Rachel from N.London on Alex Cox's Forum

[alkmyst]

Originally posted on Alex Cox Forum - Thursday Feb 16th, 2006

Rachel North wrote:

Dogma?
I was there sunshine. Nothing I have seen or read or heard has made me think it was not a suicide bomb - and I have read, seen and spoken to a lot more people than you.
and as to the Power/Visor thing - see channel 4 news, and try and keep up...that was debunked ages ago ... as you well know, if you have been reading my blog. Which you clearly have...

Rachel, just as you have seen, read or heard nothing that makes you think that it wasn't a suicide bomb, I have seen, read or heard nothing that convinces me that Peter Power and Visor Consultants were innocent bystanders! I am not for one moment suggesting that Peter Power was a witting or willing accessory but he did state that Visor Consultants had been engaged by a third party, saying, ("......I won't mention their name ... but they'll know if they're listening...").

The Channel 4 attempt at 'debunking' was singularly unconvincing ........ but if Peter Power and the other senior players from Visor Consultants have nothing to hide, they shouldn't have any problem answering a few questions ...........preferably under oath!

How about the following questions:

1). What was the name of the Company / organization that contracted Visor Consultants to conduct the ‘Terror Exercises’ on Thursday July 7th 2005?

2). What are the names of the individuals who established the contract with Visor Consultants and what is their relationship with the British (or any other national) Government?

3). What was the full nature of the briefing given to Visor Consultants; and when was it given to them?

4). What is the relationship of Peter Power, or any other member of Visor Consultants, with the British (or any other national) Security Services?

5). With whom was the planning of the July 7th ‘Terror Exercise’ shared?

...... & that's just for starters!

Surely you're not suggesting that just because Channel 4 made a feeble attempt to take Peter Power out of the loop, we should accept everything that is reported on the 'Tell-A-Vision' at face value? You'll be telling me next that Becky Wade and Trevor Kavanagh represent the epitome of the British Media!

Oh, and by the way, I have read, seen and spoken with way more people, than you perhaps imagine ........ but this is a mere detail. What is fundamental to our interest and our continued focus on this subject is the truth!

One of the most significant common denominators amongst the vast majority of www.nineeleven.co.uk forum members is a high level of intellectual curiosity. Curiosity which has been stimulated by the overt US Administration complicity in the events of 9/11. Events that were the catalyst for the geopolitical agenda now being pursued by the US government and with the UK government playing a supporting role.

As you posted earlier:

There will always be those who tell us not to ask questions, of ourselves or each other. Who say they, and only they, speak the truth, the only truth.

The irony is that we are asking the questions ......... and you call us 'conspiraloons'!

What is wrong with this picture?

Rachel, as has been stated on many occasions previously, we do not look to you for answers and you are most welcome if your presence here is indicative of your desire to participate in the Quest for Truth.

Al K Myst

(The questions quoted above were taken from the DVD 'The 9/11 - 7/7 Connection' available via the following link:
www.spiritualalchemy.com/product_info.p ... ts_id=6795

[Prole]

Whether Rachel wittingly or un-wittingly co-operates in what is a racist media is her choice.
I for one was appalled at the juxtaposition of images in the Sunday Times article when I read Rachel's Story.
Whether Rachel realises it or not, her photo of a nice white middle-class woman surrounded by three 'black' faces, the 'so-called suicide bomber' Afro-Caribbean Jermaine Lindsay, her 19 yr old 'black' rapist and Garri Holness, a 'black' gang rapist (who incidentally was 'outed' just prior to her story's publication), plays to all the prejudices of Sunday Times readers.

[Rachel]

Whether Rachel wittingly or un-wittingly co-operates in what is a racist media is her choice.
I for one was appalled at the juxtaposition of images in the Sunday Times article when I read Rachel's Story.
Whether Rachel realises it or not, her photo of a nice white middle-class woman surrounded by three 'black' faces, the 'so-called suicide bomber' Afro-Caribbean Jermaine Lindsay, her 19 yr old 'black' rapist and Garri Holness, a 'black' gang rapist (who incidentally was 'outed' just prior to her story's publication), plays to all the prejudices of Sunday Times readers.

Right, I am not having this. That is just nasty, Prole. That is slanderous smearing and a bordering on a personal attack as far as I am concerned.

from 'Rachel's story in the Sunday Times]Garri Holness was in my carriage, and he lost his leg below the knee. His courage and fortitude, and the interviews he gave where he said that he did not hate the bombers, made him a media star.

Then, having built him up so high, the tabloids revealed in outrage that he was a former gang rapist who had spent time in prison — and had lied that his conviction had been quashed. How come he was getting £50,000 compensation for his leg, they asked, when gang-rape victims receive only £13,500? So, as a victim of rape, what do I think? I say that this rape was 20 years ago. He was 18. He went to prison for it and now he is out. He has a good job and an interesting life. He is a singer in his spare time; he has friends and family who love him. He has paid for what he did. Why must he be made to pay all over again? This is the problem when all you see is “victims”, not real people. There was a cross-section of London life on that train. The man who had raped, the woman who had been raped. The cleaner and the company director. Men, women, young, old, white, black, gay, straight, with complex lives and strengths and weaknesses

I have said publicly that I disagree with the hounding of Garri Holness. I have blogged about it http://rachelnorthlondon.blogspot.com/2 ... ictim.html

and I have written about it in the Sunday Times.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0, ... _3,00.html
I have also repeatedly said that Kings Cross United is for anyone on the Piccadilly line train. Men, women, young, old, white, black, gay, straight... I have said that within the group are Asian, Black, White, Christian, Jewsish, Muslim and Hindu passengers - a cross section of people travelling on the Underground.


