Aanslagen London: de smoking gun

[X_MAN]

Exodus
even voor alle duidelijkheid : hou u met iets nuttigs bezig of leer eens breien of haken dan uw cut and past bazaar hier . Er zijn 52 mensen op een laffe manier vermoord en het is ongepast om op hun lijken te staan dansen.

[Nussbaum]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door parcifal

Anderzijds horen samerzwerende klieken die streven naar wereldheerschappij
eerder thuis in films van James Bond of beter nog : Austin Powers.

Naja als je mij nou probeert te bespotten verspil je je kruid. Ik reageer alleen op de vraag waarom mensen macht willen. Alsof iedere dictator aan de macht is gekomen door een heel weloverwogen beslissing te maken, netjes alle pro's en con's afwegen. Uitgerekent heeft wat zijn gemiste inkomsten zijn als hij zijn diensten in het bedrijfsleven zou hebben aangeboden etc etc

Er hoeven helemaal geen logische redenen te zijn, gewoon macht omwille van de macht kan ook.

[Herr Flick]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Egidius

... dan zou de mediamachine in werking komen om dat op uiterst efficiënte wijze weg te masseren, met middelen zoals: getuigen belachelijk maken, lastige ambtenaren kapotmaken en soms ook getuigen fysiek vermoorden. Allemaal al gezien in de zaak-Dutroux, waar absoluut in het duister moest blijven wie de kleine meisjes in de kelder van Marcinelle allemaal mishandeld en verkracht hebben.

Egidius

Dat is ook waar, ze zouden dat inderdaad proberen,

maar ik vind nog altijd dat er een verschil is tussen een op te offeren crimineel en wat hooggeplaatste figuren die een paar doden op hun geweten hebben.

Of een groot plan met cover ups enz en meer dan 50 doden op uw geweten, ... ik weet het niet hoor.

Komaan we zien nu toch ook dat alles onderzocht wordt, alles is afgeschermed er zijn teams bezig info te vergaren, enz... enz...

Wil je nu echt zeggen dat al die flikken die daarin betrokken zijn eigenlijk schoonmaakploegen zijn van MI5 die dat allemaal zomaar laten gebeuren, ...

[exodus]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door X_MAN

Exodus
even voor alle duidelijkheid : hou u met iets nuttigs bezig of leer eens breien of haken dan uw cut and past bazaar hier . Er zijn 52 mensen op een laffe manier vermoord en het is ongepast om op hun lijken te staan dansen.

Diegene die op hun lijken dansen en ervan profiteren zijn o.a deze:

[parcifal]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door exodus

Diegene die op hun lijken dansen en ervan profiteren zijn o.a deze:

Bewijs het en ik maak u euro-miljonair.[edit]
[size=1]Edit:[/size]

[size=1]After edit by parcifal on 12-07-2005 at 17:19
Reason:
--------------------------------

Bewijs het en ik maak u euro-miljonair.[/size]

[size=1]Before any edits, post was:
--------------------------------

Bewijs het en ik maak u euro-miljonair. no kidding.[/size]

[/edit]

[Egidius]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Herr Flick

Wil je nu echt zeggen dat al die flikken die daarin betrokken zijn eigenlijk schoonmaakploegen zijn van MI5 die dat allemaal zomaar laten gebeuren, ...

Die hebben allemaal stevige hiërarchieën. Ook in de zaak-Dutroux zijn lastige politiemannen en onderzoekers belachelijk gemaakt, gepest, opzij geschoven en gekraakt, om vervolgens met veel tamtam de officiële waarheid te poneren.

Ik zeg niet dat het zo is, maar dat het perfect mogelijk is, als ze willen.

Egidius

[exodus]

[SIZE=4]Londoners Suspicious Of Station Closures Before Blasts[/SIZE]

Paul Joseph Watson/Prison Planet | July 12 2005

Internet forums are not the benchmark of absolute truth and unlike the government, who eagerly rush to give credibility to an 'Al-Qaeda' statement as soon as a Bush-linked Internet company can post it, we do not offer this as concrete proof of anything. However, it is interesting nonetheless.

