/** Tools */

20 September 2006

If links back to UK or US sources are revealed

"All the world is a stage, and all the men and women merely players. They have their exits and entrances; each man in his time plays many parts."

"Dealing with Islamist extremism, the messages are more complex, the constituencies we would aim at are more difficult to identify, and greater damage could be done to the overall effort if links back to UK or US sources were revealed."

- William Ehrman
Director General (Defence & Intelligence), FCO

The stage for the the war on terror was once again set in that most unlikely of places, East London.

East London's Forest Gate recently featured in the news, as part of the global anti-Islamic witchhunt, when 250 of Reid's armed State bootboys raided the home of Abul Kahar Kalam and Abul Koyair Kalam, 'accidentally' shooting Abul Kahar Kalam in the chest while doing so. The raid had been instigated by 'intelligence' which even the 'torturers-R-US' 'intelligence' services in the United Mistakes of America would have discounted, owing to it having been passed by a mentally challenged MI5 informant with an IQ of just 69.

Both of the Kalam brothers have since been released without charge.

Today Leyton, less than a mile from the Forest Gate shooting, played host to the British Home Secretary, Dr John Reid, who made an appearance in order to 'challenge British Muslims to come forward with information about suspected terrorists', urging parents to "look for the tell-tale signs" of radicalisation in their children. Brainwashing against brainwashing.

Half way through Herr Dr Reid's speech and faux appeal - right on cue - a British Muslim, Trevor Brooks, now known as Abu Izzadeen - yet another in the long line of British converts to Islam that always rear their heads for the odd press and photo call - interrupted the Home Secretary with a tirade in defence of the over 1,000 Muslims that have been rounded up by the state.

That Izzadeen even managed to find and attend the invite-only event at all, much less subvert Reid's 'security' as someone associated with two banned organisations, and interrupt it in such a manner, was rather an impressive feat being, as the event was reported to be by the Press Association, "at a secret location in Leyton".

"How dare you come to a Muslim area when over 1,000 Muslims have been arrested?" Izzadeen said to Reid. "You are an enemy of Islam and Muslims, you are a tyrant. Shame on all of us for sitting down and listening to him."

For the record, of the over 1,000 Muslims that have been rounded up by the state, the majority are released without charge and, of those that are charged with anything at all, the charges are for petty crimes entirely unrelated to terrorism. The release without charge of innocent Muslims, however, is not something that receives much, if any, media coverage at all, especially in the face of such 'radical' outbursts as that by Brooks today.

Izzadeen continued with accusations against the Government of 'state terrorism' which, given the overt examples such as the illegality of the invasion of Iraq and the ongoing butchery of Iraqi civilians, in conjunction with the calls from wide cross sections of the community, including the likes of Military Families Against the War, for Tony Blair to stand trial for his war crimes at the International Criminal Court, are accusations that could be said to be not entirely unfounded, nor without considerable evidence to support an easy and successful prosecution.

Following his outburst, Izzadeen was ejected from the venue by the world's smallest policeman, but not before being allowed to utter some choice words in front of the assembled crowd, cameras and microphones, thereby making sure that everyone received the full weight of the not-quite-so subliminal messages being conveyed.

World's smallest policeman in action

Trevor Brooks aka Abu Izzadeen

Izzadeen just happened to be the latest leader of a group proscribed by The State, Al Ghurabaa (the strangers), an offshoot of another previously banned group, Al Mujahiroun, as led by Omar Bakri – the 'Islamic' radical who fled Britain after his work here was done, and just prior to being arrested. Quite how Omar Bakri might have known he was about to be arrested and quite how he made it out of the country despite the imminent arrest from which he was fleeing, is left as an exercise for the reader to fathom.

Abu Izzadeen was born in Hackney, East London, to a family originally from Jamaica, as Trevor Brooks, a communication engineer by profession, who converted to Islam at the age of 17. His conversion to Islam was influenced by his brother Abu Abdul Rahman, another convert to Islam.

Abu Izzadeen, or Trevor Brooks if you prefer, is no stranger to controversy. Shortly after the London bombings, Brooks told BBC2's Newsnight programme that the bombings were "mujahideen activity" which would make people "wake up and smell the coffee." On the surface, his comments were sensational, unfounded and controversial. Beneath the surface, however, it would appear there is more truth to his allegations of the 'mujahideen activity' behind the London bombings than the controversy they provoked might suggest.

Afghanistan, the CIA and the London Bombings

On 17 January 1999, the Guardian published an article by Jason Burke in Peshawar, entitled, 'Frankenstein the CIA created'. The article was subtitled, 'Mujahideen trained and funded by the US are among its deadliest foes, reports'. The article cited the estimations of American officials that, "from 1985 to 1992, 12,500 foreigners were trained in bomb-making, sabotage and urban guerrilla warfare in Afghan camps the CIA helped to set up", and that $500 million poured into Afghanistan, directly from the CIA.

Two years later, in December 2001, Scottish born James McLintock, dubbed the 'Tartan Taliban', was arrested while trying to cross illegally from Pakistan to Afghanistan under the guise of being an 'aid worker'. At the time both Scotland Yard and Britain's Foreign Office declined to comment on McLintock's arrest but confirmed that anti-terrorist officers had flown out to Pakistan.

Confirmation of McLintock's arrest and detainment came instead from the concern of a Scottish Nationalist MP, Mike Weir, who wrote to the then Home Secretary, Jack Straw, about the issue and who said of McLintock, "He has been held in Pakistan for almost a month and we're still not sure what, if anything, he's been charged with or what is to happen to him."

Regional home secretary for Pakistan's North West Frontier Province, Javed Iqbal also confirmed the story of McLintock's arrest and was quoted as saying: "We have not ruled out a link between this man and other al-Qaeda suspects. We are not happy with his story. Even if he has committed no other offence, it is a serious matter to cross the border at a no-entry point. He may be tried or deported."

Further confirmation of the arrest came from his wife, Shaffia McLintock, who eventually spoke publicly about her husband's plight. She described his arrest as a "huge mistake" and criticised the lack of action from the UK government to have him released.

James McLintock aka Mohammad Yacoub aka the 'Tartan Taliban' and 7/7

The 41-year-old Scot was born to two University of Dundee lecturers. His mother taught maths and his father was a chemistry lecturer, chemistry being a particularly useful skill in bomb-making. McLintock also speaks several languages including Arabic, Pashtu and Urdu although how, when and where he acquired such versatile linguistic skills is unknown.

The young James McLintock was raised as a Catholic and developed an interest in Islam while at university. He grew a beard, donned traditional Muslim clothing, dropped out of his university course in Zoology and began attending mosques in Dundee. So great was his apparent commitment to Islam, McLintock went on to fight against the Communists in Afghanistan with the CIA trained, armed and funded - to the tune of $500 million - mujahideen.

In the mid-1990s, James McLintock had moved to Bradford and in June 1995 married a Muslim woman, Shaffia Begum, now Shaffia McLintock, having taken McLintock's non-Islamic name, perhaps indicating the level of McLintock's committment to his new-found 'Islamic' persona. By 2000, McLintock was working at "Rays of Truth", an Islamic bookshop in Leeds, where one of his colleagues was Martin “Abdullah” McDaid, a fellow Muslim convert and former UK Special Forces operative who served in the elitest of British regiments, the Special Boat Service.

Martin "Abdullah" McDaid would later go on to work 'several hours a week' at the Iqra Islamic bookshop in Beeston, Leeds, at which it is alleged at least some of the alleged perpetrators of the London bombings were radicalised by extremist propaganda. This Jihadi material and 'extremist propaganda' was not produced by either McDaid, or McLintock, nor even by a British convert to Islam, but instead by a white, British former Hells Angel by the name of Martin Gilbertson.

When the Sunday Times approached Martin "Abdullah" McDaid about Mohammed Yacoub's involvement with the Iqra bookshop shortly after 7/7, McDaid responded with typical radical convert-to-Islam aplomb, “Whether he was at the Iqra bookstore or not is none of your business — you should fear Allah.”

Little has since been heard regarding the activities of James "Mohammed Yacoub" McLintock, but, given his history of fighting for the mujahideen, illegal border crossings, his connections to the Rays of Truth bookshop in the run up to the Bradford race riots of 7/7/2001, and his involvement with the government-funded Iqra bookshop that the alleged London bombers are meant to have attended, Abu Izzadeen's comments about 7/7 demonstrating 'mujahideen activity' appear to have rather more foundation in reality than anyone might have suspected.

Dr John Reid, Abu Izzadeen, 7/7 and "mujahideen activity"

Dr John Reid's appearance at the 'secret location' at which he patronised Muslims today, Izzadeen's amazing discovery of, and interruption at, the 'secret location', after circumventing the invite-only and on-site security, in conjunction with his outspoken comments about the 'mujahideen activity' that facilitated the planning and execution of the London bombings have indeed led a great number of people 'to wake up and smell' something.

The smell, however, is not of coffee, but rather the putrid stench of the now blown cover of radical conversions to Islam behind which British ex-special forces, ex-anti-terror operatives and CIA-trained militia-men have hidden themselves from public view.

At least some of William Ehrman's much feared 'links back to UK or US sources were revealed' and they provide, in part, the explanation for Abu Izzadeen's post-7/7 comments about the 'mujahideen activity' of the London bombings of 7 July 2005.


Anonymous said...

The oddball was grilled by John Humphrys on R4 at 8.10 today, the fact he keeps lying abuot 7/7 and 9/11 makes me not trust the 'radical' Muslim one iota.

"HOME SECRETARY HECKLER SPEAKS OUT - STUDIO INTERVIEW: MR ISADIN, HATES HOME SECRETARY - my address to John Reid was to deal with his behaviour in the past year and his position as defence minister, he's been killing Muslims abroad and presiding over the arrest of them here. The law of the land is oppressive. He wants the Muslim community to spy on each other. The UK is on a crusade, a thousand have been arrested and homes raided when there's been no evidence whatsoever. Reid came to address us like he was our friend, he is the enemy of Islam. We've had enough of the raids and Forest Gate, it's a war against Islam, if they don't stop it there will be a strong reaction from the community, the government should open their eyes and smell the coffee, they can only push people so far until they explode. Bush and Blair are the biggest terrorists in the world. How many died in 911? Three thousand? Since then the British and American crusaders have killed in bombings alone seventy thousand, some say a hundred thousand. Muslims are suffering many 911s and 7/7s around the world, Blair is a murderer and has blood on his hands. Khan released a video after 7/7 explaining why he did so. He said if you bomb us we bomb you back. There can be no debate when they kill and murder Muslims. The reality is Blair is a crusader and enemy of Islam. The reality is so clear even a blind man can see. If my wife was being killed in Afghanistan I wouldn't accept it. Allah runs everything, you don't own this country, neither does the Queen. "

the show has been bombarded with outraged Liberals for the last half hour.