I am white, and 34 at the time of the bomb. Germaine Lindsey was Black, Jamican/British, 19. The rapist who attacked me was 17 at the time of the attack, and an illegal immigrant and crack addict from Jamica, something I did not mention in the article. Garri Holness is Black British. Do I have a problem with Jamaicans? No. I am meant to be going out with a Jamican friend this weekend in fact. These are all facts. None theless, you need to look at WHAT IS ACTUALLY SAID IN THE ARTICLE and what I say in the blog. I cannot change the colour of my skin or my rapist's skin or the suicide bomber's skin or Garri my fellow passenger's skin. And I don't think it matters what colour we are; it is what we do and what we are, that counts.

The reason, by the way, that I wrote 'Rachel's Story' was because there was a media * storm about Garri and it was clear that the tabloid media had also got hold of the fact that one of the survivors was a convicted gang rapist ( when he was 19) and that one of the passengers was a white vicar's daughter who had been raped by a black 17 year old and were starting to champ at the bit about it . I wrote the story because I wanted to break it my way, not have it written about me with a racist agenda, and thus I avoided all calls for me to fulminate against Garri and said the opposite - that you can read above. My personal view is that Garri is a fellow passenger and victim of terrorism and I personally am happy to treat him as such: he has been to prison for his crime and that is the end of it as far as I am concerned. And I have publicly said so.

I hope this makes it clear that I did not '' wittingly or un-wittingly co-operates in what is a racist media'' - the opposite in fact - and I would like you, Bridget, to stop such slurs, since that really is pretty bloody offensive. I am shocked and angry by what you have said: please apologise.

[Prole]

Rachel I expressed my views openly and honestly. I was appalled, and it was the Sun, part of the Times group, that 'outed' Garri. I have no intention of apologising for my view that the images in the article worked on other levels, racist levels.
Could you please stop taking everything so 'personally'.
We are all as entitled to express our opinions as you have the right to express yours.

[alkmyst]

Rachel wrote:

the Visor conspiracy have been comprehensively debunked, notably by a Channel 4 News reporter.

Ah, a 'Channel 4 News Reporter'. Well that makes it OK then, eh?

Ever heard that old media maxim, 'never let the facts get in the way of a good story'?

If the 'Channel 4' investigation and subsequent report is based upon fact, Peter Power should not have any qualms about appearing before an investigative inquiry and answering a few pertinent questions about his role on that day?

Once Peter Power is given the opportunity to appear before an independent judicial panel and given the opportunity to respond to the questions that have been raised by his claims as to what transpired on July 7th, we might be better able to understand the incredible synchronicities that appear to have occured.

I struggle to understand why there should be any objection to Peter Power & Visor Consultants being properly investigated and exposed to public scrutiny .......... especially if they have absolutely nothing to hide!

However, let's not get too bogged down on this particular facet as it is just one piece of the jig-saw. Albeit, a not insignificant piece!

Why don't we perhaps give Rachel the opportunity to express her concerns about the events of July 7th and also to explain her motivation for supporting the call for a Public Inquiry?

Al K Myst

[Rachel]

Whether Rachel wittingly or un-wittingly co-operates in what is a racist media is her choice.

You have just said that I wittingly or unwittingly cooperated with racism...or racist media

I'm either a fool or willingly complicit in a racist agenda, is what you are implyhing . There was no need to raise the point at all, since it is clear what I say in the piece and I am not the picture editor of the Sunday Timesand as you have done so, and it is pretty offensive, I'm now asking you why.


You read THAT story and all that springs to mind is that I must be either wittingly or unwittingly complicit in racism?

Cheers, Bridget. Cheers. Really.

I could say this: Are you wittingly or unwittingly complicit in Islamofacism, since conspiracy theories that it was not the 'Leeds bombers' but 'the State who did it' appear with disturbing regularity on Islamofacist and extremist literature and websites?

I don't suppose that you think that you are, but conspiracy theories are used and adopted by others on other levels - pro-terrorism levels,( to paraphrase you.)

You can attempt to discredit me if you like, but I am not impressed by your attitude. Your reaction to THAT piece is very interesting. Cheap shot, cheaply made, own goal as far as I am concerned.

[Rachel]

Rachel wrote:

the Visor conspiracy have been comprehensively debunked, notably by a Channel 4 News reporter.

Ah, a 'Channel 4 News Reporter'. Well that makes it OK then, eh?

Ever heard that old media maxim, 'never let the facts get in the way of a good story'?

If the 'Channel 4' investigation and subsequent report is based upon fact, Peter Power should not have any qualms about appearing before an investigative inquiry and answering a few pertinent questions about his role on that day?

Once Peter Power is given the opportunity to appear before an independent judicial panel and given the opportunity to respond to the questions that have been raised by his claims as to what transpired on July 7th, we might be better able to understand the incredible synchronicities that appear to have occured.

I struggle to understand why there should be any objection to Peter Power & Visor Consultants being properly investigated and exposed to public scrutiny .......... especially if they have absolutely nothing to hide!

However, let's not get too bogged down on this particular facet as it is just one piece of the jig-saw. Albeit, a not insignificant piece!