Several different people on the forum of the London Evening Standard website are reporting their own perculiar experiences on the day of the bombing.

One member writes,

Hi everyone,

Did anyone travelling in BEFORE the attacks began yesterday notice anything peculiar on their tube journey?

I catch the Piccadilly line at 7.15am each morning from Southgate to reach my work in Kensington by 8.00. Normally, all seats are taken by Finsbury Park and carriages are packed by Kings Cross.

However, yesterday my tube journey was eerily quiet. For the first time ever there were spare seats in my carriage all the way through zone 1. It was noticeable enough for me to wonder what on earth was going on. This was at 7.45 - over an hour before attacks began.

I've also heard people saying that the Northern Line was being shut down at the same time.

Is there something that we're not being told?

Another member responds,

yes!!

I was due to pick a work collegue up from balham at 7:15am, but when i got there i was greeted with Tube emergency vans, police and and hoards of people being turned away from a closed station.

All very strange they must have known something was going to happan, the surely had a tip off. As i drove along the road, (which also follows the tubes) they were all shut and hundreds of people were queing for buses.

when i reached Oval, which was open there were two armed policemen in a road next to the station, which for a quiet area like that is extremly rare.

the northen line was shut from morden to stockwell. They blatently knew something was going down, they just got it wrong and are hoping no one mentions anything.

When combined with the bomb scares in different major cities days before the bombing, the Israeli warnings and the beyond a coincidence exercises the day of the attack, these accounts shed more light on the true nature of the attack.

[Firestone]

Alsof men metrolijnen in Londen tijdens het piekuur kan afsluiten zonder dat tienduizenden het weten!

Dit is echt te gek voor woorden.

Ook de leugen over de Israeli warning staat er weer bij.

Echt hopeloos.

En op mijn vragen over de Visor story heb ik uiteraard geen antwoorden gekregen. Surprise, surprise...

[Pindar]

geplaatst door Exodus:

Het is duidelijk dat jullie niet geinteresseerd zijn in de waarheid. Wat zijn de kansen dat er op exact hetzelfde moment en exact dezelfde plaats , oefeningen gaan plaatsvinden. Net als bij 9/11. En net voor de aanslagen was het "terror alert" verminderd.

Allemaal weer aanwijzingen dat het een inside job is.

en dan:

JUST A COINCIDENCE, EH?

PROBABILITY OF LONDON DRILL AND TERROR ATTACK COINCIDING BY CHANCE (10yr mean):


One chance in 3,715,592,613,265,750,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000


Estimate of grains of sand in the whole world: 7,500,000,000,000,000,000

[size=3]met vriendelijke groeten[/size]


Pindar

[Firestone]

Dezelfde idiote valse statistieken als in de 9/11 threads!

Zie aldaar voor de antwoorden.

[Geertje]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Pindar

Pindar

De kans op lotto-winst is ook uiterst miniem. Dus conclusie : iedereen die wint heeft voorkennis.

[exodus]

[size=4][size=2]Onderstaande artikel doet een recap van alle bewijs dat 7/7 een inside job was. Er kan geen twijfel meer bestaan.[/size]
[/size][size=4]
[/size]

[size=4]7/7 Bombings Final Word: Her Majesty's Terrorist Network

[/size] Only conspiracy theorists would believe the government wasn't involved

Paul Joseph Watson & Alex Jones | August 7 2005

The wealth of evidence that has emerged in the month following the 7/7 London bombings only leads us to one clear conclusion, that the attacks had to have been orchestrated by or with help from the very highest levels of British intelligence.

The latest piece of evidence to suggest that the official story is a fraud focuses again on the contention that the bombs were placed under the trains and were not detonated by suicide bombers wearing backpacks.

