Skip to content or view screen version

7/21 Bombs As Plants?

Don't Fall for the PsyOps | 16.08.2005 19:43

Just wanted to repost this in light of the Government's story about the Brazillian electrician shot seven times in the head by a still-unidentified man falling apart.

Like the 7/7 bombings, the more we learn, the more suspicious this becomes, and the more the story shifts. Who profits?

Bombs As Plants?
Notes on Yesterday's "Incidents"

Since none of 7/21's devices exploded, despite their detonators being triggered, and the LIAR Blair says that this stroke of luck will provide investigators with forensic evidence which will help to identify the culprits, does it not stand to reason that these were possibly intended as plants? It seems that care went into ensuring that nobody was hurt, but that this "orgy of evidence" was left for investigators.

The devices used on 7/7 contained military explosives, but much work has gone into flushing that fact down the Memory Hole, as seen in the "Egyptian Chemist" fable. 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.

No CCTV footage caught the bombers in the act, and we're supposed to believe what a pack of LIARS say, again without any independently-verifiable evidence, as was the case with "911".

7/21's devices were potentially left behind by someone eager to frame a certain target, and point investigators in a specific direction, possibly towards one of the PNAC target countries.

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. It also seems to fit, given the complete lack of evidence to support the many recent Conspiracy Theories put forth by the Bliar Government.

(His recent willingness to sidestep the Courts, and attain for himself powers which they had denied him for four years seems to answer the question, "Who Profits?".)

If it turns out that the "evidence" provided by these devices point to Iran, Syria, or some other "enemy du jour", I simply would hope that people will THINK about today, before they rush to believe what a pack of proven LIARS wants them to think, without any other compelling or independently-verifiable (unplantable) evidence.

Especially if those LIARS attempt to use this as an excuse to wage another war that they've already got planned and at the ready. The Bush/PNAC Regime has already drafted a policy stating that they will respond to another "terrorist attack" by attacking Iran - possibly with tactical nuclear weapons, thuis detroying the evidence disproving the Regime's LIES about Iran's weapons - even if no evidence points to Iranian involvement.

"Ignore the Downing Street Minutes and the LIES which created an illegal war of aggression for profit, Karl Rove/Dick Cheney's TREASONOUS leaking of a covert CIA operative, Israeli spies discovered in the Pentagon's Office of Special Plans and AIPAC's involvement, and increasing calls for IMPEACHMENT, investigation, and prosecution. Look over THERE!! and keep your eyes on 'ze terrorists'. Can't see them? Trust us, they're everywhere ..."


Experts hail 'forensic goldmine'

As the search for evidence continues after Thursday's London blasts, experts feel the unexploded devices will provide a wealth of clues.
 http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4705939.stm

I saw Tube man shot - eyewitness

"He half tripped... they pushed him to the floor and basically unloaded five shots into him," he told BBC News 24.

"As [the suspect] got onto the train I looked at his face, he looked sort of left and right, but he basically looked like a cornered rabbit, a cornered fox.

"He looked absolutely petrified and then he sort of tripped, but they were hotly pursuing him, [they] couldn't have been any more than two or three feet behind him at this time and he half tripped and was half pushed to the floor and the policeman nearest to me had the black automatic pistol in his left hand.

"He held it down to the guy and unloaded five shots into him.
 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4706913.stm

Why would the police shoot an unarmed man, AFTER they had apprehended him? Perhaps he saw something he shouldn't have?

U.S. Nuclear Weapons Being “Guarded” by Israel
American supporters of Israel were delighted to learn that an Israeli company, Magal Security Systems—owned in part
by the government of Israel—is in charge of security for the most sensitive nuclear power and weapons storage
facilities in the United States.
 http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/nukesguardedbyisrael.html

Staging an Attack to Fix the Coverup of Another
By Impatient
This latest “attack” is supposed to correct some faults in the first without causing further mayhem.

What has given them the most trouble with the first attack? Their choice of patsies.

