various sources. We do not subscribe to any theory and it is not the role of the site to do that. Indeed we are against the formulation of any hypotheses which claim to be 'definitive' since there are so few facts to base such hypotheses on - something we have pointed out on many occasions.

Therefore, it is quite inaccurate to suggest our hypotheses are "foolish", since we don't have one and those presented on the website are not 'ours'.

fjl said...

Here's what the reporter said about Bridget's ideas.


"As I leave Dunne's flat, she tells me that she and the Antagonist are in the process of refining the July 7 Truth Campaign site and are still uncovering new "facts". "I can't explain it but something shifted for me that day," she says.

When I get home, I decide to take a look. Under the heading Some Hypotheses is a list of alternative theories. Number one is "al-Qaida mastermind recruited British Muslims as suicide bombers". Number three is "homegrown and autonomous action by four British Muslims with no mastermind." But it is hypothesis eight that attracts my attention: "The four men were chosen or lured to be patsies in a classic 'false flag operation'."

Beneath the headline is an extract from a newspaper interview with a passenger on the Aldgate train, reporting that the metal around the hole in the bomb carriage was "pushed upwards as if the bomb was underneath the train". But it is the next entry that I find most alarming. Highlighted in blue is the sentence: "Mark Honingsbaum [sic] also recorded several witnesses speaking of explosions under the floor of the train."

I click on the link and listen once again to my off-the-cuff recording from the Metropole hotel. Then I press the button and loop the broadcast a second time. In the internet age, it seems, some canards never die."

He is calling your ideas 'canards'. This is the most insulting term for a wacky idea there is.
I was sympathising with Bridget, poor chick (it's hardly her fault) for being taken for an idiot by someone, not talking to you, you silly buffoon

If you can't see it when someone is calling you a lame duck, then don't be surprised if no one gives you any credt for anything

Kier said...

FJL,

Mr. Honigsbaum was calling his own report a 'canard'. He is, obviously free to do so if he wishes. However, he and anybody else - such as yourself - who was to look at that particular section of the site would see that it is by no means Mr. Honigsbaum's report that is the only one which speaks of holes in the floor with the metal pushed upwards. The testimony of Bruce Lait, who was on the Aldgate train, also supports the notion of the bomb being under the train and other witnesses, such as Lizzie Kenworthy also speak of holes with the metal twisted upwards. Therefore, it is not 'our ideas' which are canards.

I do wish also that that you would be reasonable and balanced enough not to resort to ridiculous insults which only make yourself look idiotic for having to rely on those, as opposed to a constructive, well reasoned argument of your own.

As I've said to you before, you do yourself a disservice - as you also do when attempting to control and direct discussions on articles written by people who have no wish to be associated with you and then try and degenerate the debate yourself with crude comments about your backside.

I will ask you more directly this time: If, as you say, the only reason that you have bothered to engage with us is to protect the survivors from having to suffer us on their blogs and Guardian articles, then what can possibly be your reasoning for coming here to the blog of a July Seventh Truth Campaign researcher where you have no reason to protect anyone - especially now you have rather ostentatiously and protractedly distanced yourself from the survivors?

Kier said...

“The policeman said 'mind that hole, that's where the bomb was'. The metal was pushed upwards as if the bomb was underneath the train. They seem to think the bomb was left in a bag, but I don't remember anybody being where the bomb was, or any bag," [Survivor Bruce Lait as reported in Cambridge News]

The chap next to her had lost his leg and there was a woman to their left who was on her back trapped in the metal, which had twisted up through the middle of the carriage. The roof was still on, but the lining of the carriage had been blown off. The sides had also come off and there was a big hole in the floor.

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/crime/article333787.ece

As can clearly be seen, the statement suggesting the bomb had been underneath the train was made by a survivor, and the description given by Lizzie Kenworthy supports it.

These are not 'ideas' these are statements made by people who were there. Furthermore, the reason for our camapaign does not rest on where the bombs were located in the trains. These testimonies were reported in the wider context of outlining the inconsistencies of July 7th. There are many more of these, also documented on the site.