Why don't we perhaps give Rachel the opportunity to express her concerns about the events of July 7th and also to explain her motivation for supporting the call for a Public Inquiry?

Al K Myst

I have given my reasons for wanting a public enquiry over and over again. As I know you read my blog I am surprised that your memory is so short.

Firstly, though, I have said I am not going to engage with anyone who does not accept that I am a real person who was on the Piccadilly line train when it was bombed. So, before we continue, I would like you, ''Al K Myst'' to say that you accept that you are talking to a survivor and witness, a real person who was there on July 7th on the bombed Piccadilly line train, on the carriage with the bomb in it.

With your talk of ''team Rachel'' I am not sure that you do, and so I would like some clarification if I am to correspond with you on this or any other forum.

[ian neal]

Rachel from north London could indeed exist. She could wittingly or unwittingly allow spooks to use her name

and

My tuppence on Rachel is there is more than 1 person behind her writing. I don't know why but I feel like a male wrote much of her stuff on Cox's forum. No proof like, just a hunch.

Hi good people

As I say here I have followed Rachel's postings on u75 boards. She is a real person as demonstrated by her meeting with several of the regular posters on u75. My advice is unless you can prove she is a spook (nigh impossible) I would steer clear of suggesting as much on public bulletin boards. Such musings could be portrayed as callous smeering against an innocent victim etc. and will antagonise undecided readers who will dismiss such speculation as insensitive.

Morning

I repeat the advice I give above. If anyone can prove Rachel is a spook etc, let's see some hard evidence otherwise let's avoid personal attacks based on 'suspicions' and keep the discourse focussed on issues and evidence and respect people's right to disagree. If Rachel's testimony or evidence clashes with other accounts or evidence then it is entirely reasonable to address this (that is focussing on the evidence) but it is quite a leap to then assume she must therefore be a spook.

I have seen too many divisions created within the 9/11 movement (especially in the US) where people are accused of being cointelpro or spooks based on v poor or circumstantial evidence. That's not to say spooks, etc have not and are not infilitrating this movement but my advice is if you suspect someone is not on the level, take your concerns directly to them and in private and only when you reckon you have a compelling case should those suspicions be put out into the public realm.

The other point I would make is that all are welcome on this forum assuming they are supportive of the call for a further inquiry into 9/11. There are many other places on the web for 9/11 truth campaigners and their opponents to argue/discuss stuff with each other. There may even be a case for establishing another forum moderated by 9/11 truth campaigners precisely for that purpose

[Prole]

I could say this: Are you wittingly or unwittingly complicit in Islamofacism, since conspiracy theories that it was not the 'Leeds bombers' but 'the State who did it' appear with disturbing regularity on Islamofacist and extremist literature and websites?

I could guess at the roots of 'Islamofascism', which is a word that Bush uses (even though he has difficulty pronouncing it). I would suspect the term never emerged from within the Muslim community or Islamic faith. Ever heard of 'demonising' the 'enemy'? A very useful propaganda tool:

Common enemy

Without an enemy with a mindless determination to destroy everything good and beautiful, any state struggles with the economic and social problems of unemployment and poverty. So, the idea of a common enemy is a symbol of the evil against which people must unite, and it distracts the people from politically inconvenient issues by relating all evils to the common rhetorical enemy. According to Kenneth Burke (1897-1995), this is creating an antithesis. We are born separate individuals and divided by class or other criteria, so identification is a compensation to division. (Burke, 1969, p. 22). He sees this human need to identify with or belong to a group as providing a rich resource for those interested in joining us or, more importantly, persuading us. To promote social cohesion, antithesis makes a simple balancing statement, "We do this." but "They do that.". This symmetry creates an expression of conjoined opposites which stigmatises the latter and encourages the former to cohere by only doing "this". At first, the enemy may be local politicians or other voices that might criticise the propaganist's actions. Then, all opposing voices are seen as antithetical to unity: without a united voice, the outside enemies will gain the upper hand. If the nation goes to war, fascism requires that everybody in society and every aspect of society is involved in the war effort and machine, so the society fights as one organism under the one leader.

[Rachel]

Yes, Bridget, I have read 1984, it is one of my favourite books and I am quite aware of how people demonsise the enemy on both sides.

To the West, there are extremists with an Islamofacist agenda - it is as you quite correctly and obviously say not a word found in the Qu'ran, nor in Muslim theology. To the extremists there are Crusader infidels.

I am not quite sure what point you are making but I am able to grasp the nature of propoganda and its use in fighting.

The point I make is that there are extremist ideaologies on both sides. An unfortunately extreme conservative, hawk-like and religious fundementalist-influenced right wing US ideaology has created enemies. Its policies, particularly its foreign policies have had consequences, one of which is that a case can be made that the US right is actively engaged in a Christian war or an oil war that attacks Muslims. This is an extreme reading of an agenda, but one that has taken root, and provides fuel for even more extreme political agendas which masquerade as religious but are in fact more to do with nationalism, pride, vengeance and politics which is why I will use a term such as Islamofacism to indicate that it is not Islamic. I hope that makes it clearer to you and that you can understand.

There are vile and aggressive zealots on both sides, and it is they who are causing the trouble. But I am interested to know whether you do accepot the existence of what for clarity's sake I will call an 'Islamofacist' ideaology, because it is rather worrying if you don't.