The first eyewitness to report this was Bruce Lait, a victim of the Aldgate Station bombing.

He told the Cambridge Evening News,

"The policeman said 'mind that hole, that's where the bomb was'. The metal was pushed upwards as if the bomb was underneath the train. They seem to think the bomb was left in a bag, but I don't remember anybody being where the bomb was, or any bag."

Now another credible source, Guardian journalist Mark Honigsbaum, talked to eyewitnesses at the Edgware Road bombing, who essentially described the same thing.

Eyewitnesses told Honigsbaum that "tiles, the covers on the floor of the train, suddenly flew up, raised up."

How could the floor of the train raise up from a bomb supposedly in the backpack of an individual seated in the carriage, above the floor?

The victims then heard "an almighty crash" as a train traveling in the opposite direction collided, clearly indicating that the train had derailed due to the bomb being placed under the carriage.

Click here to hear the audio.

For individuals to plant bombs underneath trains and secure them in place without being caught, they would need to secure access to the trains. In this scenario, London Underground could have been told that a dummy device was to be placed underneath the train as part of an exercise to test security an alertness. When the real attacks happened some LU officials would have been alarmed but their suspicions would have dampened when it was revealed that the bombs were carried in backpacks, meaning that the drill was just a strange 'coincidence'.

The fact that the bombs were actually planted underneath the trains could have easily been buried in an avalanche of official announcements to the contrary.

On the other hand the backpack bombs could have just been the diversionary blasts to enable patsies to be framed, just like the planes flying into the towers acted as the diversionary cover for the explosives planted inside the World Trade Center.

The fact that the ID's of all the so-called suicide bombers were found in pristine condition right next to where the bombs went off strongly suggests the planting of evidence to frame patsies. The ID's would have had a very good chance of surviving if the bomb was not in the backpack with them, but underneath the train.

The drill scenario would have provided culpability cover if investigators started asking questions about objects underneath the carriage.

As we have exhaustively documented, such a drill did take place on the morning of 7/7.

A consultancy agency with government and police connections was running an exercise for an unnamed company that revolved around the London Underground being bombed at the exact same times and locations as happened in real life on the morning of July 7th.



On a BBC Radio 5 interview that aired on the evening of the 7th, the host interviewed Peter Power, Managing Director of Visor Consultants, which bills itself as a 'crisis management' advice company, better known to you and I as a PR firm.

Peter Power was a former Scotland Yard official, working at one time with the Anti Terrorist Branch.

Power told the host that at the exact same time that the London bombings were taking place, his company was running a 1,000 person strong exercise which drilled the London Underground being bombed at the exact same locations, at the exact same times, as happened in real life.

How can anyone credibly claim that this was sheer coincidence when pieced together with the rest of the evidence?

Our original article on this matter is the top link on Google when you type in 'London bombing' - above BBC, CNN and ABC News, proof of how much attention this article received.

Our suspicions were aroused just hours after the bombing when it was reported by Associated Press that Israeli Finance Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had received a warning from the Israeli Embassy not to leave his hotel for a speech he was to give that morning. The location of the speech was right next to the site of one of the bombings.



Despite debunking attempts from much of the establishment press, Associated Press never retracted the story and later Mossad admitted that it was true.

The so-called claim of responsibility for the attack was made by a group that is known to not physically exist and which at best is one guy sitting at a computer posting messages on a forum.

And yet the establishment media still report Al-Qaeda responsibility for the attack as if it were the gospel truth.

Exactly what evidence have we seen to even agree with the contention that four men with rucksack bombs carried out this attack? Four grainy CCTV pictures of dark skinned men with rucksacks? Should we not question this evidence especially when verified witnesses on two of the three trains that were bombed said that the bombs were underneath the train and that they saw no men with rucksacks even in the area?

Questions about the attacks are never ending.

Why was it reported that the explosives used were military in origin but then the story changed to say they were homemade? Can explosive experts not tell the difference or was the story changed for a reason?