Jetstar Boss said...

scjHeya Bridget,

Disagreement has flooded this post!
FJL, how can you claim that this article is a bad report of us? It has noticed some key anomalies (i would still be reading the article now if they had written them all) ad has accepted that what we think is not totally out of logic with the world. Yes, maybe it is a bit sceptical of the views, but if it cared that much about how bad it was, why would they print the article?
Kier, please note that the people who REALLY ARE behind our cause do realise your points and I agree with you whole-heartedly: how fjl thinks the article promotes us as "lame ducks" is beyond me.
Aside from that, Mark Hongisbaum (I didnt copy and paste that either!) deserves credit for trying to accept our ideas but how can you put rachel in the same article as us?

Jetstar28

Jetstar Boss said...

One more point sorry

Are you quoting Rachel or yourself when you label us "conspiraloons?

Jetstar28

Bridget Dunne said...

Jetstar28

You've made some very good points. I particularly like the bit where you said you'd still be reading the article now if they had printed all the anomalies!

The Emperor's New clothes springs to mind!

Kier said...

"The Emperor's new clothes springs to mind!"

Doesn't it just, Bridget. Jetstar boss: thanks. I think disagreement is fine, even if it floods a post; personal abuse is worse.

FJL, I did not 'beg for an argument'. I legitimately addressed the inaccurate points you made. Whether or not you had personally addressed them to me in the first place is completely irrelevant.
You were unable to reasonably and logically respond and once more descended into pointless raving.

I am campaigning for the truth about July 7th. I am not interested in trading insults with someone who clearly only came to bait. I have actually never said either way if I wanted to engage with you or not. I simply asked why you had come here, since the last time I attempted to have a rational debate with you, you expressed more than once that you only came to support the survivor who had started the comment thread in order to stop the thread being 'taken over' by people whose views you didn't agree with. For example:

"Didn't I express that you should leave the boards and go and do something sensible. I can't keep coming on and doing so, and unless the Guardian want Holly's work to be overrun with conspiracy obsessives it's down to them to take a stance."

http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/holly_finch/2006/06/post_128.html

So it is odd that you are saying now "I have no desire to protect or speak out for anyone".

Get as annoyed as you like, but if you come and challenge, expect a defence. If you have nothing to offer but silly personal insults which have no relevance to the subject people are trying to discuss, expect to get ignored. I have never resorted to verbal abuse with you, so I can't see why you think it's necessary or what you think it achieves. I hope this clarifies things.

Kiera.

Kier said...

The link I referred to above....

Comment is free

fjl said...

Kiera, this may interest you. It's a link to a UFO spotting site, and there's also a link that enables you to report an antichrist whenever one offends you.

http://www.paranormalnews.com/article.asp?ArticleID=1125

Bridget Dunne said...

@ fjl

I can't imagine Kier or myself being interested in the link you posted.

What is interesting is how you have been blogging about 'falling out' with KCU and, who you refer to as their leader, 'Rachel'. From always commenting on the KCU survivor's blogs you now find your way over to blogs that you know have always questioned the official version of the events of that day.

Now that is interesting.

fjl said...

Bridge, I only came over via the Guardian, because they had lambasted you. I felt they'd been too unkind, that's all.

Bridget Dunne said...

@ fj

Lambasted? Any particular quote to back up that assertion?

Numeral said...

Hi fjl

What magnetism draws you to blogs I frequent?

BTW, what is your take on The Wardrobe Malfunction?

From the official narrative:

04.54: The Micra stops at Woodall Services on the M1 to fill up with petrol. Tanweer goes in to pay. He is wearing a white T-shirt, dark jacket, white tracksuit bottoms and a baseball cap. He buys snacks, quibbles with the cashier over his change, looks directly at the CCTV camera and leaves.