Caught in the middle are people who are opposed to the US and UK invasion of Iraq, but condemn terrorism and mass murder. It is getting harder and harder for their vioces to be heard. Which is why I went and attended the Muslim rally in Trafalgar Square and talked to Muslims.

[Rachel]

This is a really interesting article and worth reading properly and ignoring the rather histrionic headline


http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0, ... 81,00.html

[Ally]

I have seen too many divisions created within the 9/11 movement (especially in the US) where people are accused of being cointelpro or spooks based on v poor or circumstantial evidence. That's not to say spooks, etc have not and are not infilitrating this movement but my advice is if you suspect someone is not on the level, take your concerns directly to them and in private and only when you reckon you have a compelling case should those suspicions be put out into the public realm.

The other point I would make is that all are welcome on this forum assuming they are supportive of the call for a further inquiry into 9/11. There are many other places on the web for 9/11 truth campaigners and their opponents to argue/discuss stuff with each other. There may even be a case for establishing another forum moderated by 9/11 truth campaigners precisely for that purpose

Don't you think 7/7 was an inside job and needs discussing Ian ????

[Rachel]

And thanks Ian for the post and for reiterating that I am a real person. I am extremely committed to getting the 7th July truth told, and have campaigned for a Public Enquiry, I am pleased that we now have a forum for giving evidence and that the evidence will be made publicvia the 7th July Review Committee at the London Assembly

I have nothing at all to add to the nine eleven enquiry calls, I am here purely regarding 7th July. Please let me know in a PM if you have problems with me confining my interest to this part of the board only

[brian]

Not being familiar with what has been said on other forums by Rachel and others can I ask -

Is there direct eyewitness statements that place the young moslem men said to be the perpatrators at the scene and has this direct evidence been verified, names etc?

Has Rachel or any of the other victims convincingly contradicted the three eyewitnesses whos statements strongly suggest the explosions came from under the train? One an off duty policewoman.

[Rachel]

Danny Biddle
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0, ... 57,00.html

That morning I got on the front of the train, which was closest to the stairs, and stood next to the bomber, Mohammad Sidique Khan. I looked at him, as you do. He seemed quite calm. Nothing, in retrospect, made me think: "This guy's got a bomb." He looked at me, and as he did so he put his hand inside his rucksack, looked at me again, looked away, and pulled back his hand.

With that there was a crackly noise like when you tune in a radio, and the train seemed to expand and contract very quickly. I was slammed straight out of the train by the force of the blast, bounced off the wall of the tunnel — that's how I got the big scar on my head — and skidded along like a rag doll. As I landed, the train came to a halt and the doors, opened out by the blast, closed violently — guillotining my legs. I heard everything crack. I didn't lose consciousness. It was all over in 10 seconds. Imagine the worst pain, magnify it by a million, and that's close to what having a train door cut through your legs feels like. I screamed. Then it was as if someone turned the switch off. Boom! No more pain.

[Rachel]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/fivelive/news/thew ... d/diary-c/


John Tulloch, also Edgware Rd describes the moment of the explosion.

The thing is that most of the people standing next to the suicide bombers on the trains died.

[Ally]

Don't you think 7/7 was an inside job and needs discussing Ian ????

Do you take questions Ian?

[Rachel]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jh ... ndon10.xml

Brian, you see how difficult it is - the carriages were so damaged.

Description of the carriage I was on

As more and more trapped passengers prayed in the darkness, others tore off ties and belts to use as tourniquets. Sergeant Steve Betts, of the British Transport Police, was one of the first officers to arrive, along with rescue teams, and climb into the bombed carriage.

"The entire carriage was just covered head to foot, side to side, in body parts and blood," he said. "The roof had collapsed and fallen inwards and a significant number of bodies were piled up on top of each other on either side of the carriage. I couldn't see how anyone could come out alive. It is the most horrendous and awful scene I have ever seen - and I hope to God I will never see it again."



Further down the track, the wounded, many with limbs missing, were begging and screaming for help. "There was one chap yelling for help," Sgt Betts said. "One of his legs was missing and the other was horribly mutilated." As rescuers stumbled amid the bodies, they were stunned by the extent of the injuries. One, who tended some of the most seriously injured, would say the next day: "I don't know what Heaven looks like, but I have just seen Hell."

But worse was to come. As Sgt Betts moved further forward, he saw a girl lying on her back. "Almost all her limbs were gone and she had a horrendous burn mark on her face. I thought she was dead. I was about to walk on, in search of injured, when she opened her eyes and said: 'Help me.' "

Paul Mitchell, who was in the blasted carriage, was one of its few survivors. "I held my head because I thought it was on fire," he said. "I could feel the inside of my leg, it was ripped right open."

Those of us closest to the bombs describe the yellow light of the explosion, the bang was so powerful that you didn't hear it if you were close to it, it felt like being punched in the ears

[ian neal]

Don't you think 7/7 was an inside job and needs discussing Ian ????

Given my belief that 9/11 was an inside job, that the war on terror is bogus, the record of UK intelligence services working hand in glove with terrorist organisations and the close ties between US and UK intelligence, I have no problem in believing that elements of the UK authorities were probably involved in 7/7.