Why would a man with an 8-month old baby, another who was only interested in sports, and another who taught disabled children, want to kill themselves, other innocent people and cause so much carnage in the process?

Even the establishment media started speculating that the bombers were duped into killing themselves by someone else.

Why did the cameras on the targeted bus malfunction that day? Why was the bus diverted from its usual route? We personally visited the site of the bus bombing at Tavistock Place and verified that no number 30 bus travels down that road.



What are we to make of claims by Stagecoach bus employees who say that a different group of contractors inspected the CCTV cameras in the days before the bombings and that they took two entire days to carry out tasks which normally take just hours to complete.

What is the reason behind Alan Greenspan's decision to flush nearly $40 billion in liquidity into financial markets two days before the attack? Was this an attempt to preemptively head off a run on the markets? If Greenspan had information about a terror attack then why didn't the people on the trains and buses get the same warning?

Who were the individuals that profited from short-selling the British Pound in the ten days before the attack? The pound fell 6% for no particular reason. Fortunes were made after the pound dropped even further in the aftermath of the attacks. This directly mirrors short selling of United and American Airline stocks in the days before 9/11. These suspicious transactions led directly to the CIA.

Why was an innocent man, Jean Charles de Menezes, shot in the head eight times at Stockwell tube station? Why did the police change their story, from saying Menezes was wearing a heavy jacket to admitting it was a lightweight denim jacket? Why did the media initially report that Menezes was shot in the stomach but then change the story when it was pointed out that it would be stupid to shoot suspected suicide bombers in the very place that the bomb would be.



Was Menezes shot because he knew something about the drills? Menezes was an electrician by trade. Did he have damaging knowledge of why the bombings were reported as an electrical surge for over an hour?

Why did Tony Blair immediately reject a public inquiry into how and why the bombings took place? In Britain, there is a public inquiry for every event, no matter how insignificant, and yet after Britain's biggest tragedy since the blitz, Blair shuts the door. What is he frightened of?

The final nail in the coffin regarding inside involvement emerged when it was admitted that the so-called mastermind of both the 7/7 and 7/21 attacks, Haroon Rashid Aswat, is a British Intelligence Asset.



Terror expert John Loftus told Fox News,

"Back in 1999 he came to America. The Justice Department wanted to indict him in Seattle because him and his buddy were trying to set up a terrorist training school in Oregon... we've just learned that the headquarters of the US Justice Department ordered the Seattle prosecutors not to touch Aswat... , apparently Aswat was working for British intelligence."

The mastermind of the London bombings was under the direction and protection of MI6. How much more obvious does it need to be that criminal elements of the intelligence agencies were involved in this attack?

Related: London Bombings Data Page[edit]
[size=1]Edit:[/size]

[size=1]After edit by exodus on 08-08-2005 at 10:48
Reason:
--------------------------------

[size=4][size=2]Onderstaande artikel doet een recap van alle bewijs dat 7/7 een inside job was. Er kan geen twijfel meer bestaan.[/size]
[/size][size=4]
[/size]

[size=4]7/7 Bombings Final Word: Her Majesty's Terrorist Network

[/size] Only conspiracy theorists would believe the government wasn't involved

Paul Joseph Watson & Alex Jones | August 7 2005

The wealth of evidence that has emerged in the month following the 7/7 London bombings only leads us to one clear conclusion, that the attacks had to have been orchestrated by or with help from the very highest levels of British intelligence.

The latest piece of evidence to suggest that the official story is a fraud focuses again on the contention that the bombs were placed under the trains and were not detonated by suicide bombers wearing backpacks.

The first eyewitness to report this was Bruce Lait, a victim of the Aldgate Station bombing.

He told the Cambridge Evening News,

"The policeman said 'mind that hole, that's where the bomb was'. The metal was pushed upwards as if the bomb was underneath the train. They seem to think the bomb was left in a bag, but I don't remember anybody being where the bomb was, or any bag."