07.21: The 4 are caught on CCTV together heading to the platform for the King’s Cross Thameslink train. They are casually dressed, apparently relaxed. Tanweer’s posture and the way he pulls the rucksack on to his shoulder as he walks, suggests he finds it heavy. It is estimated that in each rucksack was 2-5 kg of high explosive. Tanweer is now wearing dark tracksuit bottoms. There is no explanation for this change at present.

Numeral said...

Hi fjl

Do you remember that TV programme from 20 years ago, "Fairly Secret Army"? It was my all time favourite. I will try to find some DVDs so that we can watch them together.

Bridget Dunne said...

@ fjl

I notice you've deleted both your comments to numeral (of which I have copies). They also disappeared without trace.

Did they fall foul of anyone in particular?

fjl said...

Bridget, you'd be much better off focusing on something sensible.

I wish you all well.

Anonymous said...

These are not 'ideas' these are statements made by people who were there. Furthermore, the reason for our camapaign does not rest on where the bombs were located in the trains. These testimonies were reported in the wider context of outlining the inconsistencies of July 7th. There are many more of these, also documented on the site.

The problem is that whether you call them ideas or statements they are still bullshit. People saw metal pointing up and said the first conclusion that this suggested. This is the entire basis for nutjobs suggesting that there were bombs under trains despite the fact it has been contradicted by all other evidence and known to be false.

If you thought it was a good thing that this blog was linked to that claim twice in one article then think that. It does say something about your level of intuition though.

Bridget Dunne said...

Hi anonymous

On the issue of eye-witness accounts that suggest bombs were placed under trains, you state:

"despite the fact it has been contradicted by all other evidence and known to be false."

I really like facts and evidence so could you let me have the source of such a bold statement.

The MPS website btw still has the bomb placed on the 3rd carriage of the Liverpool St/Aldgate train. The official report says the 2nd.

The facts around the tragic events of 7th July have been very confused and I am not sure how much we can say we definitely know.

This is why we need a fully Independent Public Inquiry and the Release of the Evidence.

Novlangue said...

I wouldn't get upset with FJL, she's entitled to her opinion.

I wd like to see a public inquiry, too. But what about the alQaida videos of Tanweer & "Sid"? AlQ refers to them as shahidin (martyrs)? Just interested.

Numeral said...

novlangue asked about the Khan and Tanweer videos.

Wallace and Gromit come to mind. They have not been authenicated, I suspect.

Novlangue said...

But why would AlQaida claim them? Surely if MI5 are behind the bombs, alQ have every interest in pointing this out.

And if the 4 bombers aren't dead, where are they?

Bridget Dunne said...

Hi novlangue

The videos? Well according to what this government deems is acceptable as evidence & explanation for the atrocities carried out on 7th July, a document entitled 'Report of the Official Account of the Bombings in London on 7th July 2005', in the section entitled 'Were They Directed From Abroad?":

54. In a second video, broadcast on 19 September, Zawahiri went further stating Al Qaida "launched' the attacks.

55.There is as yet no firm evidence to corroborate this claim or the nature of AL Qaida support, if there was any.

It is interesting that to date the only evidence in the public domain that appears to directly link these men to the attacks is one cctv still taken outside Luton station, and these supposed 'confession' tapes of two of the 4.

I would sumise that 'seeing isn't always believing', especially as Hasib Hussain's father has recently said, "I have been shown no evidence that proves my son is guilty".

When the Khan video was shown, we all saw some suspicious editing and lip sync, and it was his voice that his friends claimed wasn't his.

The Tanweer video that has been shown so far has just a snippet of his voice overlayed by an arabic translation overlaid by an english translator.

Neither did any of us hear these two men claim that they were going to carry out these attacks.

On 4/9/05 the Telegraph was claiming:

"In part of the video not yet given to al-Jazeera Khan is reported to have been filmed with Tanweer, 22, the second member of the July 7 suicide team that killed 52 other people and injured more than 400. Al-Qaeda often staggers the release of video footage to gain maximum publicity."