Anonymous said...

I heard the interview this morning with Abu Izzadeen/Omar Brookes - it was designed to enrage the Today programme Listener, much as his heckling of John Reid was designed to enrage the Viewer.

Check the Radio 4 Today programme Messageboard here http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/mbtoday/F2767107?thread=3499954
& notice how many of the early comments have not been displayed & instead the following message is displayed:
This posting is currently queued for moderation, and will be visible as soon as a member of our Moderation Team has approved it (assuming it doesn't contravene the House rules).

I am certain that the messages queued for moderation are ones complaining about the banality of the interview.

However, the BBC Moderators saw fit to let messages through such as:
Message 16 - posted by Joe-Public (U2333665) **, 39 Minutes Ago

The true face of Islam.The sooner people wake up that it is NOT isloted extremeists the better!


Rachel said...

From your home page...'Feelers'

'Investigative journalists are a bit like you - keen to know truth, willing to plough through detail. diligent and determined.'

What you missed out - and this says it all, frankly. Twisting the truth to serve your own self-seeking, bizarre agenda.

'Investigative journalists are a bit like you - keen to know truth, willing to plough through detail. diligent and determined. The difference is, they are independent and don't have an agenda that they twist the facts to fit. They are not paranoid and they don't start with the theory that all is a lie and everyone is out to get them. They are hard to fool. They'll chase up leads for a story. Many of them are no fans fo the government. Why do you think that they are not following up your stories and allegations, but instead meekly swallowing whatever they are told in a highly unusual non-journo like way?

I'd like to ask why you repeatedly deny I was on the train, and survived. Why you call me a 'survivor'' in inverted commas, and imply I am some kind of official propogandist? When I provably, demonstrably was there and was almost killed?

Why do you deny that a suicide bombers murdered 26 and wounded 240, (including me) on the Piccadilly line on 7/7/05?

Why you continue to peddle such utter lies?

It really does horrify me, and it upsets many others who were there.As you know, from the commenbts of Mitch and Holly, fellow survivors.

And I cannot understand it: perhaps conspiracy theories are fun for you, but you are exonerating murderers, inslting the survivors, injured and bereaved, and lying, lying, lying... and to what purpose?

It is truly dreadful, and it is sad and it is pathetic and it is loathesome.

I ask you, please to contact me. I would like to meet you face to face and ask you these questions. Perhaps with other survivors in attendance.

Thej you might see the hurt and anger that your lies cause, and you might cease.

And I bet you a) don't let this through

b) attack me yet again.

Whatever. All I want is for you to be faced with the truth, and to understand. Surely someone who is so interested in the subject of 7/7 would welcome the chance.

But I doubt you have the courage to face up to your actions in the real world.

And that says it all.

And no, this is not a trap set by M15 to bump you off, or whatever you imagine. Grow up. It is an honest attempt to get you to listen, and to hear you myself, before I publish, and you are damned.

The Antagonist said...

For someone with 12 years in advertising and marketing strategy you're not very good at making an offer that can't be refused.

The only agenda you'll find here is that of a quest for the truth, the sort of truth one might find during a moment of introspection.

Rachel said...

So...too scared to meet up then?

Thought so. Not so much fun in the real world to be confronted with your actions, your allegations and their consequences on real people , is it?

For someone interested in 'investigating truth', you sure are shy about the chance to test out your theories. I am offering to meet you, and to answer your questions, and to ask you some. In a pub, or some public place.

You know my email, and yet I note that you cannot bring your self to talk face to face with one, or more, 7/7 survivors.

Which says a lot, don't you think? All those posts, all those theories, all that talk....and then, when faced with an opportunity a real investigative truthseeking person would jump at - you retreat into empty posturing.

Well, you had your chance. Moment of introspection? If you ever had one, you might blush for shame.

The Antagonist said...

Simply, Rachel, I have nothing to say to you in private that cannot be said in public.

If fear were an element in this I would have ignored the events of 7 July 2005 entirely in the same way as the mainstream media have done, along with the majority of UK bloggers who have chosen to ignore it and the many unaswered questions that still exist. That these questions still exist so far down the line is in itself as criminal as the events that caused these questions and led to the 'largest criminal inquiry in English history'.

I am aware of your numerous requests for meetings with anyone who dares to question the anomalies, inconsistencies and outright factual inaccuracies in the official and media-spun stories of events, almost as if it is your job to set everyone straight. Yet when one person with such questions, Bridget Dunne, endeavoured to introduce herself to you, she met with much the same offensive approach with which your 'invite' to me was issued and was further subjected to a not-inconsiderable amount of bile, vitriol and abuse that poured forth from you in one or two of your favourite Internet haunts.

The truth about what happened on 7 July has nothing to do with your own personal experience but instead with the facts and evidence, such as any of it may turn out to be. The onus is not on you, Bridget or I, but on the government and police to produce those facts and evidence in a manner satisfactory to the general public whom they serve.

Perhaps you have forgotten your own refusal to have anything to do with the July 7th Truth Campaign and your own words in one of the many interviews that you have given since 7 July 2005. Quoting from a Guardian article published on Tuesday June 27, 2006:

Dunne and the Antagonist aren't the only ones who would like to see all the evidence. Rachel North, who was travelling in the front carriage of the Piccadilly line train with Lindsay when he detonated his bomb deep beneath Russell Square, and who miraculously escaped with only minor injuries, has also called for an independent public inquiry.

But unlike Dunne she does not think there is any mystery about what happened. "We all know what happened," she says. "We were there. What we want to know is why it happened."

She says that conspiracy theorists have repeatedly twisted her words to make out there was no bomb on her train and even that she is a professional M15 disinformation agent. When she challenged these claims, she says she was subjected to vitriolic abuse. As a consequence, she refuses to have anything to do with the July 7 Truth Campaign or related sites, arguing that they risk undermining the legitimacy of survivors' calls for a public inquiry.

"I have had endless run-ins with these people," she says. "Some of them are fairly well intentioned, if eccentric, others hugely offensive. I worry that they are making all of us look like conspiracy theorists and/or traumatised people who shouldn't be taken seriously."

Source: Seeing Isn't Believing
By Mark Honigsbaum, The Guardian
--- END QUOTE ---

Anonymous said...

"Rachel North, who was travelling in the front carriage of the Piccadilly line train with Lindsay when he detonated his bomb deep beneath Russell Square"

Just careless journalism perhaps but the train in question was, as far as we know, very close to King's Cross.

Jetstar Boss said...

going back to the post......

Another Islamic convert?


Numeral said...

What about a pub quiz night? J7ers and survivors. Here is a couple of sample questions:

What was found in the bathtub at 18 Alexandra Grove?

a. TATP b. HMTD c. Coal d. Skank

Why did Tanweer's trousers change colour between Woodall Services and Luton Station?

a. Wardrobe Malfunction
b. He had a spare pair just in case the white ones got dirty from praying in the carpark
c. He was photoshopped
d. There is no explanation for this change at present.

The showstopper is the likelihood that there would be no consensus on what the right answers are. If we could persuade Sir Ian Blair, Paul Stephenson and Andy Hayman to come along (with Cressida Dick to define clear rules of engagement), they could be judges. A possible snag is that, while they knew all the answers, they wouldn't tell anybody.

Should the pub be a smoker or a non-smoker?

Bridget said...

@ numeral

Now that's what I call an invite!

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

@ 'Anything that defies my sense of reason'author( I don't quiite think you grasp the irony inherent in that title, do you love?)

So, yet agan, you decline the offer of of a meeting with me or with any other July 7 witness?

Just like Bridget Dunne when I offered to meet her, once, long ago. Neither of you seem to be able to rouse yourselves to follow up your public and contrversial allegations in conversation with a real live witness of said events. How extremely odd in a so-called 'truthseeker'! When every independent investigative journalist has followed up such leads. It is almost as if you were only concerned with making a reputation swapping theories on the internet, and were shying away from any opportunity to follow up your theories by testing them in the real world!

But I am sure that you have your own reasons for publicly revealing yourself as a wriggling, craven coward in this way.

Of course, there's safey in numbers...At the book launch of a well-known peace activist, Ms Dunne turned up with a bunch of heckling '9/11 Truth Activists' who appalled the numerous 7/7 survivors in attendance by shouting and interupting the meeting and maintaining that the bombers were innocent. You know, on that night, I felt my sympathies were with my fellow passengers, not those who had sickened the audience with their rudeness and their repetition of provable lies. I simply didn't feel like chatting with Ms Dunne, after all, her fellow attendees had been grotesquely rude to my host. At that meeting, Ms. Dunne attempted to press upon me a pamphlet full of falsehoods, meanhwhile though, I had noted that my personal previous attempt to meet with her or talk to her had been rejected. On that night, therefore, I elected to spend time with people I cared about, rather than with a pamphlet-pushing crank who had turned up with abusive hecklers and who had refused my offer of a meeting earlier. I was not at all offensive to Ms Dunne, I merely did not want to have anything to do with her, given that she and turned up with a bunch of people whom had been appallingly offensive.Therefore, when she came up to me, I simply said ' I know who you are', and I moved on to talk to others who were nearer and had other things to say.

I should have thought that a person holding such peculiar views as yourself or Bridget would be well used to people moving away from him in polite company, but perhaps you don't get out and mingle much these days? If not, be assured I can quite see why! Especially after that mocking Guardian piece!

Onto this: ' almost as if it is your job to set everyone straight'.

But it very clearly is not my job, is it?. So what are you saying? My job was until recently advising upon corporate FMCG youth product advertising stragegies, and now it is freelance writing. Your frequent references and inferences to me being some kind of official plant are provably utterly wrong, and merely make you appear to be a paranoid fool.

As to numeral's idea for a pub night, I assume, numeral that you have considered inviting the parents of Holly and Jessica Wells to a pub night where you discuss whether children who have been raped are more likely to pass out and drown in a few inches of bathwater?
And set amusing questions to Leah Bett's parents about the maximum amount of water that can be safely drunk whilst dancing? No? Oh, you surprise me?

I'm assuming that you are in fact autistic, Numeral, and indeed I have always assumed this.

Bridget, however, I don't think you are. Shame on you.

Numeral said...

Rachel said:
I'm assuming that you are in fact autistic, Numeral, and indeed I have always assumed this.

That's what I call casting Aspergers.

Bridget said...

Hi Rachel

You claim that it is clearly not your job but to quote you:

And I was asked to take you lot on since it was thought that it would be pretty catastrophic to have the sane, rational, clear-eyed campaign for a 7/7 inquiry linked with nutters who think it was an inside job by Mossad, the CIA, M15, lizards, Jews, etc.

Sounds like a 'job' to me.

Jessica & Holly analogy, beneath contempt.

As for the rest of your bilious outburst, quite frankly, Bollocks.

Kier said...