They assumed that a loose Muslim connection would be enough to persuade everyone that these lads from Leeds were suicide bombers. But rather than clinch it for the planners, it backfired and the most common and reasonable question that everyone has about the suicide bomber fiction was invoked: How could young men who were not religious fanatics, who were educated, decent fellows, with loving families, and bright futures – how could they kill themselves and others?

Another unforeseen problem was the effusive praise coming from Efraim Halevi that described the London bombings as “near-perfect”. Too many people could not get a picture in their minds of four young men with rucksacks able to so perfectly execute simultaneous bombings. It caused doubts that have not been quelled. Too many people saw the hand of the Mossad and its affiliates in the earlier bombing because the four “bombers with rucksacks” did not evoke the necessary sophisticated timing, operational capacity, and scope.

The latest “attack” is supposed to reaffirm that young men with rucksacks are perfectly capable of a simultaneous triggering of devices, a demonstrable fearlessness in the face of death, and a disregard for the lives of others, even women with babies.

Because all four bombs malfunctioned this time round, it tells us that the bombers are not the Mossad or any other intelligence agency because 100% malfunction is very unprofessional, it may mean that their first bombing was just good luck, not expertise.

While the rucksacks in the first bombing have not turned up, this new bombing tells us once again that four young men carried bomb-laden packs aboard the trains and [would have] died when they detonated.

The investigation has not proceeded methodically. The whole question of how the bombing was done and who did it was effectively squelched when they began looking for the needle in the haystack – the CCTV films. Without knowledge of the type of bombs, their power, placement, and detonation, there could be absolutely no reason to begin looking at CCTV tapes. They could not know what to look for without the certainty that the bombs were carried on, and not placed beforehand.

It is significant that of all the thousands of hours of CCTV tape they have examined, the only tape they seem to have of the young men from Leeds does not come from London at all! In the pictures we have seen the lads are in Luton, 25 minutes away. Unless they can show us the “bombers” going their separate ways and boarding three or four different trains I will not believe that the young men ever made it to London. Seeing them together at Luton means nothing if they cannot be placed getting on the trains at exactly the right time to take them the right distance from King’s Cross before they explode.

In the case of the 7/7 bombings, going straightaway to the video tapes was very premature and irrational. It can only mean that they knew what they would find because they had planted the "evidence". It makes no sense to begin looking at thousands of hours of video tape from as far away as Luton without any idea of what you are looking for. What could it be? Rucksacks, packages, briefcases, baby strollers, gym bags? Suspicous looking people of a certain race? And remember that the first story was that at least 24 people had been involved.

What would be the motivation to look at the tapes from Luton? Did they also look at tapes from video cameras at the airports and bus stations? It would seem to be just as reasonable to look at those tapes as looking at Luton. And why is the Luton tape the only tape?

Luton is interesting because an office of ICTS (the Israeli security firm) is about a mile from a Thameslink station. ICTS is actually located in the Luton and Dunstable NHS Hospital. It seems a little odd for this firm that handles security for the Stansted airport would be located at the Hospital.

Just like the problem with 9/11 and Madrid - there were no hijackers and no bombers to film. They tried to get around that on 7/7 by getting some patsies to photograph. They did not leave it to chance, for those picked had to be disposed of as though they had been killed in the blasts.

Don't Fall for the PsyOps

Comments

Hide the following 29 comments

still a load of paranoid poo!

16.08.2005 21:09

...

magoo


Name-Calling Is Childish

17.08.2005 00:56

In a time such as this, it is the man who maintains a healthy dose of paranoia who protects his sanity. Or did you forget about the whole "Iraq has WMD!!!" thing.

Until the missing evidence is presented, which proves the Bliar Gov'ts Conspiracy Theory, I will keep asking questions, thank-you very much.

We'll see where the "evidence" left behind that day points ...

Sane


"Sane"

17.08.2005 06:59

Ad infinitum ad nauseum...

Again does one lie make everything possible. And no paranoia by definition is never healthy.

This crap helps no-one.

magoo


just a point...