Yet:

"It also emerged that reports this weekend that the security services had forewarning of the existence of the video were exaggerated. The Sunday Telegraph has learnt that MI5 and Scotland Yard found out about the tape only three hours before its broadcast."

From the Times 8/10/05:

"Khan’s video testament, the typical suicide bomber’s propaganda farewell, ended speculation that the men had been duped into becoming martyrs, though there are still sceptics among the Muslim community in Yorkshire."

Ended speculation that these men were duped?

I just urge everyone watching these videos or looking at the evidence, or rather lack of it, to keep an open mind.

Al Qaida did after all just mean 'database' when it was set up and run by the CIA.

Another strange anomaly, I hadn't realised that Al'Q had a media & marketing manager. American name of Adam Gadahn, also known as Azzam al-Amriki, but orignally Adam Pearlman. Gadahn/Pearlman is believed by US authorities to be running al-Qaeda's propaganda operation. He also appears in this video.

Anonymous said...

Novlangue said:
"Surely if MI5 are behind the bombs, alQ have every interest in pointing this out." Not if Al-Qaeda was an MI6 outfit.

Al-Qaeda NEVER raise anything that brings suspicion onto the US or UK. That in itself, owing to the HUGE questions posed by 9-11 and indeed 7-7 (railings going through peoples arms!) is suspicious.

The are credible reports the Bin Laden tapes are fakes. If you accept that, as I do, therefore at least some of what we are told is "Al-Qaeda" is a lie. Deliberately manipulated, counter-intelligence / disinformation / propaganda and all that.

The purpose is to help complete the aims of those that are conducting the war against Iraq and Afghanistan, of which, the control of oil is perhaps the least sinister aim.

Much of the Al-Qaeda myths are fed to us daily by mass media outles such as the BBC, CNN etc. who, by constant repitition and regurgitation of the same old 'terrorism experts' (who actually differ from other independant terrorism experts) make the official version of 'terrorism' stick into our psyche.

The old Roman investigative principle of "who benefits" and the more modern, "follow the money" pay dividends here in trying to understand western foreign policy and incidents of the big picture, such as 7-7.

And besides, to think that in this (bogus) 'War on terror', the largely unproven "Al-Qaeda.org" is FREE of counter intelligence is far less credible than otherwise would be the case. It is also likely that there are 7-7 plants posing as 'vicims' to perpetuate the terror myth and hide the truth.

Well, it would be a myth if it wasn't for people like Blair that made it a reality. We know the govt and Tony Blair has lied at the expense of peoples lives. The "intelligence was fixed around the policy" Downing St. memo's prove this. Dr. David Kelly and Andrew Gilligan were the two who played a major part in the public unravelling of lies. Some British intelligence agents also too highly unusual steps of making their discontent known in the public arena in 2003. Kelly and Gilligan helped reveal Tony Blairs willingness to sacrifice UK forces lives for lies, and by the same token, he would be willing to sacriice 52 people in London.

I am of utmost belief that somewhere in the orror of 7-7, Tony Blairs hand is there. It fits the pattern that hardcore proof gives us as well as that of extrapolated conjecture.

Tony Blair benefits in leaps and bounds from atrocities such as 7-7 and it's imperitive that people make this madman stop!

Nothing short of a FULL and INDEPENDANT investigation into 7-7 and surrounding circumstances should be ALL of our demands, no matter what it uncovers.

This of course, includes an investigation of "Extraordinary Rendition {torture flights - see ex-amabassador http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/weblog.html}, which Blair Bush have included in their (bogus) 'War on terror'

Novlangue said...

If your conspiracy theory is true, then the left's argument that we have to pull out of Iraq to avoid further bombs falls to the ground.

Also, the Govt are under heavy attack for not defending us from the bombs.

Bridget Dunne said...