Rachel, I replied positively to your offer to meet at the beginning of this year on the Cox forum, and you never responded.

Annie Machon also offered to meet up with you after you and Kirsty Jones turned up at the London 9/11 group's meeting and you never responded to her, either. Why make these offers and not follow them through?

I am not even sure such a meeting would be constructive now - especially as you've made it clear you would not listen to a thing any of us could say to you.

You're not even reading what's said to you on this comment thread judging from your responses. It seems the only reason you would want to meet the Antagonist is to once again force your view and ignore what is said to you in return. I have lost count of the times I have stated and restated to you that the J7TC is not intended to prove the innocence of the accused or designed to exonerate them, yet you persist in describing the campaign thus.

The Antagonist, Bridget and myself have attempted for many months to explain why we feel there is a need to campaign for the truth about 7/7. The anomalous issues are clearly documented on our site. The fact that you feel none of these merit an answer from the authorities suggests that you feel these issues are unimportant and your refusal to respond to the question about how much an inquiry would achieve under the IA2005 - an act many judges refuse to conduct inquiries under - says more about your desire for 'the truth' than ours, I think

The Antagonist said...


Milan Rai is a well known peace activist who successfully managed to compile a bunch of erroneous newspaper reports into a whole collection of erroneous newpaper reports and flog it to a publisher while pretending he had written a book, all with the publicity that comes with being the first person charged with organising an illegal protest for his host at the book launch, Maya Evans. Well done to you for acknowledging that the specific event to which you refer was in fact a 'book launch' and not, as is your usual assertion - presumably for dramatic effect - a 'survivor meeting'.

If you have issues with 9/11 Truth folk, I suggest you take up your perceived injustices with them.

As for your role as 'witness', you appear to have gone all the way from not knowing there had been a bomb on your train to knowing precisely how a bomb went off in your carriage, incorporating various versions of both stories along the way. This curious tale is well documented online for anyone that cares to look.

With regard to Ms Dunne, your claim of "I was not at all offensive to Ms Dunne" is the exact opposite of your usual approach to anyone with questions, questions you advise us that it is not your job to answer. There is plenty of evidence of your outrageous and offensive diatribes dotted around online, poured forth as 'BadgerKitten' or Rachel, particularly on Urban 75 and excepting of course the places where you later went back to edit or delete your comments entirely for future audiences.

Could you please explain what you think gives you the right to speak almost single-handedly on television, radio, in print and online for the dead, the wounded, the seriously injured, their families and anyone else otherwise affected on 7 July 2005? While you're at it you might also address the point, raised again above by Kier, about the Inquiries Act 2005.

"Corporate FMCG youth product advertising stragegies" - that's called selling shit to kids and it means a statement you gave to the 7 July Review Committee about King's Cross United was not quite the whole truth: "We think we have achieved something like £500,000-600,000 worth of coverage for free, which went entirely the way we wanted it to go, which is an astonishing thing for a public relations (PR) company to pull off, and we are not PR people; we are passengers and we just did it."

The moral of the story being that you can sell shit to some of the people some of the time, but you can't sell shit to all of the people all of the time. Or should that be well-rotted ten year old horse manure?

With regard to pamphlets full of falsehoods, has there been any word from the Home Office about theirs?

As far as I am concerned, Rachel, you lost any credibility that you might have had when you said:

"I tell you what. I don't give a stuff how the bombers got to Kings Ctross"

Your efforts since then have done nothing to reverse that process.

Rachel said...

Bridget - for the last time - no, it is not my job.
Kier, I have been asked about the IA2005, and have made my position clear: whilst I personally think it is a bad act, I am not additionally campaigning to repeal it because I can only do so much, and campaigning to repeal laws as well as for an independent inquiry is not something I have the time or energy for. To make the setting up of an independent inquiry wholly dependent on the repeal of a law means the chance of such a campaign suceeding is minimal.

Antagonist, I have never referred to the book launch as a survivor meeting: go and check. Urban 75, my blog - all referred to as a book launch .Other peopel on u75 got the wrong end of the stick, and I took the time to set them right.

'9/11 Truth folk' were the people who allowed a repeated false accusations and personal abuse thread attacking me to go on for over 20 pages. The thread remains locked for posterity. I have tried to engage with them, perfectly politely, on both the Cox and 9/11 forums, and have recieved little but vitriolic abuse in reply. I once deleted my posts - which were not at all rude - by the way, and I wish that I had left them up so that you could see that - as at that point I saw no further point in engaging with people who were determined to beleive I was a team of M15 agents, a shill, a liar, and so on.

I am surprised that you have not noticed any other survivors or families on TV, in print, or online, or on the radio, or giving evidence publicly at the London Assembly. Perhaps you missed John, Kirsty, Michael, Jacqui, Danny in the last fortnight? Perhaps you only see what you want to see?

You can peruse my blog and find a link to all the other KCU bloggers. YOu can see any article I write I quote other survivors where possible, and usually write it at their request since they have said they'd rather talk to a fellow passenmger writer than someone who was not there. All articles by me, and as many articles as I can find about a public inquiry are all listed on my blog sidebar, should you bother to check. There you willl see many voices represented.

As to why the press keep coming back to me, it's because they know me - they read my blog, they can see that I have opinions which I publish on my personal website, they know I can write and am able to talk in front of a camera. They go for a contact whom they have spoken to once before, and many survivors quite understandably find the constant press interest distressing. I'm by no means the only one they come to, however.Holly Finch writes for the Guardian, Michael made numerous appearances on Sky, BBC as did Jacqui and Kirsty last week, all talking about the need for an inquiry. Joe and Gill, Amy, Susan, Ben, and many others all agreed to speak out at the anniversary and we shared the media load between us as best we could.

The fact that I continue to write a personal blog about the personal and political fall out of J7 in my life makes me no different to at least 8 other J7 bloggers. If people like the way I write, then great, and if they want me to write more, fine. But don't accuse me, as you frequently, falsely do of being the 'only voice' - when that is quite clearly, bollocks.

As to my job, I wonder if you will ever work out what I do? Or rather, what I was doing until I resigned last week? I am now a full time writer. Previously I have been accused of working in PR - nope, of controlling all communications emanating from survivors - nope- what I used to be was a specialist in the 16-34 advertising market working across radio, TV and magazines. Marketing stuff like beers, or antidrug camapigns from the COI, or gaming products, or FMCG articles such as shampoo, moisturiser, soft drinks, etc.

Finally, as to the quote you repeatedly take out of context - I tell you what, I don't give a stuff how the bombers got to KX - what as usual you neglect to put in is the rest of the sentence - in which I add - because I know that once they got there, they proceeded to blow up the 3 trains, or words to that effect. If you are run over by a car, what you know is that you have been run over, and whether the car came round the ring road or the A12 before it struck you is a matter of less interest to the victim than the fact that they have been hurt in the first place.

The comment was made in anger, and you have quoted it out of context ever since in a depressingly-familar way. Once again though, you miss the point. Someone who was bombed knows they were bombed, and is probably less likely to be interested in a conspiracy theory that the bomber was innocent than you. The whole crux of the J7 campaign seemed to be that the train time was wrong, many people on u75 pointed out they could quite easily have got the delayed 7.25 and this was later confirmed to be the case. From this, some of you have extrapolated a series of bizarre theories which, whatever you say, seem to be designed to allege the bnombers innocence; in fact Dunne on u75 maintained this, as have many other members of your group. To try to conceal this controversial assertion, you say you simply cannot be sure of what happened. I am sure that there are peopel who simply cannot be sure that the Holocaust happened. I know what is usually said of such people.

I asked the Antagonist specifically if he wanted to meet up because I am pig-sick of him going round implying that I am some kind of official plant, and I thought the quickest way to stop these smears would be to turn up and prove to him that I was, in facvt, there on the day, as it is insulting to me personally and damaging to my reputation as a writer, survivor, campaigner and founder of a survivor group, to be constantly depicted as a fraud by him.

Finally - if you sent me a PM Kier, I didn't get it - I would meet you - Annie seemed to be wanting to convert me to 9/11 truth which was the impression I got from her email - so no, I didn't reply which I should have done, though I publicly thanked her for her friendliness. Antagonist, I knew there had been an explosion on the train - what I did not know at the time was how close I was. I desribed to the police where I thought the explosion had been and they confirmed that I was correct, the BBC site diagram was duly amended. My police statement on 7/7 and my call to the police on 8/7 and the detailed statement on 9/7 all say that there was a bomb on the train. This would be apparent should it ever be used in a public inquiry or any other public giving of evidence.

For the alst time, what I object to is The Antagonist's constant inferences that I was not on the train, that I am some kind of official plant. I would like him to withdraw these allegations. Which he has made all over the internet.

The reasons why I want an independent inquiry are well-documented, however, I cannot make common cause with you whilst you persist in denying that the bombers were innocent and it was all a Government cover up. Because I know this to be utterly false.

And whilst we're on the subject of falsehoods, has the Antagonist ever withdrawn his hugely offensive accusation that the no. 30 bus was full of 'actors and stuntmen' and 'pyrotechnics'?

Kier said...

Hello Rachel,

My response to your offer to meet was not made via pm, but on the forum for public view. The only time I pm'd you was when you stated that you would no longer attempt to engage with us earlier this year, on that same forum, and I wrote and wished you peace.

I will attach the message to the end of this comment, in case you didn't see it, although it certainly appeared to have been read because it was in the sentbox rather than outbox.

All my other communication with you has been in the public domain, and I agree with the others that this is the best place for it, given your attitude towards us. I ask again, given how you feel about us and what we are trying to achieve, would it now be constructive for any of us to meet with you, when it could be reasonably deduced that you would not listen to a thing any of us might say? I cannot see that a private meeting with the Antagonist would be any different to a discussion on the internet on public record.

Only last night I said to you once more:

"I have lost count of the times I have stated and restated to you that the J7TC is not intended to prove the innocence of the accused or designed to exonerate them, yet you persist in describing the campaign thus."

yet you sill reply:

"you have extrapolated a series of bizarre theories which, whatever you say, seem to be designed to allege the bnombers innocence"

May I make it clear once more, not just for your benefit but for those reading this who may be confused by your constant misrepresentation of our campaign.

The July 7th Truth Campaign asks for the truth about what happened on July 7th 2005, in the form of either releasing the evidence that backs up the official account, or holding a fully independent inquiry outside of the remit of the IA2005.

We do not extrapolate theories from the lack of evidence and we do not seek to exonerate those men. You persist in saying this because we are not satisifed with a ridiculously evidence-free assertion...what you say is a non-sequitur.
The J7TC has never alleged a government cover-up - does this really have to be the only alternative? You have simply inferred it by confusing what individuals have expressed as their personal opinions, whether connected to our campaign or not, with what the campaign itself is trying to achieve. There are certainly things we aren't being told, but the source of any 'cover up' is not for us to say, since we are not trying to fill in the blanks ourselves.