17.08.2005 11:34

ther have been absolutely NO videotapes whatsoever released of the alleged bombers.
One extremely suspect image purporting to show the four young men from Leeds arriving at a deserted Luton station. We can only presume that all of the cameras at Kings Cross Thameslink and mainline stations were not functioning that day. Bwahaha...Crimewatch does it better.
Magoo, you are a professional..please tell us why no evidence of these men alive at, or even vaguely near, the crime scene has been produced for us to swallow....if you can.

trollbait


FAO: Master Bait

17.08.2005 12:20

I have demonstarted that there is NOTHINg dubious about that still at Luton. You reveal yourself as a techno idiot for understanding why a composite couldn't produce what is being alleged.

I don't know why other footage hasn't been released, and neither do you! There are a million possibilities but you choose on the ones that suit your paranoid prejudice.

That's YOUR problem, not mine.

You're still a fraud and a liar.

magoo


All rubbish, no facts

17.08.2005 12:39

The author of this knows next to nothing about Leeds, Luton, London, Kings Cross or the Tube. It's rubbish.

What exactly is a 'baby stroller' anyway?

Paul


Speculation, Speculation, Speculation

17.08.2005 12:44

This article actually doesn't say anything, apart from maybe the bombs that failed to go off on 21st July were planted by someone... hold the front page!

Is it really news?

Speculator


"Cui bono?" still no more valid than it was two weeks ago

17.08.2005 16:07

Mr Psyops, is it the reading or the understanding that troubles you the most?

Just in case you'd forgotten:

2. Abuse of cui bono? / who benefits? / who profits? (inferring behaviour from motive)

Example: "Who Profits?... Wonder who carried out the attacks"

Asking "who profits?" with a nod and a wink, and with the implication that those that benefit most are the instigators of something is not and has never been a useful way of understanding politics.

Firstly, cui bono is an investigative technique used by people like the police when drawing up a list of possible suspects for a crime. It applies to individuals and small groups. It does not apply to large organisations and the workings of states and governments, which have very different dynamics. It is not a technique used in political analysis. Everyone with an education in politics and/or law knows this. PsyOps appears not to.

Even if the actions of a large organisation or government may be in themselves criminal, cui bono still does not apply. It does not apply to individuals occupying powerful organisational positions, either. Characterising Tony Blair as an individual with criminal/selfish intent is not relevant. He may have all kinds of sinister personal motives, but his power derives from his office and is exercised through it. A greedy cousin bumping off a relative to profit from their will is not meaningfully similar to a government organising a terrorist outrage to justify repression. To think that it might be is woefully reductionistic.

Secondly, even where cui bono applies (in cases of individuals/small groups and crimes), it has never been the case that those with the most to benefit are the prime suspects. It is an investigative technique for drawing up a shortlist, nothing else. Inferring motives is difficult. The true culprit may well not be on that shortlist.

Thirdly, cui bono is not an element of evidence and cannot be presented as such in a court. To prove a case in court, you have to show that someone did something, not just that they benefitted (or thought they would benefit) from doing something. Motivation matters to an extent, but in itself proves nothing. Several people may have a good motive for a crime but that doesn't mean that any one of them committed it, or that the person with the (apparently) strongest motive was most likely to commit it.

The processes of investigation (gathering evidence) and prosecution (testing the validity of evidence) are different. If you insist on using cui bono inappropriately in a political context, it no more benefits your case than in would in a criminal trial context.

Fourthly, in respect of governments and large organisations, they are particularly skilled at playing any situation to their advantage. It is largely this skill that brings certain politicians and parties into power. Seizing an opportunity and milking it for all its worth is not the same as creating an opportunity either by lawful or criminal means.

Asking "cui bono?" in a political context is a classic sign of the conspiracy theorist who chooses their conclusion first and then goes looking for evidence to support it. Credible political analysts do not do this.

Recommendation: Try presenting evidence that suggests that someone did something, rather than alluding to who might have had a motive for doing something. "Who benefits?" in itself proves nothing.