That said we should make a clear distinction between what we can prove and what we suspect or are hypothesising about and based on this increase pressure for a genuinely open and transparent inquiry that asks the tough questions, does not start with any assumptions as to what happened (as the 9/11 inquiry did) and considers the possibility that elements of the UK intelligence services were involved

Discussion is absolutely needed. But we need to be smart on this. We need to be aware of how others will perceive us and how our critics will attempt to portray us. Without going all hippy-dippy on you, we have to "be the change"; treat others with the respect that we wish to be treated with even if at times we are being provoked and not treated respectfully ourselves

Rachel, from my point of view you are welcome. It is not solely my decision who can and cannot post here but it would never be a decision that would be taken lightly and any ban would be carefully considered and justified. To date we have only removed one poster that wasn't a hard decision given that they were posting to porn sites.

Have to go out but I'll try and type more later.

[Prole]

The Antagonist has just posted this on the Alex Cox forum and I thought it welll worth a read.

The fact that all the sources add up. Multiple sources, multiple witnesses, credible investigations, as opposed to hypothetical internet conjecture with no alternative hard evidence offered to support the claims. I have seen nothing to lead me to beleive the internet stories and no reason for the alternative theories to be taken seriously

Let's look at the alternative theories offered - they don't even all agree.

Or, let's look at the 'official' story in which the alleged bombers caught a Thameslink train from Luton to King's Cross that did not run on July 7th, or the one that says they caught a train that arrived in London too late for them to have caught two of the bombed underground trains. Which one of those explanations seems the most logical to you, the train that didn't run, or the train that arrived too late?

Power surges? Well, I know that's false from personal experiences and meeting other victims.

As for the power surge story, blame the train operating companies because they were the ones that issued the story of power surges at the time of the incidents. Metronet and London Underground told us, in good faith, that the carnage on the day was caused by power surges. That some other story emerged after the number 30 bus explosion, the same bus that the Independent had the courage to use a photograph of in an article about Blair's fake terror - is a separate issue entirely. We also know, because London underground told us, that power surges on the underground can be accompanied by explosions. No conspiracy required.

Faked explosions? Again, from meeting survivors on the bus, that's rubbish - it was a bomb.

Perhaps you can ask them precisely when they think this photograph of the bus was taken in which there is no evidence of anybody being present at all, not even in the Kingstar-the-controlled-demolition-company-van next to the bus:

Bombs under the train - no - the explosion was in my carriage, not under it. There are eye witnesses for the bombers letting off the bombs see Danny Biddle and the evidence of a fellow passenger who tried to board with Lindsey.

I refer you to Prole's earlier post providing the information from you regarding the fact that the explosion was either in the carriage behind you, or several carriages behind you and your efforts to advise the authorities of where you thought the explosion had occurred.

The copy cat attempt to let off more bombs by another extremist cell.

Ah, July 21st, the now legendary day when the bombers had no bombs and have quite happily told us so. This is one of the few facts we've been given and which was given under oath. Hamdi Isaac, aka Hussain Osman for those with short memories - told us, under oath as part of his extradition trial in Rome, to whence he fled after the 'attack' for which he and his crew used no bombs. He said they had no bombs, just detonators and further that they intended only a demonstrative act. If you do your research, you might even find the quote where the 'mastermind' of the operation that helped them put together their fake bombs tells Hamdi, "Be careful, you might burn yourselves."

The July 21st bombers had no bombs. End of story. They can never be charged for conspiracy to cause explosions, conspiracy to murder, or conspiracy to damage people and property. Nor can they successfully be prosecuted for these charges unless having no bombs and not killing anyone has been made illegal by the time their farcical case ever gets to court. They never intended to cause any explosions, just a bang, nor did they intend to kill anyone. In fact, even if they did, they didn't have explosives with which to do it but instead a mix of flour, hair lotion, nails, nuts and bolts which, I'm sure even you will agree, is a list of things that are hardly famed for their explosive properties. Think 'domestic science' instead of 'real science'.

Khan's video. CCTV images of the bombers arriving at the station. DNA. Debris. The detonator found embedded in survivors of 2 explosions.

Do you recognise the man in that video as Mohammed Sidique Khan? Congratulations, you've just identified a man that even his closest friends couldn't. Allow me to quote a couple of them as reported by the BBC:

"I couldn't believe it to be honest. My dad phoned me up and said, 'That lad you said was alright, have you just seen that bloody video?' Even watching it didn't change my opinion about him, he was totally different."

"I was just shocked because that's just not the Sid that I went to school with. That suicide video is not his natural speaking rhythm, he used to be quick. You'd say something to him he's got something witty to say back to you. You can't outdo him with sarcasm, it were a bouncing talk, he was fast, he was funny with it. That wasn't him on that video." -- Ian Barret, friend of 'Sid' since his school days

"He seemed to have more white friends than he did Asian friends. He didn't hang around in groups of Asian lads, he used to hang around with groups of white lads playing football and stuff. His voice was as very soft but very well spoken, very English, a lot better English than me, no accent as such, just very good English."

I can't imagine that the voice in the video sounds soft and very well spoken, or lacking in a regional accent, to someone so well versed in the art of media communications.

The well documented and credible threat posed by existing Islamofaciost groups who have a stated agenda to commit atrocities on UK soil and abraod - in the servoce of 'jihad', using 'martyrdom operations'.

I'll meet you half way on this - you drop the Islamo-bit of the phrase Islamo-fascism and we can agree on there being an well documented and credible threat posed by existing FASCIST groups who have a stated agenda to commit atrocities all over the world, on UK soil and abroad - in the service of 'their way of life'. If you still don't get it, read HL BILL 77 and marvel at the Parliamentary reform act.