Now another credible source, Guardian journalist Mark Honigsbaum, talked to eyewitnesses at the Edgware Road bombing, who essentially described the same thing.

Eyewitnesses told Honigsbaum that "tiles, the covers on the floor of the train, suddenly flew up, raised up."

How could the floor of the train raise up from a bomb supposedly in the backpack of an individual seated in the carriage, above the floor?

The victims then heard "an almighty crash" as a train traveling in the opposite direction collided, clearly indicating that the train had derailed due to the bomb being placed under the carriage.

Click here to hear the audio.

For individuals to plant bombs underneath trains and secure them in place without being caught, they would need to secure access to the trains. In this scenario, London Underground could have been told that a dummy device was to be placed underneath the train as part of an exercise to test security an alertness. When the real attacks happened some LU officials would have been alarmed but their suspicions would have dampened when it was revealed that the bombs were carried in backpacks, meaning that the drill was just a strange 'coincidence'.

The fact that the bombs were actually planted underneath the trains could have easily been buried in an avalanche of official announcements to the contrary.

On the other hand the backpack bombs could have just been the diversionary blasts to enable patsies to be framed, just like the planes flying into the towers acted as the diversionary cover for the explosives planted inside the World Trade Center.

The fact that the ID's of all the so-called suicide bombers were found in pristine condition right next to where the bombs went off strongly suggests the planting of evidence to frame patsies. The ID's would have had a very good chance of surviving if the bomb was not in the backpack with them, but underneath the train.

The drill scenario would have provided culpability cover if investigators started asking questions about objects underneath the carriage.

As we have exhaustively documented, such a drill did take place on the morning of 7/7.

A consultancy agency with government and police connections was running an exercise for an unnamed company that revolved around the London Underground being bombed at the exact same times and locations as happened in real life on the morning of July 7th.



On a BBC Radio 5 interview that aired on the evening of the 7th, the host interviewed Peter Power, Managing Director of Visor Consultants, which bills itself as a 'crisis management' advice company, better known to you and I as a PR firm.

Peter Power was a former Scotland Yard official, working at one time with the Anti Terrorist Branch.

Power told the host that at the exact same time that the London bombings were taking place, his company was running a 1,000 person strong exercise which drilled the London Underground being bombed at the exact same locations, at the exact same times, as happened in real life.

How can anyone credibly claim that this was sheer coincidence when pieced together with the rest of the evidence?

Our original article on this matter is the top link on Google when you type in 'London bombing' - above BBC, CNN and ABC News, proof of how much attention this article received.

Our suspicions were aroused just hours after the bombing when it was reported by Associated Press that Israeli Finance Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had received a warning from the Israeli Embassy not to leave his hotel for a speech he was to give that morning. The location of the speech was right next to the site of one of the bombings.



Despite debunking attempts from much of the establishment press, Associated Press never retracted the story and later Mossad admitted that it was true.

The so-called claim of responsibility for the attack was made by a group that is known to not physically exist and which at best is one guy sitting at a computer posting messages on a forum.

And yet the establishment media still report Al-Qaeda responsibility for the attack as if it were the gospel truth.

Exactly what evidence have we seen to even agree with the contention that four men with rucksack bombs carried out this attack? Four grainy CCTV pictures of dark skinned men with rucksacks? Should we not question this evidence especially when verified witnesses on two of the three trains that were bombed said that the bombs were underneath the train and that they saw no men with rucksacks even in the area?

Questions about the attacks are never ending.

Why was it reported that the explosives used were military in origin but then the story changed to say they were homemade? Can explosive experts not tell the difference or was the story changed for a reason?

Why would a man with an 8-month old baby, another who was only interested in sports, and another who taught disabled children, want to kill themselves, other innocent people and cause so much carnage in the process?

Even the establishment media started speculating that the bombers were duped into killing themselves by someone else.

