Friday, February 10, 2006

Reply from BBC Horizon

Dear Bridget,

As spoken, attached is a copy of the e-mail that Alicky Sussman, producer of The 7/7 Bombers, thought had been sent to you on 3 November. We are sincerely sorry that you've had to wait so long to receive it.

Kind regards,


Alison Wilson
Divisional Adviser
Factual Programmes

Dear Ms Dunne,

Thank you for your email regarding the recent Horizon documentary - The 7/7 Bombers - A Psychological Investigation.

The information in the programme regarding the train times from Luton and at Kings Cross was based on information released by the Metropolitan Police Specialist Operations office and information provided to us by Thameslink and Luton station.

Although the psychologist, Dr Andrew Silke, was re-tracing the journey of the 4 bombers, he was not re-enacting it so there are some bits of his journey that do differ from the journey of the bombers.

The position that Hasib Hussain sat on the bus is an interesting point, but not one that we included in the programme as we did not have time to cover everything.

According to Dr Silke, Hussain would have been under a great deal of stress at that point and it likely that the position that he chose on the bus was not pre-planned, but the most convenient space at the time for him to carry out his mission.

With best wishes,

Alicky Sussman
Producer, Horizon
The information in the Horizon programme that I had complained about can be viewed here:


Stef said...

sad, but not really surprising

an underlying question is does our media overlook material like this through sheer stupidity or is it deliberate?

another underlying question is what can the minority of ordinary people who worry this do about it?

I wish I knew the answer

Anonymous said...

"The information in the programme regarding the train times from Luton and at Kings Cross was based on information released by the Metropolitan Police Specialist Operations office and information provided to us by Thameslink and Luton station."

So now we have confirmation that it wasn't a case of a few journalists getting their facts wrong. The information was deliberately given to the media.

It's still absurd that by the time that programme was broadcast, Thameslink had already confirmed the train times which proved it impossible for them to have got the 07:48 train. Therefore, Thameslink apparently willfully provided false information. I guess Horizon is content to leave it there, with their "Well, that's what we were told, so....." response.

What's the point of a 'factual' programme in that instance?

steve said...

Hi Bridget, (re: question on my blog)
well, I have looked at a lot of 'conspiracy theorist' sites and blogs and see them cut down the middle. Some ask questions, and some engineer elaborate theories. Some people actually still believe it was all a power surge, or a mossad operation, psy ops, etc etc. Hopefully you aren't in that camp.

To be honest, the lack of evidence annoys me. Quite what to make of it I don't know, there has been a whitewash of the whole thing, why is the real question. I have enough to deal with without worrying about train times, I mean it's bloody obvious they got there and boarded those trains, several people saw them, eyewitnesses, it's hard to deny an eyewitness. If you read my account, I got off the Edgware train at KX only to board the KX one.

I find it impossible to believe that those, or another train didn't run on time. These things are always revealed over time, someone always leaks the details and the pressure is too much the 'facts' are revealed. I'm afraid I can't be anymore help, I agree that it's annoying and frustrating, but it's actually quite irrelevant.

Oh in regards to 'Why aren't they telling us?' It's most likely to be a general whitewashing of the secret services failings on that day and the fact that it was caused by our gov'ts shocking foreign policy than anything more sinister. Unfortunately most theorists WANT to believe it was something else, let them get on with it, prunes!

Bridget said...

I just want to thank Steve for coming over and posting his thoughts on the questions I left on his blog, which is worth reading for a very vivid account of the Piccadilly Line train that morning.
I must say it does surprise me that the survivors from that morning who blog, and there are a few, show so little concern with findng out the facts or seeing the evidence.
I know that if I or a member of my family had been injured or killed that morning, would want to know PRECISELY how and why it happened.
How else could one recover from such a trauma without knowing the truth?

steve said...

I see exactly where you are coming from Bridget, I actually completely agree, we NEED the truth and several pieces of vital evidence are missing. That is a fact nobody can argue with. However, many survivors and bereaved families have asked many times for an enquiry, started petitions and spoke to MPs. What more can we do? They don't want the facts releasing, yes it's bloody frustrating, but we are also desperate to move on from the whole event. It's hard enough to move on from the trauma many of us have been through, to become majorly concerned about facts such as Luton to Kings Cross train times would send us back to square one. It's just that if we were to get obsessed with these facts it would consume us and prevent us from moving on. I don't think survivors show 'little concern', we are concerned but also tired of asking and not being answered. I haven't spoke to one survivor yet who doesn't want an enquiry. There is only so much we can do as survivors, I do personally feel ignored. I said the train times were 'irellevent', obviously they are not, they are a key part of evidence, however they are fairly irellevent to me, at present, it is hard enough dealing with being feet from a bomb, feet from death, nevermind considering how they got there. Hope you understand. I do have faith that the truth will come out, history proves this!

Bridget said...

Thanks again Steve for taking the time and trouble to reply. I in no way wish to add to the trauma of that morning by sending you 'back to square one' over the train times from Luton to Kings X.
Unfortunately, many of us cannot move on from square one, as the train we are told these 4 young men took that morning didn't run and the next train arrived too late for them to have boarded the underground.
You say "They don't want the facts releasing", I wonder why you think this is?
CCTV images have been shown from the 28/6 of three of the four men arriving at Kings X Thameslink, yet none from the 7/7. This makes absolutely no sense. We are told these images exist, why are they not in the public domain?
As for a public enquiry, the goverment has said no and instead a 'narrative' will be written by a senior civil servant. Why?
I have argued that in the absence of a public enquiry we should call for an independent people's enquiry. It was pointed out to me that this is what independent researchers and 'citizen journalists' like myself are conducting.
We ARE the people's enquiry, the internet has opened up this possibility for ordinary people like myself to conduct research and ask questions.
Steve you are very welcome as part of that process if you wish.
If not, may I wish you well in your endeavours to find some peace and healing.

steve said...

I didn't mean you inparticular are trying to send us back to square one, i just mean generally. For example, how could you deal with being next to a bomb if there was evidence there was no bomb, (or no evidence there WAS a bomb), yet you knew there was? It would be impossible to move on from that. Like I said in order to move on and comprehend it is sometimes helpful to take things at face value. There may be much much more to it, but it doesn't matter to me, if you get me?

The reason the facts aren't released is simple. Our security services failed massively. We are not the impenetrable force we like to believe, we are actually bloody vulnerable! The reason they failed is still coming to light, read Rachel norths post from today to see a scary example of Bush jeopordising national security and putting lives in danger for political gain. The gov'ts (UK and USA) have blood on their hands, they failed, and ENCOURAGED the crimes by their Foreign Policies. A public enquiry of July 7th would, in my opinion trace back to the ILLEGAL war in Iraq, false intelligence, lie upon lie, and our gov't breaching UN guidelines. In short, they seriously f*cked things up! That is why the gov't is wriggling out of a public enquiry, because they are to blame! It all comes down to power gain, I believe much will be revealed after the next election, releasing info' of gov't blunders now would be too costly.