BTW Novlangue another point about these so-called confession videos of Khan & Tanweer (which accounts for only 2 of the 4 alleged perpertrators btw) is that if we accept they're authentic, we also have to accept that a couple of young men from Beeston, Leeds are able to get closer to the leadership of Al'Q than all the combined intelligence agency experts and armed forces of the 'coalition of the Killing'. It is nearly 5 years since the atrocity committed on innocent people on Sept 11 2001. 5 years in which these leaders of Al'Q could have been tracked down.

Yet we are supposed to believe that a couple of young men from Leeds did precisely this?

Is that even remotely likely?

If Al'Q's propaganda machine is run by a white American 'convert to Islam' how hard would it really be to have a double-agent 'pose' as one, and then get these so-called leaders?

Unless of course they have already ...

Anonymous said...

Novlangue said: "If your conspiracy theory is true, then the left's argument that we have to pull out of Iraq to avoid further bombs falls to the ground."

If you are refering to the conspiracy possibility I raise (about 3 posts above), then the arguement that we have to pull out of Iraq does NOT fall to the ground, because the slaughter of Iraq is fundamentally wrong from eVERY perspective. We should pull out becasue people are being killed. Thats it. The Govt can are are visibly brushing off any citizen lead 'attack' upon them.

The Govt believes it has more to gain from keeping fear levels high, in other words by helping conduct 7-7, becasue they believe it fears the public in giving complacent silence against its war in Iraq, than it does from a bunch of people who have pieced the puzzle together and are subsequently labeled as conspiracy nuts, or, a bunch of people that fall for the pityful story that these men were so angry at the UK government that they killed UK ordinary citizens, and thereby hold Blair as indirectly responsible for the 7-7 carnage. The recent rehashing of the '9-11 style attack on canary wharf' myth is a good example. As is the halting of the investigation into the US anthrax attacks soon after 9-11. They were halted becasue those sincere investigators were getting to close to finding out that it was agents in the US military who did it. The whole thing deliberately petered out. Fear is the weapon of mass domination. The one thing that is left to control the western masses.

You try putting even just the factual inconsistencies to people abut 7-7 (or 9-11), never mind the strong posiblility of some of the conspiracy theories, and many will just go instantly into denial and retreat into their psychological safe-house, that which sees their government as all benevolent. They cant handle the likelyhood that all they have "taught" to believe in is a load of rubbish.

%%

Bridget raises a good point (which fits into the whole pettern of western synthesised false fear methodology) and that is the inability of the intellignece services to prenetrate the image they painted of Al-Qaeda. They go on about Al-Qaeda websites and so on. ANY website can be traced. In the past people who wrote computer virus's were traced and improsined. One doesn't hear much of this any more {wonders why...}. Its crazy. Its fake. Its a lie. Its murder. Its diabolical. It must stop. We must stop it. If we dont, its the real end of freedom. BFlairite ascism prevails.

Anonymous said...

Bridget. It seems like the Govt are trying to patch up the errors.

I'd appreciate your thoughts as to John Reid (Home Secretary) aparently trying to make the 7-7 story consistent.

Anonymous said...

I refer to
http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_1911632.html?menu=

Anonymous said...

Bridget Dunne, I have spent some time reading through these posts. I have worked in major investigations previously and fully understand how the fog of confusion reigns whenever any major incident occurs.

When four occur on a single morning, in a small area, the fog becomes a smokescreen. The thousands of shards and pictures and words take time to be brought together in a coherent way. If we took a thousand witnesses and showed them a blue pen, after ten minutes there would be 5 who would swear they saw a brown pencil. That is what we are human.

Now the dust has settled and the facts have become clearer the evidence that has consistently been thrown up from the confusion of the morning, from panicking people emerging from the carnage, all points to an act of terrorism from 4 misguided murderers.

The family of one of the dead boys say, Yes that is our son, but hey it's just a CIA trickery with videos

The train times have been shown to you and only a fool cannot read between the lines of what the Met stated to you in their letter of response to your complaint. Read it again and see if you can spot it. Something to do with leading evidence. A common and sensible tactic used for many years. But, alas you will now only believe what you want and not what the truth is.