Why did the cameras on the targeted bus malfunction that day? Why was the bus diverted from its usual route? We personally visited the site of the bus bombing at Tavistock Place and verified that no number 30 bus travels down that road.



What are we to make of claims by Stagecoach bus employees who say that a different group of contractors inspected the CCTV cameras in the days before the bombings and that they took two entire days to carry out tasks which normally take just hours to complete.

What is the reason behind Alan Greenspan's decision to flush nearly $40 billion in liquidity into financial markets two days before the attack? Was this an attempt to preemptively head off a run on the markets? If Greenspan had information about a terror attack then why didn't the people on the trains and buses get the same warning?

Who were the individuals that profited from short-selling the British Pound in the ten days before the attack? The pound fell 6% for no particular reason. Fortunes were made after the pound dropped even further in the aftermath of the attacks. This directly mirrors short selling of United and American Airline stocks in the days before 9/11. These suspicious transactions led directly to the CIA.

Why was an innocent man, Jean Charles de Menezes, shot in the head eight times at Stockwell tube station? Why did the police change their story, from saying Menezes was wearing a heavy jacket to admitting it was a lightweight denim jacket? Why did the media initially report that Menezes was shot in the stomach but then change the story when it was pointed out that it would be stupid to shoot suspected suicide bombers in the very place that the bomb would be.



Was Menezes shot because he knew something about the drills? Menezes was an electrician by trade. Did he have damaging knowledge of why the bombings were reported as an electrical surge for over an hour?

Why did Tony Blair immediately reject a public inquiry into how and why the bombings took place? In Britain, there is a public inquiry for every event, no matter how insignificant, and yet after Britain's biggest tragedy since the blitz, Blair shuts the door. What is he frightened of?

The final nail in the coffin regarding inside involvement emerged when it was admitted that the so-called mastermind of both the 7/7 and 7/21 attacks, Haroon Rashid Aswat, is a British Intelligence Asset.



Terror expert John Loftus told Fox News,

"Back in 1999 he came to America. The Justice Department wanted to indict him in Seattle because him and his buddy were trying to set up a terrorist training school in Oregon... we've just learned that the headquarters of the US Justice Department ordered the Seattle prosecutors not to touch Aswat... , apparently Aswat was working for British intelligence."

The mastermind of the London bombings was under the direction and protection of MI6. How much more obvious does it need to be that criminal elements of the intelligence agencies were involved in this attack?

Related: London Bombings Data Page[/size]

[size=1]Before any edits, post was:
--------------------------------

[size=4][size=2]Onderstaande artikel doet een recap van alle bewijs dat 7/7 een inside job was. Er kan geen twijfel meer bestaan.[/size]
[/size][size=4]
[/size]

[size=4]7/7 Bombings Final Word: Her Majesty's Terrorist Network [/size]
Only conspiracy theorists would believe the government wasn't involved

Paul Joseph Watson & Alex Jones | August 7 2005

The wealth of evidence that has emerged in the month following the 7/7 London bombings only leads us to one clear conclusion, that the attacks had to have been orchestrated by or with help from the very highest levels of British intelligence.

The latest piece of evidence to suggest that the official story is a fraud focuses again on the contention that the bombs were placed under the trains and were not detonated by suicide bombers wearing backpacks.

The first eyewitness to report this was Bruce Lait, a victim of the Aldgate Station bombing.

He told the Cambridge Evening News,

"The policeman said 'mind that hole, that's where the bomb was'. The metal was pushed upwards as if the bomb was underneath the train. They seem to think the bomb was left in a bag, but I don't remember anybody being where the bomb was, or any bag."

Now another credible source, Guardian journalist Mark Honigsbaum, talked to eyewitnesses at the Edgware Road bombing, who essentially described the same thing.

Eyewitnesses told Honigsbaum that "tiles, the covers on the floor of the train, suddenly flew up, raised up."