The J7TC has no theory; there are a series of hypotheses on our site which we have listed since many of them have done the rounds of the internet at one time or another. Listing eight or nine scenarios that have been proposed by people other than ourselves - including the one proposed by the authorities - does not equate with us proposing a hypothesis of our own.

The crux of our campaign never hung off the train time issue. We were extremely pleased when our continual raising of it was finally addressed by the home secretary and we widely publicised his statement. Once more, if you look at the section of our site where we have listed all of the anomalous issues which still require addressing, such as the absurdity of the authorities still not knowing what explosives were used, you will see that the train time was only one of many issues which concerned us.

Annie Machon stated that she extended the hand of friendship to you because she felt you and she had many things in common, including being in a life-threatening situation. Yet, you decided that her only purpose in meeting you would be to convert you to her version of 9/11 truth. You did not allow an opportunity to find out if this would actually have been the case. Had it been the case, though, it is surely no different to you now proposing to meet with representatives of the J7TC, because you don't agree with what they are doing and want them 'converted' to your version of the truth of July 7th.


From: Kier
To: Rachel
Posted: Thu Apr 20, 2006 5:53 pm
Subject: Best wishes
I hope you will take the time to read this, Rachel. I have read and understood your last post on the Cox forum. The only reason I am writing this pm to you rather than replying on the forum is that I did not want people to think I was attempting to restart the discussion in any way - as you would have seen from my previous post, I do think it had reached the point where nothing good was going to come of it.

I also felt it was inappropriate I should come to your blog, as I don't want you to think I am invading your space there.

I went to the nineeleven forum a couple of days ago and re-read the thread which you took part in. I was quite sad to read it, since it seemed apparent from your first post there that a productive dialogue might have occurred and you were very patient with people. I am sorry that insults were allowed to get in the way of people getting their points across effectively. I do not belong to that forum, and don't think that any contribution I could have made would have made a difference to you - especially as I know you think I am trying to 'convert' you to my way of thinking. Please allow me to reiterate one last time that it was never my intention to do that. All I hoped was that you would understand why I felt it was important that questions needed to be asked and that we should all keep open minded as to how this event occurred. It's for that reason that I refuse to formulate a 'theory' until I see some convincing evidence for any kind of scenario. I have never disbelieved your personal account of what you suffered, or doubted your motives.

I am just a girl who used to live in North London. I have found out a lot of things this past year that I would rather not have learned. It has not taken away my hope, and at the very least it has made me less self-absorbed and changed the way I think about things.
Please believe that I sincerely wish you peace and happiness in your life - I was never your enemy either.

Love & light,


Rachel said...


Okay, I apologise to you, personally, because you say that you do not actively push the theory that the bombers were innocent/there is no such thing as extremist terror/it is all a Govt. false flag op which other members of your site and blog team espouse. I am willing to beleive that you simply have issues with the official version.And so do I, in some respects. But probably not in th esame way as you.

It is simply impossible for me to remain personally unoffended by people who deny Holocausts, the existence of Islamic terror, or who profess the innocence of the bombers of 7/7. It is also difficult for me to withstand endless allegations and smears that directly or indirectly say

a) I am a liar
b) I am a shill
c) I am a paid disinformation agent
d) I am the only voice of the survivors

when all oof this is provably, demonstrably untrue. It is also deeply upsetting.Yes, I am still much affected by my experiences. Yes, I wrote about them and continue to do so on a personal blog, like millions of other personal bloggers. Yes, I campaign like other survivors of atrocities for an independent inquiry, and in my case, also for better tube safety, communications, compensation for the severely injured, and bereaved, better victim aftercare and so on. No, I do not subscribe to the theories that they murderers were as innocent as new born lambs. Nothing I have seen shows any merit in this theory whatsoever. Yes, I do campaign for the preservation of civil liberties, and the cessastion of aggressive over-reaction to criminal acts of terror, by for example, stirring up race hate, bombing civilians, illegal invasion of sovereign states, inprisonment without charge, the use of torture, inhumane internment and so on. Yes, I will make common cause with anyone who is in favour of truth and justice. The difficulty I have is that I do not see the benefit in making up wild theories of what happened on July 7th. Particularly when said theories are then indulged and used to exonerate murderous criminals. They also reflect badly on anyone campaigning for a public inquiry, since a quick glance into the murky world of those who obsess overa New World Order quickly throw up links to antisemitism,and bizarre theories concerning occultism, lizards, mind control, numerology and so on all of which seem to me to bear the hallmarks of clinical paranoia. I might have PTSD but I'm not mentally ill and seeing dark visions where there are none.I do not, as I said, see truth and justice served by getting mixed up with speculation, mistrustful allegations of grand conspiracies, wild imaginings, selective misquotations,misuse of sources, sloppy research and general unfairness. And I'm afraid that is what most conspiracy theories seem to be.

I see that it can be hard to disengage your personal position, Kier, which seems reasonable, from some of the more out-there beliefs of people who not only post on your site but whom co-run it with you. I put it to you that attempts to engage with survivors will always run into problems when many, if not all of the people who seek to engage quite clearly are of the opinion that the bombers were innocent.You may not be of this opinion yourself. But the impression that the Antagonist and Bridget give is that they ARE firmly of the mind that the bombers were innocent, and anyone who dares to challenge this needs to be re-educated and 'enlightened'. This behaviour is much like the so-called '9/11 Truth movement, which seems to me to operate almost like a cult, requiring that members 'beleive', proselytise, and are specially blesssed with unique insight - the enlightened ones.

All this attempts at evangelisation and murderer-exoneration displays an inability to empathise with people who have been the victims of a monstrous crime, who are in many cases still suffering for it, and is, at best, insensitive. The Antagonist and Bridget denigrate me for essentially being who I am and writing what I write and doing what I do.
I am puzzled as to why anyone thinks this is a successful strategy for convincing people of an alternative viewpoint? And why the Antagonist and Bridget should be so determined that they are right and I am wrong?

I have every right to write about what i think and feel, and in doing so on my personal blog, I know that I have helped myself and others. If people see and like my writing and ask me to speak and write more, then I will do so, for what I speak and write is my truth and my experience and important to me.

I don't understand, and probably never will understand, what drives people like Bridget and the Antagonsist and Numeral. I don't criticise those who have an emotional engagement in July 7th - for it was an attack on all of us and affected many, not just those who were there - but I do shake my head at why there is this fringe determination to relentlessly pick holes in the multi-sourced events of the day and from that, come up with the idea that something hugely sinister is being covered up. What is being covered up, in my opinion, is possible prior warnings, missed intel, disconnected communications, and most obviously, the link between extremism and foreign policy, leading to a great deal of arse covering so officials and politicians can cling to their jobs. This is disgraceful, but it does not lead from here that the Government perpetrated the attacks themselves as an excuise to introduce authoritarian laws, or whatever. That they have shamelessly used the attacks to push an agenda does not mean they are responsible in the first place. Sadly, this is what Antagonist and Bridget and numerous others seem to think. And whilst this noisy clamour alleging things which are clearly ludicrous to most normal people goes on, the chances of the real questions being answered are ever-slimmer. I wish you could all see this. Claims such as 'M15 put bombs under trains!' are a gift to those who wish to dismis out of hand the possibility that our Governemtn, and its politices,failed us on, before and after July 7th. Failed in its most important duties - keeping people safe, and keeping people free.

Anyway, I don't see the point of carrying on with this really, I commented when I was angry because I had just been reading the J7 boards and 9/11 and was angered by the Antagonist and Bridget alleging all this crap about me. It is hurtful, and eventhough I shouldn't get upset, I do.

Bridget said...

Hi Rachel

You claim that you told the police where the bomb was, in fact you could only tell the police where the bomb WASN'T. Both the BBC website and the only two statements issued by the MPS claim the bomb was by the first set of doors on the first carriage. You informed them it wasn't there because that's where you were standing and you hadn't seen anyone injured or any bomb damage. In fact, you had no idea that the bomb was even on your carriage until you were told it was at the back of carriage one by anti-terrorist officers.

As for comparing this event to the experience of being run over by a car, in that scenario you may even be able to describe the car and the driver, in this case you have absolutely NO EVIDENCE to prove who carried out these attacks. Neither have the public.

You also know that the Edgware Rd survivors are still questioning the official account of where the bomb exploded, and have been told by John Reid that the police are still awaiting the results of forensic tests to determine this. Patently absurd, but you swallow this nonsense.

You state that the J7 Truth Campaign has only the issue of the cancelled train time (still no explanation for this error) as the basis for our campaign. Check the two pages of Mind the Gaps to see just how many anomalies and inconsitencies there are in the offfical version.

As for professing their innocence, that was in response to the official report which claimed they caught the 7.40 which we knew was false, and we have been proved right on this point. I said that unless they teleported to London, they coudn't have been there, based on this erroneous information.

It seems to me that you think that it is acceptable to declare their guilt based on the non-existent evidence, yet you ridicule anyone who wants to see the evidence before they can make up their own minds. I prefer to be in the latter group. Some people chose to believe this government when it said it had evidence of WMD in Iraq, others like myself didn't trust this statement. We now know they lied. Hundreds of thousands of innocent lives are the consequence. Would history be different if we had insisted this evidence was made public?

Our starting point is that no evidence has been produced that would convict these men in a court of law, until we have seen the evidence we will continue to campaign for truth & justice. On that basis I see no common ground that exists between us that would support any meeting with you.

As I go to post this I note that Kier has also replied to you. As you know Kier, myself & The Antagonist edit the J7 website, and it's clear that we're different characters with differing political views, not one homogenous group. Yet we are able to make common ground on the need to be allowed to make up our own minds based on the evidence. This strikes me as what is wonderful and heartening about our society, the ability to hold different points of views, come from differing backgrounds, and still unite for a cause we believe in. Don't think for one moment that what we do doesn't require strength and courage, it is not an easy position to take publicly, by taking the position we do, we open ourselves up to attack and abuse. We give our time to the campaign, a lot of it, freely and at our own expense. Whether you agree with us or not, Rachel, I see no reason for you not to support our right to do this.

Bridget said...


You state that you don't like smears yet spread so many yourself.

This for instance:

"It is simply impossible for me to remain personally unoffended by people who deny Holocausts,"

I defy you to find one statement on the J7 website, forum or blog to support this assertion.

I agree with you that there are many dodgy & offensive 'CT' sites on the web, 90% info + 10% disinfo imo. None of these sites are connected to the J7 truth campaign.

Jetstar Boss said...


You say that we attack you and portray yourself as the victim.

Search through our blogs and you will see we are often aimlessly attacked.

Please don't believe that I am attacking you at all, or think you are responsible for these attacks, I just want to point out that you aren't the only victim of "blog attacks".