To be blunt, I'm not sure what you will achieve in investigating it. Like I said the facts will come out, when those hiding them have less to lose politically.

Bridget said...

What keeps many of us investigating is the number of anomalies that exist, along with the almost complete lack of evidence in the public domain.
Of course a public enquiry would have thrown some light on these and hopefully produced the evidence to prove what we are told happened is actually what did happen.
I totally understand the need to 'move on' but I do believe that has to be part of a process. Part of the process that will be missing for you and other survivors and the families of the victims (and I include the families of the 4 young men) is a court case.
Perhaps intelligence failings are behind these events and the government's illegal war in Iraq is to blame. We will only find out through a full investigation of the facts.
There are other scenarios though, and these are worth investigating as well. One of those scenarios is that these 4 young men are innocent.
If we can't place them on a train from Luton to Kings X that morning, it is impossible to then place them at the scenes of these explosions.
That doesan't mean that there weren't explosions on the trains or the bus.
It may answer the question of why there is no CCTV footage of these men at Kings X. I can't think of any viable reason for why these images would not be shown if they existed.

Numeral said...

Steve's account is the only one I know of from the second carriage. He describes how the third carriage was forced up against the tunnel wall. Does this mean it was derailed? And was it still attached to the fourth carriage?

The Antagonist said...

Stef - Ordinary people aren't the minority, they're the majority all over the world. There's more ordinary people than there are actors and actresses that appear on TV, in the media and in our lives all day, every day, to tell us what to think and how the world is. And they too are ordinary people following their own agenda in framework that has a long history of forcing bad choices in what would generally be ordinary and decent people.

It's the very fact that ordinary people are in the majority that has led to these 'new' 'anti-terror' laws here and abroad whose purpose, no matter what the stated objectives, is little more than to remove every possible restriction on the actions of the state and the ruling classes as they continue to set about protecting 'their way of life' from the increasingly restless and riled masses on whom 'their way of life' has always depended.

Are 60,000,000 people in the UK terrorists? No, but the law applies to them all.

As for what ordinary people can do about anything that concerns them, how about, 'Do something before it's too late'.

I give the last words to Howard Zinn:

"There is no act too small, no act too bold. The history of social change is the history of millions of actions, small and large, coming together at points in history and creating a power that governments cannot suppress."

Anonymous said...

"I must say it does surprise me that the survivors from that morning who blog, and there are a few, show so little concern with findng out the facts or seeing the evidence."

Why don't you ask them why that is then. Get yourself some perspective.

You have another post here where you simply cannot comprehend what it means when someone tells you that the error you point to in quotation of train schedules doesn't effect the substance of the article.

If after this long you can't understand what this means you need some perspective. I would recommend attending one of the memorial services this July. Tell people about the media referring to the wrong train time. Then question these people on why they show little concern for what you do.

Should be enlightening for you. Clearly you aren't getting that here.

Anonymous said...

Train times, train times, train times ...

The British Transport Police provided the information that the Piccadilly line train left King's Cross at 0848 (see this blog for October 2005). Recently, the 7th July Review Committee of the GLA has given a revised time of 0853 for the explosion in the transcript of the 3rd November meeting

Now 5 minutes is an awfully long time to get less than 200m into the tunnel.

steve said...

Contrition we agree on one thing, those quoted times ARE wrong.

I was on the Picc' line train that was bombed. Before the 7th I had used the tube maybe 12 times. I remember details nobody else does as using the tube isn't a regular commute for me, it's actually a bit of a novelty.

So, while I don't support most of what the 'conspiracy theorists' keep going on about, when they throw something up I can shoot down with a simple fact I speak out.

I arrived at the westbound platform and looked at my watch, it was 8.40.

The board said 2 trains were due, one in 2mins, and one in 8mins.

The first one was full so I got the 2nd one, sometime between 8.48:00 and 8.49:00, if you want to be exact.

It takes about 40 secs to board, so we left kings cross between 8.48:40 and 8.49.40. For arguments sake we left at 8.49:10

While I state the explosion was about a minute down the tunnel, it was probably less, about 40secs.

So, with all that taken into account I can say, the explosion happened between 8.49:50 and 8.50:30.

About 1 min after the explosion I checked my phone for a signal, it was 8.52. So this confirms my above times.

No doubt this will get copied and pasted and used as evidence that LU are lying all over the net. If that's how you get your kicks so be it.


Anonymous said...

Steve, thanks for the very valuable information. It is interesting that Mark Townsend in the Blue Watch article in the Observer back in October gave the departure time of the train as 0851. That is within a minute of the time you give.

I do not know where the Review Committee got the 0853 time from.

Bridget said...

There was also the original time of 8.56 that Rachel North says the KCU group refer to the train as.

Bridget said...

Thanks for coming back, Steve, and clarifying the time.

You may know that there has been a lot of debate on the questions around times etc with Rachel of North London.

One of Rachel's statements is that most of the dead and injured were at the end of carriage one and the beginning of carriage two, the closest to the explosion. From reading your account, you were perhaps the nearest to carriage one, and sustained some minor injuries, were there many others killed or injured on your carriage?

Eamon Spelman, 47, a carpet dealer, was a passenger on the King’s Cross train who was in the third car, behind the two most seriously damaged.

“MY whole body was shaking. I felt like I was being electrocuted.

“The guy next to me lost his leg. I could see the bone. I was trying to help him, trying to keep him awake. Another guy opposite was slumped over someone else. He was dead.”

Just reading that statement Steve and trying to make it add up to the events we are told happened that day is proving really difficult.

steve said...

no, I was the only person injured in the 2nd carriage. The damage was concentrated in the rear third of the 1st carriage. This is all in my account even if it isn't clear. The 2nd carriage was damaged though as the end of it took the force of the blast coming from carriage 1.

I can't account for what anyone else saw, I can only say what I saw from my point of view. But again if you read my account you will know there was a body lying in the junction by the third carriage badly maimed by the train. So there was at least one fatality further back up the tunnel. This has been reported by other people so I can mention it.

Anonymous said...

Steve et al.
You believe the Iraq war was illegal. It is proveable that Tony Blair and his cabinet colleagues knowingly told lies to see the war take place. It was a forgone conclusion that British lives would be destroyed. Can't you see Blairs indifference to loss of British life, and of course, the lives of hundreds of thousands of ordinary, no different from us, Iraqi men, women and children. By the same token, why should he suddenly care about the lives of those that died on 7/7? The man is a stone-cold killer. The overwhelming suggestions are that Tony Blair played a part in this sickening act of terrorism, which like his decision to commit genocide in Iraq, resulting in the death of Britons.