The police, the investigative reporters, the emergency services officers I have spoken to. The testimony of survivors. I could go on, but in essence I have seen a few disrecrepancies - they seem to have got the 7.20am train - so what? but the essence of the thing, from multiple, numerous, sources all points to the truth of it.

You have seen few discrepancies and then go on to place the alleged bombers on a train precisely 1 minute and 54 seconds before they were apparently photographed entering the station that you now tell us they left two minutes previously. So the story goes from the alleged bombers catching a train that didn't run, or one that arrived in London too late for them to bomb two of the trains to one of them catching a train two minutes before they got to the station?

Or, if you prefer, on the basis that you now tell us the alleged bombers caught the 0720 train, how do you suppose a picture was taken of them outside the station nearly two minutes after they left?

Do you not think to check any of the logic or facts that should underly your writings all over the Internet?

Some very dedicated independent public researchers have put a lot of time and effort into discovering a few important facts and have gone to some considerable lengths to ensure that this information exists in the public domain. You continually choose to ignore each and every one of them in favour of impossibilities, like being on an 0856 train from King's Cross that is meant to have exploded at 0850, some 6 minutes earlier. If you wish to ignore such discrepancies and the independently verified FACTS, for that is what they are, then that is your choice but you have no right to be angry at anyone else for being swayed by FACTS rather than the spin of a provably murderous and mendacious state of liars that cannot do anything other than lie.

Kindly refrain from the Use and Abuse of Terror and The construction of a false narrative on the domestic terror threat. It's bad enough that the Prime Minister, state and media are guilty of this on a daily basis without having the same nonsense regurgitated ad nauseam by one of its subjects, especially from one who has suffered as a result of the state's nefarious activities about which you too appear to be less than happy.



Pity the poor b****** that has to write the narrative in time for All Fool's Day.

[Jane]

Hi Rachel et al....

I have just been alerted through my email to the fact that you have joined our group and am trying to get my head round all your posts which I have only skimmed over so far....this being somewhat due to the fact that it took me about three hours longer than usual to get home tonight owing to some poor soul throwing themselves in front of a train, not the one I was on, but one which then blocked our journey home. For a long time we did not know what had happened but were simply told there had been "an incident" and we would hear more in half an hour or so. I was on another train which suddenly stopped like this and then the lights all went out - a few weeks / months ago, which I wrote about on "The Antagonist" site which I hope you read Rachel. It gave me a very small "taste" of what it must be like to be involved in an incident like you were involved in - only a very tiny "taste" of it - and I realise that, not having been involved in any serious incident as you were involved in and then start telling you how you should and should not reflect / react to this incident is rather like myself (despite having had by no means an "easy life") telling someone I know who is suffering from bowel cancer how they should deal with it - How can I possibly know how I would have dealt / be dealing with it when I have not experienced anything anyway near as frightening or devastating as this? Thus I do not seek to impose my views /opinions upon you - let alone "condemn" you in any way! Also when I wrote of the "racist" allegations they were certainly not aimed at you - but rather at the general ignorance and prejudice which I am all too aware of amongst the Great British Public - lets all be honest about this - unless I live on another planet - it goes on! Like the taxi driver who informed me about the 7/7 incident on the day - telling me "It tells them in the Koran that they have to kill white people" and someone who should really know better saying recently that "These Muslims, they believe in karma....they think the people they murder are of a lower caste to them - they believe in reincarnation - they feel superior to these people whom they kill."
I have basically "given up" trying to correct people like this (believe it or not this was a teacher who has had a university education!) when confronted with such a wall of ignorance and confused beliefs - I basically "give up" and just smile at them! So, no Rachel. I was not implying that you are a racist... I will come back to all this after tomorrow and our meeting in Blackpool.

[Rachel]

Thanks Jane.

If, Prole, you are going to quote the Antagonist's post to me wholesale from another forum, do you not think it might be worth directing people there so they can see the reply?

http://www.prayforrain.com/coxforum/vie ... &start=105

http://www.prayforrain.com/coxforum/vie ... &start=105



Or are we are just replicating the same discussion in 2 different forums which seems a bit pointless.

The Antagonist and I have a 'problematic dialogue' ( polite euphemism ); here is why - it was his posts insisting that there were no bombs, only power surges and that the bus was full of actors and stuntmen that so horrified and angered me and other survivors and led me into the world of 'independent internet researchers/conspiracy theorists' in the first place.

He had used my original account of the explosion in my carriage, selectively quoting parts of it, to peddle his personal theory that there were no bombs, and linked to my blog, which was how I discovered all these alternative theories about what happened when the bombs went off on our way to work .

I asked him to stop posting that there were no bombs, as did other survivors.

He would not.

Here I replicate part of my post to show the effect of the Antagonist's claims upon another survivor, Mr Mitchell.

First, here is decription of the carriage I and Mr Mitchell were on in the Telegraph
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jh ... ndon10.xml

As more and more trapped passengers prayed in the darkness, others tore off ties and belts to use as tourniquets. Sergeant Steve Betts, of the British Transport Police, was one of the first officers to arrive, along with rescue teams, and climb into the bombed carriage.

"The entire carriage was just covered head to foot, side to side, in body parts and blood," he said. "The roof had collapsed and fallen inwards and a significant number of bodies were piled up on top of each other on either side of the carriage. I couldn't see how anyone could come out alive. It is the most horrendous and awful scene I have ever seen - and I hope to God I will never see it again."

