How many more times are links to the repository of credulous crap known as the 'what really happened' site going to be posted. It is as bad as 'Prison Planet' - fourth rate rumours, anonymous sources and wild speculation without any grounding in fact does not constitute 'evidence'

How many more times are links to the repository of credulous crap known as the mainstream media going to be posted. It is as bad as the x files' - fourth rate rumours, anonymous sources and wild speculation without any grounding in fact does not constitute 'evidence'
looking for real evidence



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To the Spook who posted the first comment: The issue of bombs as plants is of own making, not someone else's. I am a journalist, and have worked in both the US and Canadian media.

If you'd like to address the issue at hand, I'm all ears, and if not, I'll take your DISINFORMATION to mean that you are not able to do this.

The stories coming out of No. 10 and DC are just that, Conspiracy Theories, unsupported by evidence.

>>Karl Rove/Dick Cheney's TREASONOUS leak of a CIA operative

What's all this right wing drivel about "treason"?

>>does it not stand to reason that these were possibly intended as plants?

Er, no, not really. In fact it's an enormous leap.

>>The devices used on 7/7 contained military explosives

Who says?

>>The police used explosives in the apartment of one of the people being blamed for 7/7, >>thus contaminating the scene, then tarped the area off entirely.

Sorry, which order of events is that? Taped off the area *after* carrying out controlled explosions, or before? And how do you know?

>>No CCTV footage caught the bombers in the act

Who *says* there's no CCTV footage? How do you *know*?

>>and we're supposed to believe what a pack of LIARS say

Well, all politicians lie, but we know they lie because we have actual evidence to the contrary. They certainly misled the public on Iraq, but fundamentally that was just about gaining support, they've been perfectly honest about wanting regime change it seems to me.

>>again without any independently-verifiable evidence

Um, what about all the people on the trains?

We certainly do want evidence. When you feel like supplying some, I'll be listening.

>>It feels as if today's devices were left behind by someone eager to frame a certain target

Oh, it "feels" like that, does it? But do you have any actual *reasons* for this feeling?

>>possibly towards one of the PNAC target countries.

At least we can see if this comes true or not.

>>I'm not saying that I know this for a fact, it simply fits a certain pattern and tactic which >>HAS been employed in the past.

To be honest, I can't recall anything that would resemble what you're suggesting. Ever. Even during the darkest days of the Irish situation.

But I'm glad you're not claiming you actually know anything about any of this at all.

Chatterton

The fact that you think I am a 'spook' merely becuase I question this conspiracy theory nonsense is indicative of the delusional world you live in. I am an acaemic not a government agent - so how about you provide some solid incontrovertible proof that the explosives used on 7/7 were of military origin (as you boldly state) and I mean real forensic evidence, not just some early speculations quoted in the press

I did post a response, but it does not seem to have appeared. If you wish to discuss the evidence, please indicate to me how you can boldly claim that military explosives were used in the 7/7 attacks. I am aware that early speculations in the mainstream media did mention that they may have been military exposives but this was subsequently dropped (and as Antispam points out, the mainstream media is not to be trusted at all, so why would we take these statements to be any more valid than any other?).

Now, you seem to think that becuase these early speculations were dropped in subsequent reports that this is indicative of some sort of cover up. I, on the other hand, see this as no-one in the early aftermath of the bombings, having much a real clue about what had gone on. So, please could you provide me with conclusive proof (outside of a few press quotes) that military explosives were definitely used in the 7/7 explosions.

PS. Questioning this so called 'evidence' does no ipso facot make me a 'spook', merely a skeptic

International investigators reported immediately that tests had proven the presence of military explosives, and the Government said that this was their "al Qaeda" link. Then, of course, the official story shifted, conceivably because there was this plan to leave behind explosives that would trace back to some target countries.

I called you "spook" because many, many Spooks have been positively ID'ed across the IndyMedia spectrum, and your Disinformation is no different from theirs.

Again, if you'd like to discuss the article in question, I'm all ears.