Zorro


Paul

17.08.2005 16:09

It's a pram to you and me.

magoo


calm, calm, calm.. magoo

17.08.2005 16:34

just a question it was. nothing put forward except the complete lack of evidence that shows the men at the scene of the crime. When you froth at the mouth, I do wonder... As it happens the police distanced themselves from the claim that the men were 'captured' at KC. This triumph was trumpeted by an unconfirmed 'security source' and now the hard of thinking like yourself seem to take it as gospel. I am simply reserving acceptance of their guilt, that's all. Try counting to ten before shooting off.

trollbait


Focus Still Interesting

17.08.2005 18:38

Zorro the Troll/Spook: "Recommendation: Try presenting evidence that suggests that someone did something, rather than alluding to who might have had a motive for doing something."

I hope that you will direct this comment to the Bliar Government, who have yet to present any sort of compelling evidence to support their Conspiracy Theories about what's happened, even though they have already profited from their version of events, seizing for themselves powers that the courts had denied them for four years.

And "who profits?" is the most important question to ask, according to terrorism and anti-terrorism experts. Intelligence agencies have a long and bloody history of using False Flag Attacks to frame a desired military target, and we're dealing with Neo-Fascists, who have already LIED to us in order to start illegal wars for profit, and attempt to disguise their Naked Aggression.

On 7/7, a "previously-unknown group" claimed these attacks in the name of the all-purpose villain, "al CIAeda". This was traced back to a website in Maryland, and even the FBI has stated several times over the past three years that "previously unknown groups" are usually Fronts for intelligence agencies.

And it is just a taaaaad suspicious that the same Israeli security company, made up of "former" Mossad ("By Way Of Deception, Thou Shalt Do War") agents, that provided security for the airports allegedly used on 911, is the same one contracted last year to provide security for the London Underground. In both cases, video surveillance footage was not presented to support the Government's Conspiracy Theory - which was used to launch a war against Israel's enemies.






Where's The Evidence?


Whey-hey

17.08.2005 20:36

Well done Zorro - you've won the argument when PsychoOops starts calling you a spook or troll, and (as ever) fails to substanitate his hypotheses.

By the way, a "baby stroller" isn't so much a pram as one of these wee McLaren type pushchairs - what we in the woolly north would call a "buggy".

Paranoid Pete


That's No Response

18.08.2005 05:48

Just because you Become Indignant (Disinformation) doesn't mean you are not what I've suggested. In fact, your own behaviour and focus here gives you away.

Doesn't hide the fact that you can't address the subject, however ...

You do concede that the Conspiracy Theories created by the people who brought us "Iraq has WMD!!!" (who've profited from the attacks), in regards to 7/7/21 remain unproven, don't you? I mean, there is so much of the independently-verifiable evidence missing, that we are again being asked to simply take their word for it, and look the other way.

Now, it turns out they were lying about Menenez, too ...

A For Effort


PsyOps: Still waiting!

18.08.2005 11:56

 http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2005/08/320652.html

Prove your allegations!

___


This whole pile of shit has been thrashed through before and you were revealed as disinforming bufoon the last time!

Nothing less than a ScoobyDoo style revelation of Bush & Blair caught inflagranti planting bombs dressed as arabs and concluding with a public execution is going to proof/justice enough for loons like you!

The London bombings are still under investigation. I have seen no compoelling evidence it was anything other than Islamic extremist terrorism. You have offered nothing but rubbish copy&pasted from commercial conspiracy sites like Infowars/Prisonplanet and amateur paranoid "analysis" of the mainstream media- with NO regard for sources or the sources' bias. You put everything anyone says into the mouths of the "conspirators" when you have no evidence they are responsible for it.

In short, you are a lying paranoid bigot who desperately wishes to appear like some superior talented intelligent analyst cum sleuth, an insecurity so deep that you throw tantrums when challenged and start bandying about baseless accusations. You post in multiple names, others' names and post agreements to your own posts. Your overarching character flaw is that you are a habitual liar.

If you REALLY believe the crap you post here you need professional help, because you are living on Planet Icke.





magoo


evidence & proof ...

19.08.2005 12:12

... are not the same thing.

Very few classes of info fall into the 'provable' catagory.

What's left is, sifting the evidence through various models and dicriminating filters.

In terms of nations reacting to events that are given the full 'crisis' treatment - ie acts of provokation, sabotage & terrorism - how many in the history of the last 100 years have been the result of of the 'riechstag' manouver?