Re: The Horizon reply. It appears as though it was was constructed 5 minutes to clocking off time on a Friday afternoon, having recently been found, stuck via coffee ring, to the bottom of the daily cuppa mug.

I can practically hear the huffs and see the bored eye-ball rolling of the respondant.

Its pathetic. Really, it is.

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

The official figure of Iraqi civilian deaths is around 47,000, not "hundreds of thousands." I don't believe TB is a stone cold killer. He made a massive error in judgement, what is going on in Iraq is not genocide either. It is a by product of an ill conceived and innapropriate war.

And despite my dislike of the man, I believe he does care about the lives lost on 7/7. Unfortunately he is in a tricky pickle, as to allow too much scrutiny would show the flaws of the gov't.

Can you please elaborate exactly how you think TB "played a part"? What are you saying? That he planned it? Willingly allowed it to happen, to benefit himself?

He might be a fool, but that's complete tosh!

Anonymous said...

Steve. Thanks for the reply.

I would say the 100,000 (with typical statistical margins for error) is likely to be quite accurate. When the report was released, 28th October 2004, it reveals that an approximate average of 177 deaths per day occured. It seems perfectly in tune with whats happening over there.

The Lancet is a peer reviewed British medical journal and its findings were the work from studies conducted by teams from Johns Hopkins University, Columbia University and the Al-Mustansiriya University in Baghdad. What are the credentials of your source?

Perhaps you refer to an organisation like "Iraq Body Count"? Their current total is about 37,000, (12% lower than the figure you mention). One thing is for sure, We cant use US or UK figues becasue they don't do body counts. (US General Tommy Franks).
"Iraq Body Count" uses media cross-referencing to get its total. This means its total will just be the tip of the bloodied Iceberg, and if you ware familiar with the work of medialens (, you may perhaps question that methodology.

I feel confident therefore that the Lancets figure is a good estimation.

Since then we have seen the US use chemical weapons (white phosphorous) against the city of Fallujah and other hideous operations against other centres of significant Iraqi population. We have also had another year and five months for the depleted uranium to work its magic upon the people of Iraq. So again, I feel confident it is right to advance the figure of 100,000 that the Lancet reports.

But say you are correct. Say 47,000 have died, nay, have been killed. 47,000 is no more excusable than 100,000. Its a gross trivialisation to call a (pre-medititated) decision that leads to the deaths of thousands an error of judgement. I cannot understand anyone that jumps through hoops to apologise for this man. You dont think TB is a stone-cold killer? We must agree to disagree on that one.

Again, if you are correct and he does care about the lives lost, what does it say about the man that he cares more about covering up flaws of the govt than revealing the truth. Its clear what weightage he reserves for the deaths of people was supposed to represent.

Re: Tosh.
I am willing to believe it is tosh, if he or you or anyone can answer the myrriad of questions 7/7 raised. Once such small question is the one Bridget has hased this blog on, but I'm still waiting.

steve said...

It is indeed Iraq body Count. see:
This figure was misreported yesterday on ITV news as 47 000. Either way, I'm not saying that either figure is acceptable.

While I'm not apologising for Blair in the slightest, it's so easy for people to complain about the decision to go to war in retrospect. If you even care what my opinion of Blair is I will tell you. I think he's a manipulative, lying, power hungry, bigotted, foolish, deluded idiot. I also believe that he honestly thought his actions were correct, not that he had a choice Bush was going to war anyway. You see, people forget that however much they dislike Blair, he was voted in democratically, so was his cabinet.

As for questions raised about 7/7, I'm not even going to entertain you. You have obviously already twisted the events to match a pre-conceived theory aka fairytail so whatever I say you will just ignore me.

steve said...

Before you lynch me about my statement of people 'complaining in retrospect about the decision to go to war.' I want to say I fully understand that many tens of thousands (possibly 1million plus) made it clear they didn't support the decision to go to war on the streets. As I recall opinion was roughly 50/50 for and against. You may have been against it from the start, it is wrong for me to assume. I felt that an Iraq without Saddam must have been a better option, but that it wasn't our place to interfere and that any action should have been done with the UN.

What I am trying to say that when opinion is split like that it is down to our elected leader to make the decision. Maybe you should blame the people who elected him? I was most definately NOT one of them. Obviously, as we can all see, it was the wrong decision, but there is little point keep going on about how it was wrong. It's a bit bloody late!

Bridget said...

I watched 'Despatches - Iraq's missing billions' last night, and witnessed premature baby twins die for the lack of basic medical equipment. This is 3 years after the toppling of Saddam. Children are dying NOW in a country that once had a 1st class health system (despite sanctions). I can't even begin to describe how angry, upset and appalled I was. I don't believe one has to be Muslim to feel affinity with the suffering of people from Palestine to Iraq, and if Bush/Cheney get there way, Iran will be next. How much more slaughter are we going to (sit back) and witness? When are we going to take more responsibility for what our Government does and what our taxes pay for? I voted Labour, but then I don't remember being asked if that included going to war with Bush. In fact, I was one of the millions who marched against it and were ignored.
As for who really bombed London? There has been no PROOF to date to convict the 4 young men we have been told are responsible.
State terrorism is a FACT not a theory, and unless more conclusive evidence for the official story of 7th July is released, then it is just as likely a scenario in my opinion. After all, we are still unable to place these men on a train from Luton to Kings X.

steve said...

I'm not exactly sure what we're arguing about (if we put aside 7/7). We're all anti the current UK foreign policy, we're all anti Iraq war (and always have been), we all agree what is going on there is atrocious and we're all anti Blair. I personally think he's vile, but I always have. I hate to take the 'I told you so' approach but I never saw anything other than a slimy liar in Blair, even as a 15 yr old when he was first elected. Anonymous, see my earlier posts, I make it quite clear what I think of the situation in Iraq.

Anonymous said...

March 21, 2006 1:46 PM

Steve, you are apologising for him, by not labeling him accordingly for the wanton death and destruction he has, in part, casued. Instead you choose to label him as a man that has made an error of judgement. The murder (for that is what it is) he orders doesnt cross your lips.

I am not complaining about the decision to go to war in retrospect. All of the lies and all of the consequences were accurately known and predicted not just by me, but by millions of people. It was overwhemlingly obvious to even layman, that to attack Iraq would place the UK at a greater risk of some form of attack via acts of retaliation. In fact, even before the war, the so called 'intelligence' that stone-cold killer Tony Blair says he based his decision to go to war on, was already being shown to be the stuff of conspirators and liers. Why it is not obvious to you I do not know.