How could the floor of the train raise up from a bomb supposedly in the backpack of an individual seated in the carriage, above the floor?

The victims then heard "an almighty crash" as a train traveling in the opposite direction collided, clearly indicating that the train had derailed due to the bomb being placed under the carriage.

Click here to hear the audio.

For individuals to plant bombs underneath trains and secure them in place without being caught, they would need to secure access to the trains. In this scenario, London Underground could have been told that a dummy device was to be placed underneath the train as part of an exercise to test security an alertness. When the real attacks happened some LU officials would have been alarmed but their suspicions would have dampened when it was revealed that the bombs were carried in backpacks, meaning that the drill was just a strange 'coincidence'.

The fact that the bombs were actually planted underneath the trains could have easily been buried in an avalanche of official announcements to the contrary.

On the other hand the backpack bombs could have just been the diversionary blasts to enable patsies to be framed, just like the planes flying into the towers acted as the diversionary cover for the explosives planted inside the World Trade Center.

The fact that the ID's of all the so-called suicide bombers were found in pristine condition right next to where the bombs went off strongly suggests the planting of evidence to frame patsies. The ID's would have had a very good chance of surviving if the bomb was not in the backpack with them, but underneath the train.

The drill scenario would have provided culpability cover if investigators started asking questions about objects underneath the carriage.

As we have exhaustively documented, such a drill did take place on the morning of 7/7.

A consultancy agency with government and police connections was running an exercise for an unnamed company that revolved around the London Underground being bombed at the exact same times and locations as happened in real life on the morning of July 7th.



On a BBC Radio 5 interview that aired on the evening of the 7th, the host interviewed Peter Power, Managing Director of Visor Consultants, which bills itself as a 'crisis management' advice company, better known to you and I as a PR firm.

Peter Power was a former Scotland Yard official, working at one time with the Anti Terrorist Branch.

Power told the host that at the exact same time that the London bombings were taking place, his company was running a 1,000 person strong exercise which drilled the London Underground being bombed at the exact same locations, at the exact same times, as happened in real life.

How can anyone credibly claim that this was sheer coincidence when pieced together with the rest of the evidence?

Our original article on this matter is the top link on Google when you type in 'London bombing' - above BBC, CNN and ABC News, proof of how much attention this article received.

Our suspicions were aroused just hours after the bombing when it was reported by Associated Press that Israeli Finance Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had received a warning from the Israeli Embassy not to leave his hotel for a speech he was to give that morning. The location of the speech was right next to the site of one of the bombings.



Despite debunking attempts from much of the establishment press, Associated Press never retracted the story and later Mossad admitted that it was true.

The so-called claim of responsibility for the attack was made by a group that is known to not physically exist and which at best is one guy sitting at a computer posting messages on a forum.

And yet the establishment media still report Al-Qaeda responsibility for the attack as if it were the gospel truth.

Exactly what evidence have we seen to even agree with the contention that four men with rucksack bombs carried out this attack? Four grainy CCTV pictures of dark skinned men with rucksacks? Should we not question this evidence especially when verified witnesses on two of the three trains that were bombed said that the bombs were underneath the train and that they saw no men with rucksacks even in the area?

Questions about the attacks are never ending.

Why was it reported that the explosives used were military in origin but then the story changed to say they were homemade? Can explosive experts not tell the difference or was the story changed for a reason?

Why would a man with an 8-month old baby, another who was only interested in sports, and another who taught disabled children, want to kill themselves, other innocent people and cause so much carnage in the process?

Even the establishment media started speculating that the bombers were duped into killing themselves by someone else.

Why did the cameras on the targeted bus malfunction that day? Why was the bus diverted from its usual route? We personally visited the site of the bus bombing at Tavistock Place and verified that no number 30 bus travels down that road.



What are we to make of claims by Stagecoach bus employees who say that a different group of contractors inspected the CCTV cameras in the days before the bombings and that they took two entire days to carry out tasks which normally take just hours to complete.