These nations, after being led by the patriotic/religious/tribal nose into wars, how have they fared? [hint: count the dead]

Who has got rich in this process?

Funny how the same old names keep coming up in answer to the last question innit?

Do you believe in bushs war?

Do you believe that bush is capable of formulating or executing anything more complex than a damp prezel?

So who's ,making the running?

Do you subscribe to the bliar philosophy, an adjunct to the neocon war on terra?

Whats left?

A series of accidents and domagtic blunders - that, coincidently, enriched all the same old same old?

Perhaps it is a success and, now, we are all safer, enoying greater freedoms than ever ... the people of iraq have united behind a strong friend and liberal democratic leader and those millions of grieving survivors are content to have things work they way back up to the level they used to be ... over a period of 10-15 years ... with their own money loaned back top them ... africa is rejoicing the generously worded relief package and is working hard to fullfill all those conditionalities as fast as the transnationals can bank them ...

Lets not talk about the environment and the missed opportunity to pump $billions of dollars into terra saving alternative energies instead of into a war that only promises to increase either death though violence or death through global warming ...

... and the same old names run and own the fossel fuel infrastructure ...

But they would never hurt us, never betray our trust in their judgement ...

magoo for president

jackslcuid
mail e-mail: jackslucid@hotmail.com


Well actually

19.08.2005 12:41

I would make a better president than you and your hippie soap dodging arab loving scum anyday.

Go and worship at the alter of icke & rense if you must, I'll stick to normal channels.

magoo


Gee ...

19.08.2005 13:15

... I hope you are not attempting to focus on personalities again, instead of answering ANY of the questions put?

... but then again, why wouldn't you?

jackslucid
mail e-mail: jackslucid@hotmail.com


Well actually...

19.08.2005 15:21

that was some tit posting as me again... wow, this gets more & more exciting.

the REAL mcgoo


which bit

19.08.2005 16:34

The stupid bit or the rude bit?

Boab


Magoo

19.08.2005 17:10

Okay dude, I'll come clean. I had no real way of proving that those people were spooks. But I hate people that are cleverer than me, and have better arguments than my montonous ramblings, so I got my mates to ban them.

I've been pissing people off for years all over the Internet with obsessive posts about Zionist conspiracies. I also post heavily all over international IMC sites.

I apologise to everyone I have called a spook, a troll or a crossdresser.

Also, I'm not really a professional journalist. I HAVE written a couple of things for Candian rags, but it isn't really a profession... I don't have time for that when I'm posting obsessively about Zionist conspiracies and PNAC.

See, the thing is I think that I know better than everyone and sometimes that means I get very rude and do really childish things like pretend to be someone else when I'm posting without so much as a thought that I can easily traced on the Internet without even breaking the law hahahahahah!

Jordan Thornton a.k.a. PsyOps
mail e-mail: pilgrim112@hotmail.com


hey!

19.08.2005 18:25

I didn't post the "rude bit" message. I'm touched. My first stalker.....

Baob


... so ...

19.08.2005 18:41

... all that you and your mates can acheive is to disrupt with - not very funny - childish pranks on each other ...

... seems like the questions will go unanswered [by you] ... but remain pertinant for those who can see through your piss poor attempts to recapitulate to propaganda technics:

Disrupt
Divert
Digress

Shallow fool.

jackslucid
mail e-mail: jackslucid@hotmail.com


Cowards

19.08.2005 20:18

Wow, just the fact that the Spooks here would go so far as to post something using my name displays their desperation and dishonesty. What a cowardly display. You do know that in acting in such a manner, you've destroyed what credibility you felt you still had ...

All the attention you've shown me the past few weeks only strengthens my belief in my version of events, and since you cannot produce any evidence to support the Conspiracy Theories of the LIARS you're here protecting, I think some investigation is warranted.

Jordan


Jordan

19.08.2005 20:28

Pot calling the kettle black as far as I'm concerned. You were the one that started the stupid name stealing games. Yeah, it's a shit thing to do all right, but I live by the ethos "one bad turn deserves another!"

Now, just think of the damage I *could* have done since I know all the places you post now! But, I didn't. I blatantly posted it where the to-do was happening and made it obvious it wasn't really you. Just bear that in mind!