"Chatterton", investigate the "Lavon Affair". Yes, this is a Tactic which has been employed in the past, moreso by some intelligence services than others. Pay attention to who still supports/drives the Aggression/Neo-Fascism of the Bliar/Bush/Howard/PNAC Alliance, and I'm sure you'll see what I mean.

Questioning your sources and information does not amount to 'disinformation' in my book and you still have not provided any evidence that military explosives were used, beyond making a statement that international investigators have confirmed that this was the case. An assertion is not proven fact. Where did they say this?, where is this evidence? Moreover how did they ascertain this was the case so quickly from the crime scenes? What forensic traces of the explosives used were left behind at the original blast scenes?

No, I identified your Disinformation as such, and the sources you mentioned are not my sources. I wrote the article. I simply linked to a resource which is usually pretty good at keeping tabs on the MSM, and in particular, the ever-shifting Official Conspiracy Theory.

Look at the reports from 7/7 and 7/8. The stories about military explosives had not been actively killed yet.

You claim you want reasoned argument not disinformation yet in what way is my questioning of your assertions not reasoned?, I am merely asking for concrete evidence for your bold assertions and, as far as I can see, such concrete proof does not yet exist.

For your information I have looked at the ‘whatreallyhappened’ website in question. With respect to military explosives, you seem to be referring to articles such as the following, which I found there:

 http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2005-07-11T122706Z_01_N11466902_RTRIDST_0_NEWS-SECURITY-BRITAIN-INTELLIGENCE-DC.XML

Where Christophe Chaboud states that the explosives ‘appear’ to have been of military origin. That one word may seem trivial to you but does seem to indicate that he was merely making an educated guess on the evidence available to him at the time. There is no mention of forensic tests being completed on the bomb sites to reinforce this supposition. As such, this does not constitute a statement of definite proof as to the origins of the explosives. Notice in the same article the ‘a senior London police spokesman said the explosives were still being examined and there was no confirmation that they were military in origin. "We are waiting for the forensic tests," he said.’

Indeed, I am keeping an open mind about the explosives used in the attack, but you, on the other hand, seem to have made up your mind long ago – no ‘may have beens’ included in your postings with respect to the explosives used.

You seem to know more than the experts examining the scenes of the explosions:

 http://www.hindu.com/thehindu/holnus/003200507201715.htm

As of today, there was still no definitive word on the explosives used:

 http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05206/543235.stm

Though speculation continues in the various media:


 http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7682&feedId=online-news_rss20


 http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/07/15/london.attacks/?section=cnn_topstories

My question to you is, how can you be so sure that the early reports are accurate, and the later ones crap? (or part of a cover-up) On what do you base this supposition?, beyond the fact that you want the latter to be true because it fits with your pre-conceived notion of a conspiracy.

In what way do your postings on this subject transcend the so called 'disinformation'


I do not consider this to be an unreasonable question.

I am responding, actually, to the complete LACK of evidence to support the Government's Conspiracy Theory, and simply trying to fathom that if their story is NOT true - as the case would appear - then what would the most likely scenario then be, given the people we're dealing with, their histories, their known agenda, and what's happening.

Demanding Impossible Proofs is Disinformation, so no, I can't point you to forensic tests. What I'm commenting on is the Government's shifting position on the devices. They first claimed that international investigators (they never say where they're from) found military explosives, and the Bliar Regime then claimed that this was their 'al Qaeda link'.

Then, they claimed that an Egyptian had made the bombs. Then it turned out that the Egyptian in question was innocent, but of course, that news was quietly retracted, while the initial allegations were SHOUTED at the public, complete with pictures of an arrest. No doubt some still believe this to be the case, as I'm certain this was the reason for the charges in the first place.

Remember, these are the same people who swore on a stack of bibles that Saddam Hussein and his vast arsenal of WMD were a dire threat to Britain, the US, and ultimately, the world. All the while, they knew full well that their story was "bollocks".

It would also seem as if the explosives story had shifted because there was a plan in place to leave last week's devices behind, to provide investigators with the evidence they need to finger "ze terrorists", and wage war on more innocent people of Arab descent, as the wider PNAC agenda demands.