Further down the track, the wounded, many with limbs missing, were begging and screaming for help. "There was one chap yelling for help," Sgt Betts said. "One of his legs was missing and the other was horribly mutilated." As rescuers stumbled amid the bodies, they were stunned by the extent of the injuries. One, who tended some of the most seriously injured, would say the next day: "I don't know what Heaven looks like, but I have just seen Hell."

But worse was to come. As Sgt Betts moved further forward, he saw a girl lying on her back. "Almost all her limbs were gone and she had a horrendous burn mark on her face. I thought she was dead. I was about to walk on, in search of injured, when she opened her eyes and said: 'Help me.' "

Paul Mitchell, who was in the blasted carriage, was one of its few survivors. "I held my head because I thought it was on fire," he said. "I could feel the inside of my leg, it was ripped right open."

Right. Now, here is Mr Paul Mitchell talking to the Antagonist on his blog http://antagonise.blogspot.com/2005/07/ ... dunne.html

Are you an absolute freak?!?!

I was standing about three to five feet away from the bomber at Kings Cross and got the back part of my lower left leg blown away - I have been off work for six months and am still having trauma counselling.

You have no sense whatsoever - the idiocy of thinking this is a conspiracy quite simply boggles the mind. There are now nearly sixty families who have lost a family member and hundreds more, like my own, who have had to deal with the aftermath of this ATTACK - not a conspiracy, but an ATTACK - by terrorists. Are the almost daily events in Iraq a conspiracy? Are people merely pretending to be blown up? I am not an actor, I am an ordinary human who, like some many others, have now experienced terrorism first hand. You are a mindless dolt and in my opinion are no better than the radicals touting their idea of the "truth" in order to recruit suicide bombers.

By Mitchell, at 5/1/06 11:03

Firstly, kindly retract your statement that actors were involved at all (and not in the comments section - create a new post)

Secondly, stop the nonsense about the train carriage number as - how about this for a theory - someone mis-typed it? It's a pretty far-out theory, but there you go.

Thirdly, we were there, you ere not. Conjecture, conjecture, conjecture. Consiparcy theorists are (quite simply) full of it. It dos not wash. It will not wash. Four people were recruited (brainwashed) by some evil organisation to murder regardless of race, colour or religion. If the war in Iraq was over, troops pulled out etc would attacks end? Of course not, as it is about power!

The extremists would sense a weakened enemy and pummel Iraq and Wetern countries to underline their dominance.

It isn't about religion, as Muslims were killed in the attacks! What do that say Sidique Khan talking about fighting for his brothers and sisters when he helped kill them?

As I said above, I look forward to your retraction in a brand new post for all to see and I look forward to more holes being blown into your search for the "truth". I see my truth when I look at my leg and see a part of it missing. I hear my truth when the tinnitus from my blown-out eardrum is going strong. Other people see their truth when they saw their legs mangled from A SUICIDE BOMBER.

By Mitchell, at 6/1/06 19:21

Thus I hope that you can see why I am deciding not to engage with the Antagonist

[Rachel]

Story about what happens when there is a real power surge

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/arti ... 20Standard

http://www.answers.com/topic/2003-london-blackout

Note that people are not killed and maimed. Lights go out, trains stop, general chaos but people are not killed or hurt.


Please drop the power surge thing; we all know they were originally given as the cause and here is why...

you can read the transcript of the 7th July Review Committee meeting on November 3rd with London Underground's Tim O' Toole

http://www.london.gov.uk/assembly/resil ... 3trans.pdf

[Ally]

Don't you think 7/7 was an inside job and needs discussing Ian ????

Given my belief that 9/11 was an inside job, that the war on terror is bogus, the record of UK intelligence services working hand in glove with terrorist organisations and the close ties between US and UK intelligence, I have no problem in believing that elements of the UK authorities were probably involved in 7/7.

I've still see no proof those guys from Leeds blew themselves up, Khan seems to be the dodgy one in the pack however the fake Luton photo of the 4 accused is evidence of a frame up. The warning issued to the Israeli embassy was shadier than a gypsy roofer.
Do you think they blew themselves up?

[Prole]

Rachel said:

If, Prole, you are going to quote the Antagonist's post to me wholesale from another forum, do you not think it might be worth directing people there so they can see the reply?

Have you checked the name of this thread?

[Ally]

wow, I hadn't seen that photo of the empty bus which was supposed to have been bombed.

[Prole]

The Alex Cox Forum has been hacked, again.

[Prole]

Rachel said:

The Antagonist and I have a 'problematic dialogue' ( polite euphemism ); here is why - it was his posts insisting that there were no bombs, only power surges and that the bus was full of actors and stuntmen that so horrified and angered me and other survivors and led me into the world of 'independent internet researchers/conspiracy theorists' in the first place.

She then goes on to quote Mitchell who was on the Piccadilly Line train and who had left a comment on the Antagonist's website. What Rachel failed to do was quote the Antagonists's response:

Mitchell,

Words cannot convey the sympathy and anguish I feel for you and all those who suffered and have been traumatised as a result of what happened on July 7th.

I never claimed anyone on the underground was an actor and, with hindsight, I don't believe anyone on the bus was an actor either.

We know that on the day survivors and injured from the underground were being transported to hospital on buses from the affected stations and we know that the Number 30 bus was the only bus diverted from its usual route that morning. It was also the only bus that exploded.