I'm not a spook. I just thought like a linguist. Anyone here could have found that info, which is also worth bearing in mind for the future.

That's an end to the name games if you are agreeable?

;-)

Magoo


BTW Jordan

19.08.2005 20:42

Before you go asking your mates at IMC for any info on me, you should familiarise yourself with this  http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1998/19980029.htm they'll already be well aware of it. And there are a few other legal bits'n'bobs should you be foolhardy enough to ignore that.

The info I got on you was, as you know, already in the public domian, so you are quite welcome to raise enquiries about me with the UK police.

Nitey nite liar!

Magoo (not a spook, just a lateral thinker)


Yeah. Whatever.

20.08.2005 04:00

Your childish behaviour has already told me pretty much all I need to know about you.

Just because you've Become Indignant, doesn't mean that you are not a Spook.

And like I said, Ad Hominem Attacks simply don't hide your intellectual emptiness.

You do concede that the recent Conspiracy Theories brought to us by the same people who said "Iraq has WMD!!!" and "He jumped the barricade and resisted arrest in his heavy jacket!!!" are still unsupported by compelling and independently-verifiable evidence, don't you?

Sad Disinformation


PsyOps

20.08.2005 08:17

I'll agree that in regards to Stockwell there is much starting smell bad and things don't look good for Ian Blair (Tany's irritating sock puppet).

You keep framing that question so badly. To answer the question I have to agree that there is some unspecified conspiracy theory : signing a blank cheque.

I disgaree that that 7/7 & 21/7 were a profit to anyone except al qaeda and bicycle manufacturers (perhaps Raghleigh sponsor Zionism?).

I may have agreed with a lot more of your concerns if they weren't based on the fundamental notion that this is all a Zionist/PNAC conspiracy.

I know that we were lied to about WMD, I knew before the "45 mins" speech or the "Downing Street Memos" that was the case. The intel sources were acknowledged to be a joke (rent-a-witness) long before that.

Again, you load a statement: why does the fact they lied about WMD mean that everything else you accuse them of must be true? I don't understand that logical step.

My mind is open regarding some sort of cullusion RE: 9/11, but not convinced either way. I don't really believe that this is all phony.

Do I believe that the government are looking out for our best interests and would never hurts us. Do I fuck!!!

 http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2005/08/321545.html

Put your money where you mouth is then. I did.

I want to see these lying shits in the dock too. But I care about justice enough to see them prosecuted for REAL crimes.

I don't have to stoop to propaganda to attack them. Their actions alone are enough.

Do I believe, that the police, intelligence and the army could be made to comply with a conspiracy you are suggesting? No. Not in this country at this point in time.

Can you find individuals in any organistion that can be corrupted and manipulated. Yup, that is after all what intelligence assets are all about.

I don't believe the madia can any longer pull off great deceptions that will go unnoticed. WMD being a case in point- it turned out to be a total shables for the government. I am just baffled however that no-one here cites the absurd Ricin Factory coverup. Now there IS hard evidence of Downig Street manipulating the public.

All I can see so far is the manipulation of the population on to events. If anyone can show me compelling evidence of otherwise, I'll take it serious. No-one has thus far.

All you are doing is plugging the gaps in info with suppostion. You aren't leaking photos of Abu Ghraib or documents from the US DoD or dimplomatic correspondence. You are citing one wrong as proof of another.

I KNOW governments do bad things and that politicians are pathalogical liars (usually bad ones), I'm not blind. I just don't believe in fitting ANYONE up because I know they are guily of something else.

Your baseless accusations serve only to make a mockery of IM. It's designed to stamp out dissent. Which makes me see you and your ilk as part of the problem and not the solution.

Do you really want an IM that is just full of bigots all attributing their woes to their usual scapegoats?

It's a shame the Iron Curtain came down. You could've defected to the East.

Commonadante Magoo


Focus Still Interesting

21.08.2005 20:20

"I'll agree that in regards to Stockwell there is much starting smell bad and things"

You mean the LIES told about how an innocent man was shot seven times in the head.