A great example that Blair didn't infact make an honest mistake are the forged Niger uranium documents. They were proven to false by Ambassador Joseph Wilson before the war. Bush was notified of it. but of course he already knew they were not genuine, but Bush kept on refering to them, as did Rumsfeld and Cheney etc. They were (by virtue of the fact they were fakes) conjured up by people to motivate an attack against Iraq. Heck, even the BBC got in on the act. ( - but like I said, if you are familiar with medialens, then this is of no surprise). Who would act in such a way and who has the resources to do such a thing. This leads onto the Plame/Rove/Libby scandal. Its all interrelated.

Was it Blairs honest mistake that, as Scott Ritter reports, saw the UN force conditions upon Saddam that were impossible to comply with, hence precipitationg the war? Was it Blairs honest mistake that saw the large scale escalation of RAF and USAF missions against Iraq in order to gaod Saddam into taking military action in defiance of the imposed cease fire?

You think of Blair as a "manipulative, lying, power hungry, bigotted, foolish, deluded idiot." and yet all of those attributes which caused the Iraq war, suddenly vapourise when he is gifted the grace of having made an honest mistake about the Iraq war.

There can be no doubt. There was not the slightest bit of honesty about any of it.

A lie must be constructed to cover up another lie. When one lie is exposed they all become exposed. There is a multitude of these lies and coverups all woven into the same patchwork quilt from Iraq, to extraordinary rendition, to 7/7, 21/7, de Menezes, and even back to 9-11, and beyond.

7-7 (and the impossible train times) are a direct consequece of that roguish decision. Whether directly (as I have come to believe) or indirectly, and I'm still waiting for proof, 'against the proof!!!' against it.

You say: "As for questions raised about 7/7, I'm not even going to entertain you. You have obviously already twisted the events to match a pre-conceived theory aka fairytail so whatever I say you will just ignore me."

The typical response of someone that has no response. A response oblivious to my statement that I want answers to 7/7. Why do you think I read Bridget's blog? She's asking the questions I want ansering. I scan her blog for those very answers.

You accuse me of twisting things. Please tell how. What have I said that is a distortion? What do I say that cannot be proved. what Steve, what?

Do you think I feel happy or gain some perverse comfort or pleasure at the things I found out about (plageriasm of students thesis as a prelude to war, Dr David Kelly saying the dodgy dossier was sexed up, forged uranium documents, BBC lies about saddam testing a bomb, The US using banned chemical weapons in Fallujah etc.)? Its sickening Steve.

Not one day goes past where my soul doesn't cry and scream form pain and anger. Rarely a day goes past where I dont hear of innocents having their being bodies riddled with US and UK bullets. Yeah Steve, I'ts me thats done the twisting, not you.

Anonymous said...

Before you lynch me...
Too late sorry. I replied, with justification, to what you said in the previous post.

You say: "I felt that an Iraq without Saddam must have been a better option"
I think the whole world probably felt that, but the oligolateralists lies that brought about that decision, and the death it caused (which has said to have been greater than the deaths under Saddam) is an illegal, trecherous and death producing methodology. It must not be allowed to happen ever again. Tony Blair must be brought before the International Criminal Court and face charges of Treason, Perjury, Agression, Genocide, Breach of International law (The Hague and Geneva conventions) and Crimes Against Humanity.

You say: "but that it wasn't our place to interfere"
That has to be the case. one Government cannot go to war from perceptions like that, becasue any country could go to war against any other on tha basis.

You say: " and that any action should have been done with the UN." In the absence of a better structure, resolution via the UN does carry some kudos.

Steve. Opinion was only split becaue half of the population believed the lies that Tony Blair was constantly pumping out. If the truth had been allowed to be widely reported, then its conceivable thate there would me no support for a war. Of course when you feed people fear and terror they will respond to it. They will look for a protector from that fear. Please view the 3 part documentary mini-series called "The power of nightmares" by Adam Curtis. This methodology is ancient, and was used from Roman times to today.

Anonymous said...

The BBC link that didn't make it:



Remove the two line breaks

Bridget is correct. We are starting to see a re-run of the lies that Tony Blair said of Iraq, now being transported onto Iran. Already we have seen UK government lies (about Iranian weapons parts) being churned out only to be proved false by others, this time leading to a quiet retraction. We have the same unfounded lies about Iran developing nuclear weapons, when it is merely acting in accordance to the rights granted to it under the NPT. A treaty the US and UK are actually breaching themselves by not taking steps towards total disarmament.

Please go here:
Download the presentations the distinguished guests made. See the writing on the wall.

Bridget said...

BTW, a group of us were on the Stop the War demonstration in London on March 18th carrying a 20 ft banner with '7/7 WHO REALLY BOMBED LONDON?' and handing out 'pink' leaflets to many interested on-lookers and participants.

The majority of people we spoke with were of the opinion that it had nothing to do with these 4 young men.

A new July Seventh website will be launched soon by a group of us who are investigating as part of an independent people's inquiry into 7/7.

steve said...

"The overwhelming suggestions are that Tony Blair played a part in this sickening act of terrorism"

There you've already decided, Blair did it, there's nothing I can say.

As for Iraq, again I have no idea why you're arguing with me since I agree with you. Hear that, I agree. I felt exactly the same as you, seriously angry, infact I labelled Blair a murderer myself at one point.

You don't think it annoys me the millions who protested were ignored? You don't think it annoys me that this war is even taking place? Well it does, I'm pissed off. I'm just bored after 3 years of people saying we shouldn't have gone, I was one of them, I'm sick of saying it too. We have to look at what can be done now... a phased withdrawal.

You seem to think I'm some fool. If you read my blog, instead of jumping in, you will learn 3 things about me,

1.)I was almost killed in 7/7
2.)My cousin is a pilot in the USAF stationed in Iraq as we speak.
3.)I recently met one of my high school friends, who is now in the Irish Gurads and is on sick leave because he is deaf in one ear from a round which went off by his head, again in Iraq.

To suggest I haven't seen or understand the suffering is wrong. In fact I can't imagine many people have the same connections to me as this war, nor to be blunt have seen the atrocious injuries I've seen. You aren't listening to me, I am against this war, I always have been so why the hell are you having a go at me? I want my cousin home safe, the same as Iraqi people want their family home safe from work/school.

I don't feel I need to defend the official series of events when I was there and saw them unfold. I know enough eyewitnesses personally to confirm it's true. End of the matter.

Anonymous said...

Steve - you saw those men detonate suicide bombs on July 7th? Is that what you're saying in that last paragraph?

Anonymous said...

Steve (March 22, 2006 10:30 AM) said: "There you've already decided, Blair did it, there's nothing I can say." however you, again completely fail to acknowledge that I have arrived at the conclusion based on a considered opinion from all that I have read. Whereas you Steve, believe Tony Blair based on nothing, or a fictional myth visibly demonstrated and loyally peddled by the likes of the Sun and the News of the World. Your staticism of denial rings hollow.