I don't at all think you are mad or stupid like you think we do, and I would really like to retain a....erm.....nice (for want of a better word) relationship with you. I do value your blog as a good blog, and often read and try to comment when possible.

Finally, I wish you good luck in your new writing career.


Rachel said...

Bridget - saying that Islamist terrorism does not exist is like saying the Holocaust does not exist.

Do you accept that Islamist terrorism exists, yes or no?
Do you accept that there are extremist Islamist terrorist groups within the UK - yes or no?

Can you provide a credible alternative theory as to what happened on July 7, yes or no?

At the moment, it looks to me as if your theory, if you dared to vioce it, and it is admittedly pretty ropey, goes like this: there are no Islamist extremist terror cells in the UK and there never were. The 4 bombers were innocent. The bombs were planted by the Government to stir up race hate and justify authoritarian measures, it's a 'Reichstag fire scenario'.

The CCTV imagery was faked and all the survivors including Danny who saw Khan detonate the bomb, and John Tulloch, who sat near him, are wrong. The police are lying. The forensic pathologists and the coroners are lying. The LU staff are lying. The hundreds of people working on the case are lying and covering it up. Khan, Tanweer, Lindsey and Hussein are dead, but there is no explanation as to how they died, or why they had explosives in their cars and their flats. Everybody is in on a giant conspiracy, and we're talking probably over a thousand people here. No other survivor or berevaed person is allowed to speak out because I somehow mysteriously control them all. I am paid by the Government to persecute you in your hobby. KCU survivor group is a means of feeding false information and getting everyone's stories straight, and everyone in the survivor group somehow buys into this.
Oh, and let's chuck in Ant's theory that the bus was full of actors and stuntmen. Only the J7 Truth team know the awful truth. In which case, how the hell you haven;'t all been bumped off I don't know. Surely a Government anxious to cover up such dastardly deeds would have no compunction in nobbling you fearless truth tellers.

Christ, and you expect people to take you seriously? I'm not surprised you refuse to be drawn on your alternatives theories. They are ridiculous.

And I challenge you to tell me where I have got you wrong. Which bits of the above do you say are incorrect?

Oh, and by the way, the police do not normally publish forensic reports, coroners photos and so on to satisy ghoulish amateurs curiosity in every murder case. I take it that every accused and convicted murderer at the Old Bailey has had all their evidence faked by the State to frame them too, in your world, since after all, you never got to see all the evidence for those cases either?

Antagonist, are you going to accept that I am not some officialGovernment stooge and admit you got it totally wrong about me yet? Nope, thought not.

Jetstar, thanks for the good wishes re. my new career.

Numeral said...

rachel said:
... they had explosives in their cars and their flats.

In fact, the narrative does not state that explosives were found in any flats, including 18 Alexandra Grove. Check it out.

Bridget said...

HI Rachel

Didi you know that 'A British National Party member has been accused of possessing the largest amount of chemical explosives of its type ever found in the country.'

Does anyone know this, apart from those that read the local press in Lancashire?

Where were the 250 armed officers and blanket media coverage? At Forest Gate an innocent Muslim man was shot, and NO chemicals were found.

Burnley Citizen

Lancashire Telegraph

Is it because this story doesn't fit the picture of Islamic terrorists?

HIstory teaches us to question everything, that things are not always what they appear to be:

The Red Brigade were blamed for the Bologna train station massacre.

I don't want to be one of those who has to say 'I didn't realise what was going on' to my children, do you?

I do realise what is going on gobally and historically. These issues are much bigger than you think Rachel. The demonising and persecution of Muslims was given a huge step up on 7th July. Today's Daily Mail (which suported the Nazis btw) calls for the veil to be banned. A Muslim business was attacked and firebombed in Windsor. No news story is now aired without a derogatory story about Muslims.

The Recishtag fire (set by Goering and blamed on the Communists) and subsequent Enabling Act should teach us something, no?

Need I even mention the role of the Right-wing Loyalists and Security Services in Northern Ireland? The Birmingham 6 or Guildford 4?

The issues at stake here Rachel are too important and have far-reaching consequences to be based on one image outside Luton as the only evidence in the public domain of who is responsible.

Have you even read the thread you are posting this on?

Numeral said...

The narrative reports explosives in only one car, the Micra. The Brava was said to contain a 9mm handgun.

The narrative does not claim that traces of explosives were found in 18 Alexandra Grove. The words "bath" or "tub" do not occur in the narrative.

Bridget said...

The narrative states:

"Forensic analysis of
material taken from Alexandra Grove continues."

Forever I presume?

The Antagonist said...

Rachel, keep up! Trevor Brooks - aka Abu Izzadeen - could hardly be described as 'white', could he? That would be stretching things a bit far, even by your standards.

I suggest you read this article again, along with its precursor, 'Islam, Intelligence and Infiltration', as you clearly haven't understood either of them.

While the miscarriages of justice suffered by the Guildford 4 and the Birmingham 6 doesn't mean that the IRA did not exist, it certainly means that someone else was responsible for the crimes they were accused of committing, crimes for which no-one else has been convicted or even charged.

Note also that those organs of state who conspired to frame the Guildford 4 and Birmingham 6 for something they hadn't done were never prosecuted or charged for their criminal acts nor for perverting the course of justice.

Rachel said...

Ant, do you actually understand what the Arabic word 'mujahadeen' actually means?


Numeral said...

rachel said:
Ant, do you actually understand what the Arabic word 'mujahadeen' actually means?

I am a bit foxed by this question. Is the distinction between 'mujahadeen' and 'fedayeen' what is at issue?

Anonymous said...

Islamism is an extremist cult

Rachel, I think my neighbours would strongly argue with that ridiculous assertion about their religion.

The Antagonist said...

Paul - disagreeing with Rachel's world-view is what qualifies someone as an extremist in the first place, especially if they happen to be wearing what she refers to as 'a big bag' on their heads.

Anonymous said...

I have followed Rachel's comments all over the net, after discovering her blog some time ago, and I agree with some of what she says. However, as a professional writer she completely fails to actually engage in debate, she never addresses people's points on a point by point basis, simply skipping awkward questions in favour of repeating the same points and allergations ad infinitum.

I did not come to this as a conspiracyloon, and still remain unconvinced of anything in particular really, Rachel's repeated assertions that people are loons, mad, twisted, sick... while failing to either listen to people or attempt to deal with the questions that are apparant to anyone not in possession of whatever is not in the public domain, do little to convince me that her allergations are correct, just or indeed rational.

I never agreed with the Antagonist's analysis of the bus bomb, but Rachel latches on to this particular theory and uses it as a weapon to repeatedly bash anyone that questions, well anything really, with.

Rachel, you a bright woman, who has a lot to say, that is good, but your rude dismissals of so many are rapidly driving me away from you and what you have to say. Each time I read your comments and witness you ignoring so much I am pushed slowly away from your line of argument.

You get particularly aggrieved with anyone questioning the validity of witness statements, even though it is well known that witness statements have little value as veracious statements of fact. The plice, courts and psychologists understand this well. Many of the more famous witness statements either contradict one another, or contracdict thenarrative, or seem to make little sense. The mind is complex, I don't think pointing out a witness statement has inconsistancies in it is teh same think as saying they are a liar, shill, plant or whatever.

Just look at how many witness statements in realtion to the shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes have been demonstrated to be incorrect. This is often the case with witness statements and has very little to do with lying.

Anonymous said...

Rachel North has had experiences that no one should undergo.
However I can't agree, from what I've seen, that she is great writer. Her main topics seem to be herself and her life in blogging. No harm in that but not particularly interesting.
Her aversion to the c word is baffling, why doesn't she just ignore these people if they are so ridiculous?
Her current post on the bnp bombers is very hard to understand. She thinks it's just a 'couple of nutters' and the police and media have shown admirable restraint.
She also thinks that Muslims have been given a fair shake in the media, which absolutely beggars belief considering the attention a few part time cartoon jihadis get and the atrocious coverage of the lebanon invasion.
I commented that, on the available evidence and lack of accomplices arrested, the london bombers could be equally described as two pairs of nutters.
Wonder if that will pass moderation?

The Antagonist said...

Jim, thanks for your comments and thanks for making the point that in any case where real tangible evidence exists, eye witness accounts are quite simply ignored in favour of the story told by the evidence that supports it. Well done also for noting that The Antagonist's early theories about the bus were just that, theories.

While we're on one of Rachel's favourite subjects, The Antagonist's early theories about the bus, the Criminal Injuries and Compensation Authority (CICA) published a PDF guide explaining who is entitled to claim compensation as a result of the events of 7 July 2005. The following quote is taken directly from the CICA document. Note the second item listed under point 16 and prepare for a bout of cognitive dissonance. Bear in mind also that the official Home Office narrative says of the Number 30 bus explosion: "The bomb goes off, killing 14 people, including Hussain, and injuring over 110.":

Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority - Compensation for the victims of the London bombings of 7 July 2005
15. c) You suffered trauma, diagnosed by a doctor or (for more serious cases) a psychiatrist, which was due directly to your reasonable fear of immediate physical injury or death in the bombings.

16. This is the most difficult group to put a number on. As a guide, you would come within this group:

- if you were on one of the underground trains that were bombed; or
- if you were in or near Tavistock Square and saw the Number 30 bus explode; and
- if your experience caused you to suffer a medically or psychiatrically diagnosed trauma.

In response, to "if you were in or near Tavistock Square and saw the Number 30 bus explode", one might be tempted to ask why no explicit reference is made to those people that were actually ON the bus, in the same way that people "on one of the underground trains that were bombed" are referenced, or why no reference is made to the 110 people that the Official Report explicity claims were injured.

Indeed 'Rachel, North London' herself was a willing proponent of ignoring any victims and injured there might be from the bus explosion when she provided information about how journalists could contact survivors from the incidents in the run up to the first anniversary. 'Rachel North' wrote:

"If you were on any of the trains and you want to join the campaign for an independent enquiry into the London bombs, (which is a separate thing to non-campaigning, non-political support group Kings Cross United) you can get in contact with us"

When an eagle-eyed J7 researcher pointed out to Rachel that there was no reference to, nor any means of contacting, the survivors and injured from the Number 30 bus, Rachel changed the line to say:

"If you were directly affected by the 7/7 bombings and you want to join the campaign for an independent enquiry into the London bombs, ( which is a separate thing to non-campaigning, non-political support group Kings Cross United) you can get in contact with us at the first instance via RachelNorthLondon AT googlemail.com as well."

Of course, this doesn't prove anything in itself but it does raise a number of questions about why the Criminal Injuries and Compensation Authority might have made no explicit reference to people that were ON the bus, or the 110 people the Official Report tells us were injured as a result of the Number 30 bus explosion. It also raises questions about quite why 'Rachel North' might have made a similar 'mistake' of neglecting to reference survivors from the bus when publicising how journalists might get in contact with survivors.