I could go on but I'm bored with you already

I think you are rather proud of your little fifteen minutes of fame and will. On the back of some murder victims that is.

You really should be ashamed of yourself.

The Antagonist said...

Anonymous: As, by your own admission, you have worked on major investigations, could you perhaps advise whether any of these major investigations required EVIDENCE upon which to base allegations and prosecutions?

Or did your major investigations all hinge on the testimonies of folk who don't know a blue pen from a brown pencil?

Tony-broke-the-law said...

To: anon. July 12, 2006 11:13 PM

People being confused doesn't cause railing outside of train stations to go through peoples arms, or enable them to make large quanities of explosives with no chemicals, no chemical training and no processing equipment.

It also doesn't explain why most cameras strangely fail on that day or why some anonymous agency condusts 1000man exercises that day mirroring 9-11. Neither does it explain why power surge problems and reports of burning smells before bombs went off. Nor does it explain why Zionist butchers received advance warnings of attacks.

It also fails to explain how or why people on 21-7 had detonators in bags of flour, and people making humanistic mistakes does not nullify the lies concerning and murder of Jean Charles deMenezes.

One or two people giving slighy different facts is acceptable, everything else isn't.

numeral said...

@tony

Have you got a link for the reports of burning smells before the explosions?

Anonymous said...

I don't have a link. I think I read it somewhere as opposed to watching a video of it. It went along the lines of 'people on the tube reporting a burning smell and a bang (or two) and a power cut out. Sorry. At the moment, thats the best I can do. I will try and find where I got that idea from. If I cant find it, I will let you know here so that the comment can be disregarded as its important that claims can be sourced/referenced.

Anonymous said...

I cannot find an article that looks familiar to the one I thought I read.

In the search to find it, I've read other articles and I wonder If I'm getting 7-7 and 21-7 events mixed up. So please, for the purpose of speed and factuality, disregard the remark about "burning smells before bombs went off" with regard to 7-7.

I'll keep looking but until then, dont pay attention to that comment.

Tony-broke-the-law said...

Still cant find it. Sorry. Will keep on looking God willing.

Anonymous said...

I read the article to Bridget,and as i read it Honig is not just sceptical. He is using u as a way to attack the claims u make.
Yes, he does allow public space for the view you espouse, but dont be fooled. He is not going to do any investigation himself. If he was really interested, he would be doing further research on his own. There is no sign in the article that he will do so.

ALSO. the latest terror fraud should alert us that THEY are still at work terrorising the public aka 1984. This one was so brazen that it amazes.

Brian
Canberra australia

Anonymous said...

This place is fruit-loop city. Laughable if is wasn't so sad.

Shahid said...

I read this at 9:09 on the fifth anniversary of 9/11 and note with a shudder 52 comments. I'm glad I don't believe in numerology.

Of all the things I could say, other than "keep it up", I just wanted to say:

"Osama bin Laden = Emmanuel Goldstein"

Please ignore fjl - no point engaging with trolls, it wastes your time. Your skills of engagement are best preserved for the real battle, not hired distraction experts.

Today, my prayers are with the almost 3000 who lost their lives as a result of 9/11, the 52 who lost their lives on 7/7 - and the well over 100,000 who have lost their lives as a result of our dirty, illegal war in Iraq, for the over 1000 killed in Lebanon, mostly women and children, by our proxy army, the IDF - and with every other soul that has suffered as a result of the most lie-saturated, blood-soaked foreign policy we have known in more than a generation.

May the diligent and patient truth-seekers continue to be steadfast and may they one day, insha'Allah - prevail.

Bridget Dunne said...

Thanks Shahid

I've read your very wise and wonderful words many times, they've often moved me to tears of laughter and pain. Do keep blogging.

Thanks for the encouragement, it means a lot to me. For all our sakes we have to keep fighting to uncover what really lies behind events such as 7th July and to keep asking the difficult questions despite the attempts to derail and distract.