"You keep framing that question so badly."

Not at all.

"To answer the question I have to agree that there is some unspecified conspiracy theory"

Bliar's unproven Conspiracy Theory is not unpsecified. He wants us to believe that "al CIAeda" suicide bombers were responsible for the recent attacks, but won't show any evidence to prove it.

"I disgaree that that 7/7 & 21/7 were a profit to anyone"

So then, you aren't aware of the new powers Bliar assumed for himself, that had been denied him by the courts for four years, the newly-stoked fears of a "foreign enemy", or the Distraction from Iraq, Iraq LIES/Downing Street, the Pentagon/Israeli spy scandal, Karl Rove/Valerie Plame, etc?

"I may have agreed with a lot more of your concerns if they weren't based on the fundamental notion that this is all a Zionist/PNAC conspiracy."

They aren't. They are based upon the fact that no evidence has been presented to support the Conspiracy Theories - which are then used to pursue the aggressive and deadly PNAC agenda of military aggression.

"I know that we were lied to about WMD, I knew before the "45 mins" speech or the "Downing Street Memos" that was the case. The intel sources were acknowledged to be a joke (rent-a-witness) long before that."

Then why would you EVER give these men the benefit of the doubt without the appropriate evidence or investigation? You know what they are capabale of, and why.

"Again, you load a statement: why does the fact they lied about WMD mean that everything else you accuse them of must be true?"

It doesn't. I never said it does. What I said was that their already-exposed LIES should lead us to question everything they say from now on until they are removed from power or they prove what they claim to be true.

Your need to manipulate that again betrays your purpose here.

"Do I believe, that the police, intelligence and the army could be made to comply with a conspiracy you are suggesting? No. Not in this country at this point in time."

This is a typical Disinfo response. By way of the Chain of Command, it doesn't take all that much, and if you truly believe there aren't thousands of people willing to carry out covert activities in service to this agenda, then you, my firend, are very uninformed about our nasty history, and very naive.

"I don't believe the madia can any longer pull off great deceptions that will go unnoticed."

Indeed they cannot, and they are well aware of this. But until people start being held to account for these crimes, they will continue to try, and voice the official line.

"If anyone can show me compelling evidence of otherwise, I'll take it serious. No-one has thus far."

But nobody has shown you anything to the contrary either, and it certainly fits a certain pattern, wouldn't you agree? Demanding Impossible Proofs is Disinformation. All I'm asking for is open and independent investigations which explore all possibilities.

And then your Ad Hominem BS simply shows you to be a Plant.

Now that I've addressed your canards, all you need to do is give me a yes or no answer.

You do concede that at this point, Bliar's Conspiracy Theories about 7/7/21 are still unsupported by compelling and independently-verifiable evidence, do you not?

It's a simple question ...

Don't Fall for the PsyOps


PstOps still prevaricating

22.08.2005 07:15

"And then your Ad Hominem BS simply shows you to be a Plant."

And you lack of substance to allegations shows you to be a fraud and a liar!

"You do concede that at this point, Bliar's Conspiracy Theories about 7/7/21 are still unsupported by compelling and independently-verifiable evidence, do you not?

It's a simple question ..."

No, it's bloody not! And I have answered it twice! I don't have fucking clue what you mean by "conspiracy theories". Do you mean that "al qaeda" did it? I can see a damn site more out there to support it than "mossad did it!!!"

So, no I don't concede that the London Attacks are a PNAC/Zionist conspiracy. Because I haven't seen ANY evidence.

I do however know that any government will always try to turn any situation around to fit its agenda.

The "proofs" aren't impossible. Why do you think they are? Because they don't fit your dogma? Proof would be a collection of documents, forensics, witness testimonies that could demonstrate culpability beyond reasonable doubt. I don't see Aled Jones et al having anything more than rumours and disinformation.

"But nobody has shown you anything to the contrary either..." WOW, you FINALLY fucking get it Sherlock. I thought you'd never get close: Thanks for pointing out I am endorsing NEITHER version of events!

Now are you finally going to fuck off with all this "spook" bullshit since I have demonstrated you are a liar?


Magoo