Rachel said...

Islamism = an extremist cult.
Islam = a great world religion.
My blog = a personal blog about my personal life which includes political and personal fallout from 7/7. You will niote that it is listed in blogtopsites as a 'personal blog'.

Jim - I do engage, but find it almost impossible to have a sensible conversation with the Antagonist who persists in implying that I am some kind of official plant all over the internet, even that I am not a real survivor, which is ridiculous, which is why I offered to meet him.

On another point, if witness statements are not be to be taken as gospel - which is a fair point, traumatised people may not be wholly reliable in the way that CCTV is and no-one disputes this - why the endless attention given to dancer Bruce Lait's testimony at the expense of all the other witnesses such as Biddle and Tulloch who saw Khan on the train and were there when a bomb exploded on it? Selective misquoting, that's what it is - just like Ant's misuse of my 'investigative reporter comment taken misleadingly out of context on his home page!

Conspiracy theorists, very hard to deal with. Still, releasing my anger after 12 months of insults, smears anonymous comments, threads devoted to slagging me off and so on, is quite pleasant sometimes.

Rachel said...

Ant - re. the bus. I can't pass on journalist contacts to bus passengers, as I am not personally in contact with any at the moment via survivor group campaigns - I am in contact with people from the 3 trains, as we all had a similar experience and have got together to discuss matters of tube safety and so on. I am happy to talk to bus passengers - if they get in contact - I have briefly met some at a service and at another general survivor meeting - but there are fewer of them, and so perhaps, a year on, the percentage who are interested in campaigning is fewer, compared to the amost 2000 on the trains, which has yielded a group of 100 who are still active and in touch with each other. It appears that people who had a similar experience want to meet others who wnt through the same thing. The experience on the tubes was different, not worse but different to the experience of those on the bus. For a start we were trapped together longer, and talked to each other more, the bus exploded in the open air and people fled. We couldn't do that. So we formed in many cases, close bonds that we keep up via emaila and meetings.

Anonymous said...

rachel said:
if witness statements are not be to be taken as gospel - which is a fair point, traumatised people may not be wholly reliable in the way that CCTV is and no-one disputes this - why the endless attention given to dancer Bruce Lait's testimony at the expense of all the other witnesses such as Biddle and Tulloch who saw Khan on the train and were there when a bomb exploded on it?

Such problems would vanish if all the CCTV evidence were released!

Rachel said...

No it wouldn't . CCTV footage is released. You say it is faked. Witnesses and forensic evidence and photod held by the police show and tell that the bomb exploded in the trains, not under yuet, yet you will still go on about Lait's single testimony. Yes, the bomb made a hole. From inside the train. It was on the floor, near the bomber, Khan. It pushed tiles in the train up, and pieces of metal on the floor of the edgware rd train came loose/were pushed up and buckled from the force of the explosIon ON THE TRAIN, ON THE FLOOR from the bomb IN THE BAG, placed there BY THE SUICIDE BOMBER.

But as there is no CCTV of this - and as you all still seem to want to disbeleive that it happened like this, I don't see why releasing further evidence will satisfy you. You are special and different. You remain unconvinced by evidence that the bombers did it, unlike everyone else who was there and has been in contact with those pursuing the investigation afterwards.

I do not see what would convince you, since you seem to have chosen not to beleive anything you are told, in favour of leaping to, and then not even retracting far-fetched theories of your own imaginings.

The Antagonist said...

How disingenuous, Rachel.

No CCTV 'footage' has ever been released from 7 July 2005, as you well know.

In fact, we've yet to see any CCTV from 7 July 2005 that shows all four alleged perpetrators in London on that day.

Compare and contrast with the high-definition moving CCTV footage released from 28 June 2005.

Rachel said...

Yeah, so that must mean of course that...

a) the bombers were innocent as new born lambs,
b) there were no bombs,
c) Everyone is lying,
d) Except you and your mates.
e) The mysterious deaths of 56 peopel and injuries to hundreds more were all part of a plot by M16/M15/Pixies/please explain and provide sensible evidence to support your hypothesis.
f) Despite you pointing out that The Government were behind the bombings, the Govt. and security services (which, remember according to you have no compunction about murdering scores on 7/7 and hundreds of thousamds world wide) have bizarrely elected to leave you all alone to reveal the truth on the internet
g) Since you were not shown all the evidence relating to any of the murder trials held at the Old Bailey ever, everyone who was tried there must also be a victim of a Govt frame up too, yes?
h) Since it is only if you see all aspects and evidence of a major police investigation that you will accept a crime happened.
i) Or is it only 7/7 you have a problem with? In which case, why do you think the police should change their policy and release evidence in a way they do not do with other serious murder investigations to satisfy your curiosity?

I could continue but I am on a deadline and amusing though this is, I can't be arsed at present.

Rachel said...

...except to say, there are numerous refs to CCTV in the narrative. Just because you personally haven;t seen it, don't mean others haven't, or that it does not exist. Right, cup of tea fo rme I think.

Bridget said...


Bruce Lait repeated what the policeman told him and what he saw. Also he was on the Aldgate train which Tanweer is alleged to have exploded a bomb on, not the Edgware Rd train with Khan.

As for the Edgware Rd train, John Reid has answered survivors queries about the official report having the position of the bomb wrong with 'forensics are not yet complete' as you well know.

The July 7th Review Commitee reports contain no evidence from bus passengers btw.

As for releasing further evidence to 'satisfy you as you are special and different' last time I checked 630 people had signed the petition to Release the Evidence in just over 6 weeks. All special & different, yes perhaps, these are all people who wish to make up their own minds, based on the evidence rather than just 'believing what they are told'.

Have you signed yet?

Bridget said...


You made an interesting point here:

f) Despite you pointing out that The Government were behind the bombings, the Govt. and security services (which, remember according to you have no compunction about murdering scores on 7/7 and hundreds of thousamds world wide) have bizarrely elected to leave you all alone to reveal the truth on the internet.

Apart from the fact that we have never claimed to know who was behind 7/7, why would it be bizarre to be left alone by the security services? Would you expect us to be arrested or something more sinister for 'daring' to question the official version?

Anonymous said...

bridget dunne wrote:
The July 7th Review Commitee reports contain no evidence from bus passengers

Actually there is one I have found. It is Gary, p.201 in vol 3 of the report.

Rachel said...


You made an interesting point here:

f) Despite you pointing out that The Government were behind the bombings, the Govt. and security services (which, remember according to you have no compunction about murdering scores on 7/7 and hundreds of thousamds world wide) have bizarrely elected to leave you all alone to reveal the truth on the internet.

Apart from the fact that we have never claimed to know who was behind 7/7, why would it be bizarre to be left alone by the security services? Would you expect us to be arrested or something more sinister for 'daring' to question the official version?

9/10/06 16:26

Oh Christ, you don't 'do' humour or irony, do you.

Never mind Bridget. Never mind.

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

Well, I guess I don't do humour or irony, either...I've had that "Well, why are you still alive, then?" argument flung at me more times this year than I care to remember, like it validly addresses a non-point that we don't even make.

But, hey - I never used to do repeating myself over and over again to someone who never listens, although I've had to endure an awful lot of that this year too, Rachel ;)

Please rest assured I've got my will ready and a letter with my lawyer for when I get picked off in an 'suspicious suicide' for being a naughty loonspud.

Look at the J7 campaign for what it is. Please give it a rest with your non-sequiturs. You cannot predict what reaction there would be to the release of the CCTV footage footage that bizarrely, people like Peregrine Worsthorne believe we've all already seen. How about that for people not needing to be confronted with evidence. Say it often enough and they believe it so. I am concerned that we haven't been shown such footage for the reasons I've given to you numerous times, which are also laid out here.

To address your itemised points:

a)We're not saying the bombers are innocent.

b)We're not saying there were no bombs.

c)We're not saying everyone is lying.

d) We don't claim to be in possession of the truth.

e) We have never claimed the London bombings were carried out by MI5/MI6/pixies/lizards..or the rest of the nutbar theories you associate our campaign with.

We are under no obligation to provide evidence to "support our hypothesis" because...for the hundredth time...drum roll please...we have no hypothesis!

f)We do not point out that the government were behind the London bombings.

g)Invalid comparison

h)We do accept a crime happened.

i)It is only 7/7 we are specifially campaigning against, but the anomalies associated with it also appear in similar atrocities.

Lait's testimony was only given credence in the wider context of its correlation with other witness testimony. Since you wish to make the comparison...Bruce Lait has only given one statement, not many, to many different media sources, with a different version given each time as with Danny Biddle.
And before the next accusation of equivocation comes flying...No, this does not make Danny Biddle a liar. It just makes his testimony less reliable. John Tulloch initially said he could remember seeing nobody of Khan's description after having been told where he must have been in relation to him on the Edgware train.

And thanks for saying we're special and different, what an absolutely lovely thing to say!

Bridget said...


As for "Oh Christ, you don't 'do' humour or irony, do you.

Never mind Bridget. Never mind."

Nothing you've ever had to say about 7th July has struck me as either ironic or humorous. 'Taking the piss' doesn't proves that you have a sense of humour Rachel.

Rachel said...

Kier, you *persoanlly* may not be bold enough to say that the bombers were innocent. However, you are one of three running J7.

Bridget meanwhile DOES claim the bombers were innocent. She has said so on urban 75. She is one of three people who run J7. Antagonist appears to be of the same mind. So the majority view held by the creators of your site is that the bombers were innocent and it was an act of state terror.

But let's not just take the opinions of Bridget and Antagonist. Let us look, shall we, at your main leaflet that you hand out?

From your leaflet:
' BIRMINGHAM 6: INNOCENT! (17 years before the truth emerged)

GUILDFORD 4: INNOCENT! (15 years before the truth emerged)

TIPTON 3: INNOCENT! (2 years in Guantanamo for 3 innocents)


'War OF Terror: 'IslamoFascism' is the mask behind which the real globalist-fascists, scheming for their New World Order, have repeatedly hidden...New York, Madrid, Bali, Jordan and now London. Who and where next?'

'How States work: Inside job frame-ups are routine operations when ruling fraternities want another war or more police-state powers. Intelligence services like the SS, CIA, Mossad and MI6 have been internationally recognised for encouraging or directly engin- eering terrorist atrocities ...'

It is perfectly clear to memand anyone else lookign at your campaign that your site pushes the line that the bombers were innocent and that this was a flase flag operation of synthetic terror done by a State which you call 'globalist-fascists, scheming for their New World Order'.

Can you stop wriggling now please? All of you?

Any of you?

That is your campaign flyer. It quite clearly says what it says. Evidence *has* been released and you have picked holes in it because it does not fit with your theory. It is quite clear to anyone reading your flyer - your mission statement - what your agenda is. I'd have more respect if you not only admitted it, and more importantly, actually provided some evidence to support the assertions that the bombers were innocent and it was all a false flag State plot.