With the 5th anniversary of 9/11 in mind:

"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed, second it is violently opposed, and third, it is accepted as self-evident."
Arthur Schopenhauer, Philosopher, 1788-1860

Anonymous said...

Anyone with any degree of proficiency in Photoshop could tell why the assertion that the image is fake is completely absurd.

You people need to get a proper hobby.

Bridget Dunne said...

@ Anonymous

You say: Anyone with any degree of proficiency in Photoshop could tell why the assertion that the image is fake is completely absurd.

You people need to get a proper hobby
.

You might like to read this and then come back and comment.

'WE people' wouldn't need to be doing this if the MSM would do their job properly and ask these questions.

OR if the CCTV evidence was released.

OR if a Fully Independent Investigation of these events were carried out.

'We people' have a responsibility to ask questions and demand the evidence to ensure we have been told the truth about these events.

Perhaps some of 'you people' might not like the answers?

Anonymous said...

I've read it. It's a joke. None of the so-called anamalies would be the result of image manipulation. The motion video manipulation technology it cites is still nowhere near good enough to fool even a child- I've seen the demos personally.

The rest of the site is your usual, typical conspiracy hokum that relies on MSM inconsistencies to weave a tapestry of nonsense.
It's all "he said, she said".

I wouldn't trust MSM to get the spelling of my name right let alone anything complex. But your cited site seems to pick and choose which conflict to believe and which to deem suspicious.

This isn't research it fairy stories.

Bridget Dunne said...

The spelling of your name appears to be A n o n y m o u s, in fact the same name that most people who come on here to 'have a go', rather than a serious conversation, use.

Anon (I hope you don't mind if I shorten it) can you explain the total lack of CCTV evidence from London of the 4 accused? Or are you just very easily convinced?

Anonymous said...

Well thank you for addressing the shortcomings in conspiracy theory failings regarding the claims of image fakery.

Speaks volumes.

Bridget Dunne said...

Thanks for coming back anonymous.

Perhaps you could explain why you are convinced that the Luton image is not faked.

Thanks.

Anonymous said...

The photos if they are faked has nothing to with any of the reasons given on that daft site. None of which would be the result of a compositting process.

Think of Photoshop like cutting images out with a pair of scissors and layering them (without being able to tuck anything under anything) and you'll quickly realise the assertions are obviously absurd.

Try yourself.

Common sense: if there were a grand conspiracy why would they hire a compositting idiot to do the job?

If you pardon the graphics pun: it doesn't stack up.

The theorists aren't qualified in their field of commentary and just reading tea leaves or worse still willing themselves to see anomally.

The image looks 100% real to me. As for when and where it was taken, I couldn't tell you.

Bridget Dunne said...

Hello again 'Anon'

A comparison between the 28/6 image and the 7/7 image:

Composite

Any suggestions/explanation for the strange join in the kerbstone in front of 'Tanweer' in the 7/7 image?

The Antagonist said...

Anonymong: Let us assume that the Luton image is 100% genuine. Precisely what, if anything, do you think it proves?

Anonymous said...

Antagonist: are you 12 years of age or do you just act like it?

what does it prove? It proves that the sight is propagating misinformation. It pretends to be an authority on a subject it clearly isn't.

This in turn makes me wonder how much else on the site is spurious.

The Antagonist said...

Anonymong said: "Antagonist: are you 12 years of age or do you just act like it?"

Both. Or maybe neither. Either way, what's the relevance?

Anonymong said: "what does it prove? It proves that the sight is propagating misinformation. It pretends to be an authority on a subject it clearly isn't."

Are you referring to the Home Office 'narrative'? If so, I concur.

Anonymong said: "This in turn makes me wonder how much else on the site is spurious."

If it's the Home Office web site to which you are referring, the answer is: All of it.

Anonymous said...

Well if calling people names is all that J7 Truth has in the way of rebuttals, it speaks volumes about the poor quality of analysis of the website.