You accused me of "twisted the events" and of having a "pre-conceived theory aka fairytail" idea about 7/7, yet I have used and quoted only mainstream sources and facts within the public domain. And when challeneged to prove how I twist and "match" to a preconception, your only ensuing action is silence and an Ad Hominism attact. Its arguementitive bankruptcy.

As you have decided not to question Tony Blair, there is nothing I can do.

I am not arguing with you about Iraq. I am using the case of Iraq to show you that Tony Bliar did not make a "honest mistake". I thought it was made clear. The war against Iraq was a deliberate plan, which used massive deception and resulted in mass slaughter. You are wrong to use terms such as "honest mistake". Iraq proves Tony Blair cares nought about the sanctity of human life, Iraqi or British as proved by his willingness to sacrifice British life in the war against Iraq, none should be fooled that he cares about those British that were butchered on 7-7.

In addition, becasue Tony Blair went in there under the cloak of lies to destroy the WMD that Saddam didn't have, you can rest assured that he will force British troops to stay there he manages to secure the oil contracts from the puppet govt he and Bush are desparately trying to establish. Consequently, talk of phased withdrawl is irrelevant - it has nothing to do with Blair's agenda.

Blair saying the troops have to stay there to protect the people of Iraq is hideous. It is Blair and Bushes troops, and the horrific puppet govt that Blair and Bush sanction that are destroying Iraq and its people day by day.

There is only one way to ensure the neocon/neolabour objective of plundering Iraqs oil. And that is my military support of the puppets, instigation of civil war leading to the more manageable partition of Iraq. US and UK troops are needed to achieve mission acomplished.

Excerpt: "On 19 September 2005 Iraqi puppet police arrested two British soldiers dressed as Iraqis in the streets of al-Basrah. The two apparently were planning some sort of under-cover operation in the city, possibly even a car bombing. Under the rules governing relations between the puppet forces and the occupation, the puppet police were supposed to hand the captured Britons back to the British military. But they balked. Afraid that the puppet police might hand the British undercover agents to one of the Shi'i militias, the British military stormed the puppet police jail and took their commandoes back."

I don't think you are a fool, but I think you like the large majority of British people, you are in a state of denial. Given the gravity of what is happening and the ever manipulative mainstream media, it's understandable to a point. And I did read some of your Blog. And in fact, I found our lives share one incredibly significant parallel. Although I confess I didn't read about point 2 or 3 that you list.

I have conversed with another survivor. Someone who goes by the assumed name of Rachel. Rachel says similar things to you about how 7-7 affected her. But like Rachel, I feel that you are letting your personal involvement and experience prevent you from taking a holistic approach to 7-7. An approach I absolutely believe is necessary to understand the whole horrid 7-7 event.

Fact is, all events of that day, must be independantly investigated and ALL questions raised must be answered. It is the least we can do for those that were slain on that day, out of respect for them and their grieving loved ones.

We must not be afraid of the results of the investigation, wherever it leads us and if it's concluded that Tony Blair played a part (even to the extent that if it was solely becasue of his decision to go to war against Iraq) then the justice resulting from the conclusions must be persued wth rightful vigour.

steve said...


You obviously do think I’m a fool. Believe me I do have an argument and legitimate response about the questions of July 7th. But seeing as you are just trying to coax me into a debate/argument which neither of us could win I refuse to rise to you. I’ve seen what happens when other survivors attempt to debate this with people like you get, you get personal, abusive and insulting. I’m not even going to begin that conversation, because you already see me as someone against you. Just because I’m a 7/7 survivor, you see me as someone to convince, just another sheep who’s been duped. When I came onto this blog it was in response to a post on my blog from Bridget. I was perfectly willing to converse and debate with you all, politely and constructively about my experience on 7/7. What would be the point of me telling you what I believed happened? I only came here to answer questions about my experience from 8.30 - 10.00 that morning, as a primary source. I thought ‘hey a few of these people have questions I can answer.‘ and I began to answer sensible questions. After all we all want one thing: the truth. Instead of approaching me with questions I can answer, people like you wait till I write something on my blog and then you copy and paste it as evidence of… hum lets see… tunnel wall diameter discrepancies. You know if you actually approached us politely and asked us what we saw we would probably answer. Seeing as I have an almost photographic memory and an unusual sense of spatial awareness I doubt anyone off that train can recall what I can even almost 9 months on. Why all the sneaking around behind our backs? Why all the anonymity?

You read 'Steve-7/7 survivor' and assumed that means I'm peddling some sort of story and went for me. The problem I have is that most of you are so bigoted. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, even people who support this war. Don't get me wrong, you know how I feel about Iraq. Whatever happened to debate? Polite constructive debate? It's obviously not evident here. In fact I am yet to encounter anyone who debates Iraq constructively (apart from a small handful of politics students I know). Calling Tony Blair a murderer may very well be true. But how does it help? If I find someone with a different opinion to me, I talk to them, tell them why I feel the way I do and listen. You… you see it as a challenge because the person before you has been duped by the grand conspiracy and is in denial about the entire world. You don’t listen or even acknowledge peoples entitlement to their own opinions, i.e. you are a bigot!

And another point, if you are going to go through with your own inquiry, it might help to have an independent impartial 'jury' for you to present 'evidence' to. Otherwise everything you conclude will be void, as you all demonstrate strong opinions already, hence you are biased and so too will be your conclusion. Therefore any conclusion will be redundant and the entire investigation a complete waste of time. Just a point.

There are people who already do this, they're called historians. They question the who/what/why/where and when of EVERY source. Something all 'truth seekers' overlook, I'm sure you will selct all the sources which support your belief, no doubt you will spend weeks and weeks debating a white van with 'kingstar' on the side. No doubt you will overlook the fact that in my account the metal went past me horizontally at eye level, proof the blast was at the same level, not UNDER the train. Maybe try studying the analysis skills needed by a historian. One thing I remember from my history studies is the phrase: ‘To what extent……?’ To which the answer was always: ‘To some extent.’.

For example: To what extent was Tony Blair and current UK foreign policy responsible for the London Bombings of 7/7/05?.

I can tell you now that after considering everything the answer will be: To some extent! A balanced response, something you from the off have no intention of concluding.

This really is the end of the matter.

Anonymous said...

I'm disconcerted at your repitition that others hold you to be a fool. Despite me clearly saying I do not think you are a fool. What to do huh?

If you have a legitimate response then out with it man. Whats the point of visiting a forum such as this only to keep your assertions to yourself??? I come here for answers. Perhaps you have some. Please tell me. Answer the points I put instead of simply ignoring them or saying strange things such as the Iraq Body Count is the "official (and by your implication, the actual) figure", when in fact there is nothing at all official about it.