To put it back at you - release the evidence! Oh, you can't.

Release the hypothesis then.


The Antagonist said...

' BIRMINGHAM 6: INNOCENT! (17 years before the truth emerged)

GUILDFORD 4: INNOCENT! (15 years before the truth emerged)

TIPTON 3: INNOCENT! (2 years in Guantanamo for 3 innocents)


.... before the truth emerges.

Almost as good at this 'reading' lark as you are at the 'writing' thing.

Bridget said...

"Bridget meanwhile DOES claim the bombers were innocent. She has said so on urban 75."

Innocent until PROVEN guilty.

Kier said...

Rachel, it's not a matter of being bold. What I keep stating to you is that the J7 campaign is not a campaign to prove the innocence of those men. It is a campaign for an inquiry into 7/7 which is not conducted under the IA2005 and for the release of the evidence which proves the official account.

In a case like this, where there is reasonable doubt, of course we are not going to assume the guilt of the men. And since the law in this country is that people are innocent until proven guilty, it is not unreasonable to not assume this guilt. This is just one of many assumptions about July 7th that we are not making.

There is obviously a question over whether they are guilty or not, since so much of what we've been told about them is incongruent and ambiguous.

We are told to assume, for instance, that Hasib Hussain bombed the No.30 bus, yet there is no CCTV of him on the bus, the driver didn't see him and nor did any passengers. On this basis, the basis of any proof that he was on the bus being totally absent, would it be foolish or not to accept without question that he was on it?
It does not follow that by saying this, I am saying Hasib Hussain is innocent; I'm saying his guilt is called into question when there is no proof that he was on the bus. Can you not see this fundamental distinction? Equally, nobody saw Shehzad Tanweer on the Aldgate train. This rather basic detail is more important to me than any video he might have made with the help of some dodgy convert from California, or the acceptance of the existance of Islamic extremists - and I certainly do accept that they exist.

All we have been shown are things which make it seem likely that two of the men might have been involved with 7/7. This is not proof of their guilt, and certainly not proof of the guilt of the two others. Yes, there may well be evidence in existence we haven't seen - exactly why I'm campaigning to have it released. About 640 people agree with me, the last time I looked. We're actually not asking for very much, it's a very simple request. I would rather not base my opinions on speculation.

By saying we are out to exonerate those men, and ignore any evidence to suggest they actually are guilty, you are missing the point, and misunderstanding our campaign. Like I've said before, I am perfectly ready to believe they did it, if I am shown the proof that they did. I will not dismiss CCTV footage as 'fake' because it fits in with some obstinate idea I have that it was all a lie; I will look at it objectively like I've done all the way through this.

You can think of this as 'wriggling' if you like, but I don't know any better way of explaining it to you.

Rachel said...

This is what Bridget wrote on u75, posting as Prole:

'It is a travesty of justice, these men didn't do it.Read the narrative and then you'll know what tasteless fact-free conspiraloonery really looks like'

'From the evidence that I've researched so far there is no such thing as home-grown Islamic suicide-bombers'

'I also believe that acts of 'terrorism' are carried out by groups pursuing a political agenda ie IRA ETA etc. I do not know what acts would be carried out in the name of 'Islam' or if in fact any ever have been.'

Anonymous said...

Rachel have you ever sat on a jury? You don't appear to understand the nature of innocence, guilty and not guilty.

Rachel do you realise when someone walks free from court, they have not been found 'innocent', though the press often erroneously say so. No, when someone walks free from court, they have generally been found 'not guilty' this does not mean they did not commit the crime, it just means that there is not sufficient evidence that they did commit the crime.

It is the same here, no-one is saying the men are innocent, just that faced with the feather-like weight of evidence, that is available to the public, it is not possible to conclude their guilt with certainty. Some of the evidence is more compelling that other bits, but last night I watched the president of the USA's assassination, I witnessed Dick Cheyney discuss this, was it all real? Rachel do you really believe in the veracity of the photographic image?

This has been explained to you again and again, and yet still you repeat the same lies and allegations, that we all think the men are 'innocent as newborn lambs' that we are holocaust deniers and that we all think you are a shill, believe in lizardmen, Zionist conspiracies the illuminati etc...

As for KCU, I do not think it is designed to control the voice of the survivors, however I do think because of your outspoken and offensive attitude towards anyone that does not support the OV, you are unlikely to attract any survivors that do not support the OV, it stands to reason.

As for witnesses statements, as Jim pointed out, no-one is saying they are liars, just that their testimony may not be reliable, this is the nature of memory, in court the first witness statements to be discounted are those that have changed repeatedly, or those that appear to have been formed by later events, such as...

'He was wearing brown trousers and a white top,'
'Oh, can't be him then, he was wearing a kilt,'
'Yes, sorry that's it, he was wearing a kilt,'

...now many people can see issues with certain witness statements, you will not address these issues, either you ignore them or get angry and call people sick. An example of this was a debate you took part in a long time ago, which I read recently, you told of a witness that lay next to the torso of Lindsay in the wreckage. Kier politely asked you repeatedly, how the witness identified the torso of a man he had never seen before, in the dark, in the chaos, amid the carnage and damage. How did the witness know the torso was that of Lindsay?

No doubt you will call me sick for asking, but the police would ask it, the newspapers would ask it, the courts would ask it, so I feel no shame in asking it.

Now I wonder, can you reply to me, actually address the content of my post without once mentioning Zionists, lizardmen, conspiracy theories, mad, sick, etc...?

Rachel said...

How many survivors have made themselves known to the J7 campaign who support your doubts? Apart from Keith M going to the bereaved father of a bomber, I am unaware of any survivors or families who have shown any interest in your campaign. Do you know any? Have you found any? If not, why do you think that is? Given that so many are campaigning quietly for an inquiry?

The J7 campaign, as I point out by republishing its own material, and the words of its founder and website creator, Bridget Dunne supports the evidence-free claim that 7/7 was a 'false flag operation' and that the bombers need only time to be proved innocent. Bridget does not even seem to understand or accept that Islamic terror or homegrown suicide bombers exist!

''It is a travesty of justice, these men didn't do it.Read the narrative and then you'll know what tasteless fact-free conspiraloonery really looks like'

'From the evidence that I've researched so far there is no such thing as home-grown Islamic suicide-bombers'

'I also believe that acts of 'terrorism' are carried out by groups pursuing a political agenda ie IRA ETA etc. I do not know what acts would be carried out in the name of 'Islam' or if in fact any ever have been.'

That is what she writes, and you only need to read this blog to see Antagonist's wild theories.

What I object to is this constant inference that the OV is wrong with NO attempt to bring evidence to bear to back up the assertions that the bombers were innocent or that the operation was conducted by the State. This has got to a point where I have been the subject of venomous personal attacks, and have responded with wearied anger at times. I am sure you can see why.

The witness saw the headless torso next to them. It was later forensically identified as Lindsays. There was only one black male torso with the DNA of Lindsay on that train, and injuries commesurate with being the bomber.

Truthseeker, have you ever seen a case where someone kills themselves after committing murder? Do you assume they are innocent and have been post-humously framed by the state too? Do you understand that you cannot try the dead? Do you understand what forenics are?

Anonymous said...

I know of none, but I am new around here, however Grahame Russell father of Philip Russell, killed on the the number 30, did say...

“I am reasonably convinced that
the Government itself was aware of
possible terrorist plots beforehand and I
also believe that the intelligence services
were as well.”

Philip was my classmate at school.

Okay sit down Rachel and brace your self, I don't really care what Bridget has previously written, the purpose of J7 has never been to promote one individuals theories, J7 is work in progress, an ongoing investigation. I am not here to defend Bridget or the Antagonist's theories, if indeed your post is placing her comments in context, and are a fair reflection of what she meant. I am here because of the holes in the OV, not because of the cast iron solidness of any other J7's theories.

“The witness saw the headless torso next to them. It was later forensically identified as Lindsays. There was only one black male torso with the DNA of Lindsay on that train, and injuries commesurate with being the bomber.”

Truthseeker, have you ever seen a case where someone kills themselves after committing murder? Do you assume they are innocent and have been post-humously framed by the state too? Do you understand that you cannot try the dead? Do you understand what forenics are?

Oh dear Rachel, you originally raised the torso witness as evidence that Lindsay was there, what you are actually saying is that a torso was seen and the witness was later told the torso he had seen is that of Lindsay, now that would never stand up in a court of law. You used this witnesses statement as evidence that Lindsay was there, but as it hinges on the forensics, him effectively being told it was Lindsay, it is not additional evidence. BTW the narrative states...

“Forensic evidence suggests the explosion occurred on or close to
the floor”

Why therefore would Lindsay's injuries differ significantly from those of someone next to him?

Where did they get the other DNA sample for Lindsay, the one to match it to? Before you go on, I am not saying it wasn't Lindsay just curious, as it was done quite fast.

It is not that rare for someone to kill themselves after a murder, but actually they are not normally branded guilty, merely the police say they are 'not looking for anyone else in relation to the case', their guilt is inferred. No I do not assume them framed nor innocent, though I am sure some cases will have been wrong. However do you really want to treat July 7th like just any other murder case?

Do I understand what forensics are, yes, what's your point exactly?

Bridget said...

According to the Official Report:

13 July Jermaine Lindsay’s wife informs police that he is missing.

Police search Lindsay’s home in Aylesbury.

15 July Property belonging to Lindsay found at Russell Square.

I wonder if every wife who phoned to report their husband missing then had their home's searched?

Lindsay's property is not found until 8 days after the blast.

From Mind the Gaps pt 11

Early reports gave the name of the Piccadilly Line bomber as Ejaz or Eliaz Fiaz, who, like three of the suspects came from Beeston. Fiaz had recently bleached his hair.

Once Lindsay was identified as the suspect for the Piccadilly Line blast, Fiaz was never mentioned again and, perhaps more importantly, has not been heard of since.

Numeral said...

The Independent published an apology to Ejaz Fiaz a few months ago, for reporting that he was one of the bombers. I have not seen it online

Rachel said...

“I am reasonably convinced that
the Government itself was aware of
possible terrorist plots beforehand and I
also believe that the intelligence services
were as well.”

Me too. That does not mean in any way that the Government was RESPONSIBLE for planting the bombs.

' I don't really care what Bridget has previously written, the purpose of J7 has never been to promote one individuals theories, J7 is work in progress, an ongoing investigation. I am not here to defend Bridget or the Antagonist's theories,'

But if two out of three of the authors and main contributors to a site have certain publicly stated theories, then you have to expect that the site was and is to a certain extent created to reflect their interests and theories.

The BNP site is created and run by people who have certain theories. I don't go visiting there or hanging about on their forums because I know what their theories are and I know them to be false and distorted.