There are a considerable number of anomalies about the bus, beginning with the fact that it occurred 57 minutes later than the 'almost simultaneous' incidents on the Underground.

I can only urge you to read London 7/7: How To Be Good which discusses the official 'narrative', the evidence presented to support the official narrative and the FACTS that mainstream media journalists appear to have ignored entirely about the movement of the Thameslink and underground trains on the day. If the facts of the day are anything to do with what happened, the official narrative is not the case.

Is Iraq a conspiracy? Did the Blair/Bush combo of state warmongers lie to make the Iraq war happen and kill anywhere between 30,000 (Source: George Walker Bush guesstimate) to 100,000 (Source: The Lancet)?

I have no agenda other than getting to the truth behind what happened on July 7th. I am perfectly prepared to believe that it was an atrocity carried out by Muslim extremists when the incontrovertible evidence to support this has been presented.

Deputy Chief Constable Andy Trotter of the British Transport Police said the crime scenes were "CCTV-rich" environments. He added: "Much has been retrieved and continues to be retrieved from roads and railway stations. We certainly hope that CCTV may assist in this inquiry."

Where is it? A cancelled train and one image of the four alleged to have perpertrated this atrocity in which three faces are unidentifiable does not qualify.

The government have twice refused the victims, their families, survivors and the British people an inquiry and government inquiries have a history of being, well, government inquiries. Recent history should tell us all we need to know about those. That the government have twice stated they do not want questions to be asked should be sufficient cause for concern in itself. Why not? Who benefits? The victims? The survivors? The driver of train 311 of whom the police have no record and who has been refused compensation as a result? The British public? Or merely the culture of fear which serves the state no end and the people no purpose at all?

Is the same state that lied to the British people about Iraq, rendition, torture and who now convicts people for daring to protest suddenly going to start telling us all the truth?

Those of us who question how the story of multiple staggered power surges and explosions that were reported for hours turned into simultaneous suicide bombs detonated by four, young, British Muslims are not against you, we are very much with you.

By The Antagonist, at 5/1/06 12:53

[Rachel]

I see the the Antagonist has gone back and edited his original blog in which he maintained the bus was populated by actors and stuntmen using pyrotechnics.

His edited versions can be found here...

http://antagonise.blogspot.com/2005/08/ ... icker.html


http://antagonise.blogspot.com/2005/08/ ... icker.html


Here's what he originally wrote,

'...you certainly don't inform members of the general public either and, as no-one would tolerate the random exploding of innocent civilians as part of routine crisis management exercises that take place all the time, these exercises employ clever pyrotechnics, stuntmen, and actors to portray the parts of the 'civilians' and 'victims' involved in the crisis to be managed - just like in the movies where lots of things go bang all the time leaving lots of apparently horrific walking wounded, dead people and body parts in the aftermath.

This is precisely how you blow the roof clean off a diverted double-decker bus and leave a bundle of people standing on the top deck looking otherwise unharmed because, being hired hands, they knew the roof was going to be lifted off...

'...that the bus was part of a rehearsal operation explains why the bus doesn't appear to be charred, and the plastic seats are un-burnt, completely unlike any other pictures of 'real' bus bombs....It also explains how a number of people can be seen to be walking around on the top deck of the bus immediately after the 'explosion', none of whom are on fire, or showing any signs of visible distress that might arise from being caught up in a 'real' bomb blast.'

And Mitchell read the Antagonist's response, by the way and was not impressed. This is what he said AFTER the Antagonist tried to backpedal..

Firstly, kindly retract your statement that actors were involved at all (and not in the comments section - create a new post)

Secondly, stop the nonsense about the train carriage number as - how about this for a theory - someone mis-typed it? It's a pretty far-out theory, but there you go.

Thirdly, we were there, you ere not. Conjecture, conjecture, conjecture. Consiparcy theorists are (quite simply) full of it. It dos not wash. It will not wash. Four people were recruited (brainwashed) by some evil organisation to murder regardless of race, colour or religion. If the war in Iraq was over, troops pulled out etc would attacks end? Of course not, as it is about power!

The extremists would sense a weakened enemy and pummel Iraq and Wetern countries to underline their dominance.

It isn't about religion, as Muslims were killed in the attacks! What do that say Sidique Khan talking about fighting for his brothers and sisters when he helped kill them?

As I said above, I look forward to your retraction in a brand new post for all to see and I look forward to more holes being blown into your search for the "truth". I see my truth when I look at my leg and see a part of it missing. I hear my truth when the tinnitus from my blown-out eardrum is going strong. Other people see their truth when they saw their legs mangled from A SUICIDE BOMBER.

By Mitchell, at 6/1/06 19:21

Here is the original post by the Antagonist in which he takes part of my testimony and makes it seem as if tghere is a power surge; this was what drew me, outraged, into the debate in the first place

http://antagonise.blogspot.com/2005/07/ ... ncies.html

[Rachel]

Ally, If you are inferring that I am hacking the Cox forum, I am not.

I have got absolutely nothing to do with it. I do not know anything about it and I do not know anybody who knows anything about it and I do not know why you keep accusing me of being a 'shill' or a hacker. I am neither. Why do you fling out such baseless accusations?

I do not work for the Government. I am a normal person, I have a normal job in a normal office and I am getting sick of this. I am requesting politely that you drop this and stop making accusations which are not true. It is completely out of order, frankly. Please stop it.