I'm not trying to coax you into an arguement. I put forward facts. Facts to which you have no response other than to ignore them and then launching a series of insults against me. Insults which only stemmed from your good self, and not from me.

Steve said: "you get personal, abusive and insulting." -> I do believe the text above, if you cared to read it, will demonstrate who the insultor and insulte was.

Such attempts to make yourself look as though you are being attacked, is a common response by those that are simply unable to cope with undisputable facts when put infront of them, and want to divert attention from the inability to bring the discussion further forward.

The facts are plain as I have mentioned. Tony Blair is a mass murderer. He's a devious liar. He cares not a shread for human life. The Media help shape public opinion by propagatating the Blairs lies and his most precious weapon of fear. All this is proveable. What's there to debate?

You refuse to rise to your own statement of arguements after I state mainstream facts? OK then fine. Dont 'rise' to that level, stay down there (your imagery, not mine), keep saying (falsely) that people are calling you a fool.

If you dont want to piece together facts and logical processes of thought and their consequences then thats up to you. I dont see why though, I personally should stop asking questions I feel need to be answered and to ponder on any and all issues connecting 7-7.

I dont see you as someone against me, but yes I do think you are living behing smoke and mirrors as your unshakeable belief that Iraq Body Count's numbers are official. In the same vein, just becasue the BBC repeat the politicians clap trap, that also does not make it official.

Remember around November 2004, the Queens speech? Government ministers were saying that they had averted a 9-11 on Canary Wharf. Politicians said terrorists had been arrested and so forth. The Newspapers willingly repeated the fiction. It was a complete hoax. Is the foiled "British 9-11" story official becasue some numbskull politicans said it was so and the slavish media goons reported it?

I want you to tell me what you think happened. Information from people like yourself helps drag this viscious attack towards a just conclusion.

Steve says "After all we all want one thing: the truth." So why do you ignore the truthful facts that I say. Are you privvy to the truth?

If you cant answer a question then say so for pity's sake. Heck, do you think I think of you as some kind of Wizard of Oz? I'm not going to lose any respect if you say 'I dont know', but instread of admitting ignorance, you opinionate and actively disagree with it (e.g. body counts). Nobody has all the answers.

"People like me {copy and paste as evidence}" -> You previously accused me of not knowing anything about you (despite me actually having read parts of your blog before you made that accusation), so what are you doing now by saying things like "People like me"?

Steve says: "You know if you actually approached us politely " I did. Read the my posts.

Steve says: "Why all the anonymity?" -> I'm not a blogger I dont have an account. And worryingly, I have seen Bridget been subtly threatened on her own blog. Besides control freak Tony Blair is after my privacy. I'd like to keep it while I still have the opportunity.

Steve says: "most of you are so bigoted." -> I'll add that to the growing list of insults, and your stereotyping.

Steve says: "Everyone is entitled to their opinion" -> Unless they happen to think Tony Blair is involved in 7-7. Then as seen, the insults fly.

Steve says:"Whatever happened to debate? Polite constructive debate?" -> I thought there was opportunity for that earlier, but such opportunities were ignored.

Calling Tony Blair a murderer may very well be true. But how does it help?" -> I believe it does. It shows this "man" for what he is. It starts the journey for him to face the internatonal criminal court for crimes against humanity. It helps destroy the lies and fascade he cowers behind, and the lives that get destroyed in the process. Killers of Blairs ilk should never find or be offered sanctuary.

I don't see you as a 'challenge'. I so think that I have come to some pretty solid conclusions from the wealth of information I have read and considered about 7-7. I would like others to come across this information and ponder it, and realise the wonderland they have been fooled into believing, for example, like that Tony Blairs war against Iraq was in some way to protect the people of the UK and was valourous. A disgusting imagery of deceipt that the BBC supports.

"i.e. you are a bigot!" I forsee the need to open a spreadsheet in the near future to keep track of all this.

I would love to have the opportunity to put forth my conclusions and the wealth of facts. I wouldn't be alone. There would be torrents of other people wanting to put forward what they want investigated too. But I'm under little illusion that it would come to more then nothing. Hutton, Butler, 9-11 commission, etc don't bode well for factual bases forming part of their findings.

Steve says: " I'm sure you will selct all the sources which support your belief" - this is a common trait amongst humans. My father described this trait to me when I was about 17. Having been told about it, I could see myself having fallen foul of that in times past. I am aware of that failing and try to be impartial. Unfortunately, the things that may counter my current belief simply don't stand up to the lilly leaf levels of scrutiny. Accepting falsehood purely for the sake of keeping on board differing is futile.

" No doubt you will overlook the fact that in my account the metal went past me horizontally at eye level," -> Now that I know you witnessed that, I will keep it in mind. But does the horizontally moving piece of metal bring us to the definitive conclusion that no metal moved upwards? Are you saying that? A forensic investigation of the carraige will easily determine the exact location of the bomb. Has such an investigation been done.

What was this metal? did you see there it came from? How big was it? Do you know what happened to it?

I think my profession has endowed me perfectly well with analytical skills thanks.

You can't simply graft the rather glib answer "to some exent" on everything. That is proposterous. Even if one used the preloader "To what extent" in the question.

Whats wrong with this question? "Did Tony Blair have foreknowledge of 7-7" to which the answer may be "yes" to be followed up by the consequential question "How come he had knowledge" to which an answer could be "becasue he played a part in its construction"

Steve. I recommend you read (or watch) an interview on Democracy Now, with Amy Goodman, with Craig Murray. Murray was the Ambassador for Uzbekistan and blew the whistle on the UK goverment using information extracted by torture. He says the torture was conducted in such a was as to allow people like Condolezza Rice to be able to say words to the effect of "I have not seen any information obtained by torture". What these bastards (a word which actually triviailises their crimes) are doing is far beyong the public screen many in the UK are living with.

(remove the line break)

The journey is there for the taking Steve. Question is are you going to take the red pill?

Anonymous said...

In agreement with anonymous. I am very concerned at the dogma surrounding the events of 7/7 which keep being perpetuated as if they were absolute facts instead of extremely questionable issues. I find phraseology such as

"This really is the end of the matter."

very might well be the end of the matter as far as you are concerned Steve, but you must surely see that you cannot speak for everyone.

You say:

"There are people who already do this, they're called historians. They question the who/what/why/where and when of EVERY source."

And sometimes such people, such as David Irving, find themselves in prison for asking such questions. To make one thing absolutely clear: I am not a holocaust denier. But to have laws in place to punish people who are? I find that absurd. If everybody is so sure that the event happened and there can be no question of this, then why are such laws in place? I can't see that as anything other than repression.