'I am here because of the holes in the OV, not because of the cast iron solidness of any other J7's theories'

This is just wriggling. J7 is a conspiracy theory site run by three people, two of whom think the bombers were innocent and the Govet. was behind it and it was a flase flag operation , and a third who won't come out and say what she thinks apart from she is open to all possibilities, which presumably includes the theory that her co-site authors hold.

I am not going to go into all the details about what I know about the forensics in that carriage, because I do not think it is your business and I think it is distasteful in the extreme to do so, so you will hear no more from me on the subject and I regret raising it at all. I asked you if you understood the concept of forensic evidence. I hope that you understand this may involve DNA and body part investigation as well as investigation as to the nature of tremendous injuries. It is a gruesome subject, and I am not going to go into details on a public forum. I do not think it is appropriate, especially as readers of this blog have no connection with the case other than curiosity.

People can, and I daresay will, attack me for this: but I do not see any merit in talking of these terrible things on an open forum to people who are not survivors or bereaved or involved in the investigation. YOu can take it that I am convinced of the bomber's guilt, having had access to more information than you and I daresay people will sneer and jeer and try to get me to reveal more, but I am not going to, out of respect for the families of people who lost people that day and those who still suffer the effects of 7.7.

I am sorry to hear of your connection to one of the dead.

Kier said...

"This is just wriggling. J7 is a conspiracy theory site run by three people, two of whom think the bombers were innocent and the Govet. was behind it and it was a flase flag operation , and a third who won't come out and say what she thinks apart from she is open to all possibilities, which presumably includes the theory that her co-site authors hold."

This may well be the most absurd thing I've ever seen you say about the campaign and myself, although I'm not sure; I'll have to check!

On the basis that for almost a year of discussing this issue with you I have stated that I have no theory and am waiting for the authorities to provide the answers that I do not think it is my place to speculate on...that's me refusing to come out and say what I think?! What kind of logic are you using here?

I can only assume that the concept of objectivity really is alien to you, then Rachel. It must be, if you're still calling our site a 'conspiracy theory site', when it can clearly be seen that we have no theory. The simple act of listing several hypotheses (not the same thing) proposed by other people is not the same as pushing or postulating a theory.

I haven't got a theory about July 7th. My own opinions about it will bring me no closer to finding the truth. Equating that with me not saying what I really think would just be obtuse. What I think is not the issue and never has been. Yes, I am open to all possibilities. The way you say that clearly indicates your scorn for anybody not toeing the dogmatic party line you relentlessly come over here to push, and not unquestioningly accepting a version of events that has yet to have many anomalies clarified. I know it makes you angry, Rachel. You've spent the best part of a year being angry at us. You have also stated many times that engaging with us is hindering your recovery process and you will do it no longer, yet you keep coming back, apparently unable to accept that we will not be quiet until we've had our questions answered. Unless you do accept this, you are quite possibly going to spend a long time being angry, which in the long run will not do you much good.

Be angry at the conspiracy sites if you want - I can show you plenty, including one that devotes itself to '7/7 truth' without doing any research beyond reading a couple of newspapers and taking hypotheses at face value, utterly convinced of the government's guilt in the same way you are convinced of the guilt of the men. Put our site into perspective - all of us have got up off our @sses and done research for ourselves. Bridget Dunne directly contacted TFL and other official sources for information rather than relying on newspapers. If she was convinced of a government 'conspiracy' would it not make better sense to just sit and speculate over news reports rather than directly sourcing facts, risking being confronted with evidence that does not fit the 'theory'? Instead, we've been faced with information that does not fit the official account. It is not, in the slightest, illogical to then wonder what the hell is going on and ask for the truth.

None of us were activists before all this - you have criticised other researchers who were already campaigning about 9/11 and similar because of the possibility that they were not approaching the event with an open mind, but none of us came from that background and have nothing to prove either way.

The two researchers who originally approached the Communications manager of Thameslink at Luton would clearly have had a reason for going there which you may not consider objective, since they had been campaigning previously, but that does not change the validity of the information they obtained about the train times.

This isn't a process v product debate anyway. The fact that you don't see me all over the internet spreading my 'theories' around does not indicate that I won't say what I think - it indicates that I've got no theories to spread around. For someone who seems to favour the 'occam's razor' approach, you certainly use it very selectively.

Kier said...

Rachel,I can't help noticing also that in the quote of yours I used in my comment above, you ignored the actual point that truthseeker was making.

Truthseeker had stated that they were here because of holes in the official account and not because of any theory or opinion of any member of J7 - you slated this as 'wriggling'. How so is it wriggling? It was a clear statement, that regardless of what other people may say, or what you think they say, and theories aside, there are anomalies enough in the OV for people to be curious on that basis.

There is as little logic in your response there as there is in having a go at people for having theories and then having a go for someone not having a theory.

Bridget said...

Rachel states:

"The BNP site is created and run by people who have certain theories. I don't go visiting there or hanging about on their forums because I know what their theories are and I know them to be false and distorted."

You make this statement in an attempt to draw a parallel between them and the J7 Truth Campaign.

The BNP site is created by a fascist & racist political party whose views are well known. We are not fascists, nor rascists nor are we a political party, so this analogy is another one of your attempts to smear us.

More importantly these kinds of statements are distractions from the real issues of the campaign, which is for Truth & Justice.

I was thinking about how discourse with you, Rachel, has proceeded and manifested itself over this past year or so.

I then had cause to check out an existentialist theory, very relevant at the moment, called Terror Management Theory.

"Compliance with cultural values enhances one's feeling of security and self-esteem, provided that the individual is capable of living in accordance with whatever particular cultural standards apply to him or her. The belief in the rightness of the cultural values and standards creates the conviction necessary to live a reasonable and meaningful life. Because of this men and women strive to have their cultural worldview confirmed by others, thereby receiving the community’s esteem. However, when one’s worldview is threatened by the weltanschauungen of another, it often results in one’s self-respect being endangered as well. In such a situation people not only endeavour to deny or devalue the importance of third party weltanschauung, but try to controvert the ideas and opinions of others which may, as a consequence, escalate into a conflict.

Research has shown that people, when reminded of their own inevitable death, will cling more strongly to their cultural worldviews. The data appears to show that nations or persons who have experienced traumas (e.g. 9/11) are more attracted to strong leaders who express traditional, pro-establishment, authoritarian viewpoints. They will also be hyper-aware of the possibility of external threats, and may be more hostile to those who threaten them.

The theory gained media attention in the aftermath of 9/11, and after the re-election of President George Bush in the USA, Prime Minister Tony Blair in the UK, and John Howard in Australia."

This theory strikes me as very dangerous, but explains the thinking behind the War (of) Terror, it also explains the current attacks, dressed up as debate, on Muslim women wearing the Niqab.

There is room on this planet for many worldviews, or weltanschauungen, I respect your right to hold yours Rachel whilst not agreeing with you. Can you say the same about mine?

Anonymous said...

For the record, on September 26th 2006 I asked The Antagonist whether he thought he knew what happened on July 7th 2005. To my straight question, I received a straight answer in less than 24 hours:

"I have no idea what happened on 7 July 2005, just rather too many unanswered questions about such a grave event which has had such horrific consequences on so many different levels. Hence J7 and hence floating the occasional alternative interpretation for consideration and discussion."

In contrast, I have written three times to the Home Office for an explanation of how the four suspects passed through the ticket barrier at Luton station at 0715, yet appeared on CCTV outside the station at 0721, according to the Official Report. The replies to the first two letters did not answer the question. I am still waiting for a reply to the third letter.

As for Rachel North, the Guardian on June 27th 2006 reported:

'"Train timetables rarely bear any relation to real life," says North dismissively.'

Yet examination of the internet reveals that by that date Rachel was well aware that the J7 campaign was referring to actual train running times, not scheduled train timetables. Her statement, if reported accurately by the Guardian, was therefore deliberately misleading.

The Antagonist said...

A copy of a comment I left over on athenaeum, which contains George Galloway's thoughts on the Abu Omar Izzadeen incident in East London....

With regard to Omar Brooks and the ‘on cue’ incident with Herr Doktor John Reid at the invite only, secret location in East London, it’s worth noting that even ‘Gorgeous’ George Galloway — he who shall not countenance the notion of any ‘theory’ that doth possess the remotest scent of ‘conspiracy’, wrote an open letter to the Home Secretary about proceedings alleging that, “There are only two conceivable explanations as to how this man, at this sensitive time, was allowed to hijack your Potemkin Village performance today.”

It went as follows:

Dear Home Secretary,

I have been watching open-mouthed the altercation you have provoked in East London with your ill-judged, patronising and provocative foray into territory you clearly barely understand. There is much that will be said about the child-like - Patricia Hewittesque! - performance you gave your audience. I want to concentrate on the altercation.

The man who harangued you - Abu Izzadine - is a well-known and violent extremist from an organisation your own government has proscribed. Yet he was allowed within punching distance of the British Home Secretary. How ? Why ?

This is the same man who led a group of fanatic thugs in the brief “hostage-taking” of myself and my daughter and several innocent members of the public during a general election meeting last year. This is well known to the Special Branch and senior police officers in East London - the very people in charge of your security today.

This man has appeared on many occasions on television and in the press as a dangerous extremist who has praised the terrorist attacks on July 7th and 9/11. His comments were amongst those adduced in your own government’s case for the proscription of the Al Ghuraba organisation.

There are only two conceivable explanations as to how this man, at this sensitive time, was allowed to hijack your Potemkin Village performance today.

Either our police and security services are so fantastically incompetent that Bin Laden himself might have slipped in to beard you at your podium. Or someone somewhere wanted to engineer precisely this confrontation to show you in a certain light and to portray the Muslims of Britain in the most aggressive violent and extreme way possible, as a justification for the utterly counter-productive policies you are following.

Which is it ?

Because, as you know, I am not a believer in conspiracy theories I am leaning towards the first explanation. If I am right then yet again the Metropolitan Police have proved almost comically incompetent. The sight of a small, slight, helmeted police officer being dwarfed by a giant ranting fanatical thug - talk about a thin blue line! - as all that stood between you and a violent attack will certainly have provided food for thought and encouragement to the country’s enemies. Yet again the justification for continuing in office of Sir Ian Blair must be called into question.

But if I am wrong, and this all turns out to have been some Nixonian “dirty tricks” operation..then of course the questions raised are much more profound and dangerous

I await your response with interest.

Yours sincerely
George Galloway MP

Original letter on the Respect web site.

The Antagonist said...

Darcus Howe, writing about Trevor Abu Omar Brooks Izzadeen in the New Statesman, said that the “clash was staged by Reid and his cohorts at the Home Office. They organised the meeting, Abu Izzadeen was invited in advance - his performance guaranteed - and the press was alerted to film and report the confrontation.

Anonymous said...

The link for the Radio 4 Today Programme interview: HERE