Every time I ask a question about 7/7 to which I do not receive an answer, I am expected to write off the inconsistencies as 'beaurocratic incompetence' or some if we must all of us accept that we have, beyond a shadow of a doubt, been given the correct version of events for what happened on 7/7 and any flaw in the story should be ignored. Forcing the facts to fit the theory is bad practice. It might seem that's what 'conspiracy theorists' are doing, but it's not what I am doing, nor is it what Bridget Dunne and many others are doing.

There are many of us who have engaged with survivors such as Rachel North, who have been polite and respectful towards her - not, as you seem to be accusing, Steve, in order to twist and manipulate her words but in order to gain as clear a picture as possible of the events of that day. I have often asked for points made by survivors to be clarified, only for these requests to be illustrated by your failure, Steve, to answer my question above. I do not believe my question is offensive or not worthy of an answer. It is, not unreasonably, a request for clarity on the final paragraph of your previous post since I do believe the only circumstances under which I will begin to accept that Islamic Extremists bombed London is if somebody such as yourself who clearly has an unaffected memory of that day, having (I assume from what you have previously written) suffered no head trauma or any kind of injury which would affect the memory, states categorically that they saw the men we have been told by the police are the 'suspects' actually committing the crime they are accused of perpetrating.

Those of us who are asking valid questions have them based, again, on the not unreasonable grounds that certain aspects of the story which were given as 'facts' simply cannot be true - the impossibility of the men catching the train from Luton that we were told they did being just one of these - and that the authorities giving us such information have been proven to have lied on many occasions before.

When I see people such as myself asking these questions referred to as 'bigots', 'armchair ghouls' and 'sick conspiracy theorists' I believe that to be just as ignorant and unfair as the tiny minority who have engaged with Rachel North and called her a government agent, shill, liar etc. I have never been anything but courteous to Rachel - she is the only survivor I have had contact with, but I would be just as courteous to any other survivor, and would explain, just I repeatedly explain to Rachel, exactly why I ask the questions that I do. Please see

as an example of this. It is not fair to tar all of those seen as 'opponents' with the same brush.

That is as far as I will refer to Rachel North on here, since I think it unfair to discuss someone who is not an actual participant in this debate. All I will say further is that I have no reason to believe that Rachel is not who she says she is, and that I have never twisted her words in order to make them fit into some pre-conceived idea I have about who is responsible for the atrocity in London.

Like I have said before...I cannot see how it is insulting to those who lost their lives and who suffered those horrific injuries to question whether or not we've been told the truth about who did it. Is it somehow more noble and less insulting to have died at the hands of Islamic Extremists than any other set of mass murderers? I'm not denying that the event happened, all I am saying is that, despite months of news reports and survivor accounts, I have not seen nearly enough to convince me that those men were the ones who did it. Whether or not people want to interpret that as me being a typical 'conspiracy theorist' and refusing to accept anything that doesn't fit in with what I want to believe, that is their choice. I don't want to believe anything. I haven't got a theory. I just want to see the truth.

steve said...

Hi all,

ok, I'll be polite and tell you why I'm not responding. It is because:

a) I simply don't have time, sorry to sound lazy.

b) I've already disected all the theories on the site of 'antagonist', whilst I was still in shock and had an unhealthy obsession with anything and everything July 7th related. I was 'Tony-Superior', infact I blew all theories out the water, except the lack of CCTV images, many of my points over on Antagonists blog remain completely uncontested, which I assume means everyone agreed.

Again sorry to sound lazy but I can't be bothered to do it all over again.


Anonymous said...

But your comments were contested. Perhaps even after your responses, the others, like me, felt that their original arguments still stood against what was subsequently said, and, like you are doing now, could not be bothered to repeat themselves. I certainly didn't respond to the suggestion that the timestamp on the CCTV camera outside Luton station could have been wrong. It's obviously a possibility but, if so, would render the use of CCTV in order to solve crimes completely pointless in that capacity and would, in turn, be inadmissable evidence of those mens' guilt. So my original point, I felt, was still valid and did not need quantifying in the face of that countering. So, please don't apologise for sounding 'lazy', since there were those of us clearly feeling the same.

By the way, I don't think it's 'unhealthy' for you to have an exclusive interest in an event which affect you so directly. I don't see why on earth you shouldn't. I wish you all the best in your continued recovery.

steve said...

Well, basically, being 22 (at the time) fairly immature and literally obsessed by EVERYTHING related I needed to step away. I realised that when I began discussing chemicals and explosives I had stupidly gone way too far and pulled away. As you may know from my blog I'm and industrial designer, I just happened to have done a years project on dry cleaning agents which I was presenting in London that week. It turned out this chemical was in many ways similar to what was used as an explosive (ironic and extremely frightening). I stupidly began talking about it from the chemical point of view, after all I had spent a year researching peroxides and their perfectly innocent cleaning applications. It was that point I stepped away.

Believe me it was unhealthy, literally every waking second was 7/7 related. I guess you've read my blog, I really need to step away even more so. And I am trying to, it's largely this which is deterring me from engaging into long debates about the details of that day with you guys. I am spending a lot of time as it is putting together testimonies, and all the other paperwork related to the incident. It is largely an issue of time.

So the reason I don't wish to debate it is because, I don't feel up to it, I don't have time and I want to leave the event behind as much as possible. Maybe this is more understandable.

And Kier in response to your question, no I didn't see anyone blow themselves up, but I know a man who did! I can't say anymore.


steve said...

And, not being funny but, you and "anonymous" had a go at me for not responding. So my lack of a response = lack of an argument. But your lack of a response = confirmation of a previous argument. Sorry but that is quite hipocritical I think.

Bridget said...

Steve Kier and Anonymous

Thank you all for the engaging discussion, and Steve, I can understand how tiring this must all be for you.

Before you go, you said:

'in fact I blew all theories out the water, except the lack of CCTV images'

I am just wondering what you make of the fact that these 4 young men couldn't have got on the train we are told they took and still boarded the underground trains?

I echo Kier's comment in wishing you well in your continuing recovery.

steve said...

I agree about the lack of evidence in the media. As a survivor I gather a lot of information from officials, senior officers and other survivors, all of it in confidence. I can't betray that confidence.

But, I know, and have seen it on the web posted by someone else (so i can mention it) that someone on my platform tried to board behind Lindsay, or at least someone matching his description. And, I can't say anymore than I know someone else who saw someone matching his description board in the spot of the (later confirmed) explosion.

I choose to side with the two eyewitnesses, and accept the fact that Lindsay (or someone matching his description) boarded our train and blew themselves up.

Anonymous said...

Steve - just to clarify. I'm sorry if I've come across as hypocritical. For my part, what I was saying in a previous post in this thread was that you did not respond to a direct question I asked, to which I could not see that you had made any previous reference. I wanted you to expand on a comment, in the same way that I would do for you.

I do see your point, but I hope you can understand what I'm saying here. I appreciate the answer, though, thank you. And I also, like Bridget, appreciate your time and patience.

I would disagree that you ever 'stupidly' said anything on the other comment thread. You had your reasons for what you said and why just like all of us. Please look after yourself & thank you again.

Bridget said...


One more time (with feeling!):

I am just wondering what you make of the fact that these 4 young men couldn't have got on the train we are told they took and still boarded the underground trains?


steve said...

They couldn't have got the train we are TOLD they took. Again, and for the LAST TIME, Luton is on the mainline from Glasgow to London. There are trains to London very regularly, several an hour. It is impossible for one of these trains not to have run on time. And seeing as the trains were delayed, so to would earlier ones, so they could have got an earlier one.

Why aren't we TOLD this?

Maybe these men are innocent. But seeing as their remains were found at the scene and I know 2 eyewitnesses who saw Lindsay this can't be true. Not to mention their indestructable ID and Khans suicide bomber style video. The evidence is pretty damning.

Maybe they are deliberately leaving the information out to distract thousands of conspiracy theorists from the real cause: the alienation of muslim youths in Britain, and UK foreign policy.

Maybe someone got it wrong. And it was repeatedly misreported due to incompetence.

I don't wish to debate any further. I'm too busy and can't keep talking about it.

Just a few farewell pointers:

1. If you don't agree with people who give personal abuse to survivors, don't associate with them. It reflects badly on you.

2. Respect the fact survivors can't repeat evidence we gain from police and survivors.

3. If you wish to be taken seriously set up your own website, preferably without people who direct lies and abuse.

4. Please don't post insensitive things suggesting a bus containing maimed people are all actors and stuntmen. The only reason Antagonist could have posted this was to be hurtful and insensitive, I and several other people are OFFENDED by it, PLEASE REMOVE IT!. If you agree with him you are equally sick and closed minded. If you don't agree... don't associate with him.

5. If you wish to investigate the truth of 7/7 so be it. But don't confuse it with anti-semitic remarks, or people who are anti-semitic, racist or islamophobic. Even if it isn't you saying these things, it reflects badly on you if you associate with them.

Good luck and farewell!


Bridget said...

Steve you said:

'There are people who already do this, they're called historians. They question the who/what/why/where and when of EVERY source.'

The MPS one week anninversary press release recapped the existing evidence. They stated on 13/7/05 that the device was placed by the first set of double doors on carriage one on the Piccadilly Line. This information has never been updated or corrected by them, so I presume historians who examine EVERY source may well find as many anomalies as those of us who are researching the evidence NOW.

In an age of mass media and communications, where these kinds of events are rehearsed (see operation Altlantic Blue, Osiris and the Panorama programme) it fails to make sense to me why so much information (or is that dis-information) is proving to be inaccurate or even downright false.

As for not associating with people who hold different views, my comments are open to everyone, and I have never seen anyone leave a racist remark. Neither have I ever deleted a comment, even threatening ones. I do strongly object to the use of the term 'islamofascism' though, much used by Bush. I can also distinguish betwen anti-semitic and anti-zionist views. None of which I have ever used or have found here.

The internet is (the last?) bastion of free speech and I hope it stays that way, threats are made by one survivor to use libel laws and the use of 'objectionable content' on blogger, both actions which I believe are beneath contempt.

We can choose which sites we visit and what we read, I am not responsible for the views of others only my own. Some I agree with and some I don't, that is the beauty of freedom of speech. I have been on the end of abuse and smears, it matters not, I am only interested in the truth and justice for ALL victims of 7th July.

I hope you change your mind and decide that these discussions are worthwhile, you seek closure, that I believe can only happen when the truth of what really happened and who is responsible has been revealed.

Anonymous said...

Re: lack of reply...

I can understand your need to step back Steve, but I can also understand kier's point that in fact, you may not have naswered the queriers sufficiently in order for those queriers to be dead and buried. I have been away for a few days which explains my lack of a response.

I think its fair to say at this point (especially seeing as you say you have countered antagonists points, that you simply dont buy into the idea of 7-7 was Tony Blair and Co. operation.

Thats kind of why I asked you to think aobut the surrounding circumstances. An incident in isolation is far easier to disbelieve than a concurrent and proveable theme. I recommend you try and learn something about the international banking system, its history, major players and monetary issues such as fractional reserve banking.

Taken as a whole, there are tens upon tens of major and utterly serious events that point to way to the powerholders using utterly corrupt means to exert control over their populations.

Even Russia. Research the "Ryazan incident"

I accept there will always be some people that will never accept these things. Sadly when the burdon of proof weights heavily against them, but thats people.

I believe with every bone in my body though, that it is only by learning about the atrocious methods and acts those who ask us for power on the understanding that they will serve us and the good of mankind, actually ar responsible for the mess this world is in today.

By realising what they do, we can stop it. ALL of us can live as we really wat to. In peace and harmony. We dont need these murderous villians "leading" us any more. Their time has passed. I hope we all be arm in arm as a result of disposing of these creatures of destruction.

Anonymous said...

Steve (March 24, 2006 11:41 PM) said:

"I agree about the lack of evidence in the media. As a survivor I gather a lot of information from officials, senior officers and other survivors, all of it in confidence. I can't betray that confidence."
Steve. Has the possiblilty that you are being 'played' by these people ever crossed your mind? LEts say these people were actually in a conspiracy to create a climate of fear in order to push Tony Blairs fascist agends through. Do you think they 'wouldn't' lie to you? These people would face your wrath and that othe the other suivors and the weight of the law.

There are declassified WW2 documents that show British agents blowing up facotirs during the war in order to blame Germany and creating the impression German agents were operating in Britain. Does this have any significance to you?

Anonymous said...

Steve. I forgot to include links into the British 9-11 prevented hoax, showing you that many Brits are indeed living in a deliberate hoax of fear.

Heres a feeder into the whole issue. Please research it.

'Al-Qaeda skyscraper plot foiled'


3) 11/


Just the top of the iceberg for you. Start researching the (non)incident from there.

Anonymous said...

Sorry. My posts are doing wild things. The link below:

is a good initial stepping stone into realising the lies the govt etc is telling you. They want you to live in fear. There damn successful too arnt they/ Its them that are making the fear.

Re: Witnesses:
When deMenezes was bruitally murdererd on 22/7/05, witnesses were quotes as saying that he had on a heavy (winter) coat" and that "wires were protruding from his coat" Both of these are lies. How can one explain them satisfactorily? The witnesses were government stooges. Doing all they could to justify this sadistic slaughter. I have no reason not to believe that there are similiar govt tooges amongst the 7-7 victims.