What is the reason behind Alan Greenspan's decision to flush nearly $40 billion in liquidity into financial markets two days before the attack? Was this an attempt to preemptively head off a run on the markets? If Greenspan had information about a terror attack then why didn't the people on the trains and buses get the same warning?

Who were the individuals that profited from short-selling the British Pound in the ten days before the attack? The pound fell 6% for no particular reason. Fortunes were made after the pound dropped even further in the aftermath of the attacks. This directly mirrors short selling of United and American Airline stocks in the days before 9/11. These suspicious transactions led directly to the CIA.

Why was an innocent man, Jean Charles de Menezes, shot in the head eight times at Stockwell tube station? Why did the police change their story, from saying Menezes was wearing a heavy jacket to admitting it was a lightweight denim jacket? Why did the media initially report that Menezes was shot in the stomach but then change the story when it was pointed out that it would be stupid to shoot suspected suicide bombers in the very place that the bomb would be.



Was Menezes shot because he knew something about the drills? Menezes was an electrician by trade. Did he have damaging knowledge of why the bombings were reported as an electrical surge for over an hour?

Why did Tony Blair immediately reject a public inquiry into how and why the bombings took place? In Britain, there is a public inquiry for every event, no matter how insignificant, and yet after Britain's biggest tragedy since the blitz, Blair shuts the door. What is he frightened of?

The final nail in the coffin regarding inside involvement emerged when it was admitted that the so-called mastermind of both the 7/7 and 7/21 attacks, Haroon Rashid Aswat, is a British Intelligence Asset.



Terror expert John Loftus told Fox News,

"Back in 1999 he came to America. The Justice Department wanted to indict him in Seattle because him and his buddy were trying to set up a terrorist training school in Oregon... we've just learned that the headquarters of the US Justice Department ordered the Seattle prosecutors not to touch Aswat... , apparently Aswat was working for British intelligence."

The mastermind of the London bombings was under the direction and protection of MI6. How much more obvious does it need to be that criminal elements of the intelligence agencies were involved in this attack?

Related: London Bombings Data Page[/size]

[/edit]

[parcifal]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door exodus

[size=4][size=2]Onderstaande artikel doet een recap van alle bewijs dat 7/7 een inside job was. Er kan geen twijfel meer bestaan.[/size]
[/size][size=4]
[/size]

[size=4]7/7 Bombings Final Word: Her Majesty's Terrorist Network

[/size] Only conspiracy theorists would believe the government wasn't involved

Paul Joseph Watson & Alex Jones | August 7 2005

Het feit dat je schrijft : "er kan geen twijfel meer bestaan" bewijst voor mij dat je gewoon in geen alternatief wil geloven.

Ik zou bvb. graag eens een authentieke foto zien van de bodem van de wagons waar de bommen ontploft zijn voor ik enige conclusie trek.
Dat hoeft voor jou natuurlijk niet, want jij weet al hoe en waarom alles is gebeurd op 7/7.

En nogmaals : Prisonplanet.com en Alex Jones hebben geen geloofwaardigheid. Hun quoten is dus slechts een verspilling van webspace. Ik dacht dat je dat toch wel al wist.

[exodus]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door parcifal

En nogmaals : Prisonplanet.com en Alex Jones hebben geen geloofwaardigheid. Hun quoten is dus slechts een verspilling van webspace. Ik dacht dat je dat toch wel al wist.

En waarom dat, het is een van de beste alternatieve nieuwswebsites die er zijn. En ik ben niet de enige die er zo over denkt.

Prisonplanet staat zeer hoog op de rangschikking van de meestgelezen nieuwssites (zelf niet enkel onder de alternatieve). Dit vooral sins de 7/7 aanslagen, omdat ze een paar primeurs van informatie gepost hebben. Kijk maar hier.

[democratsteve]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door parcifal

.

En nogmaals : Prisonplanet.com en Alex Jones hebben geen geloofwaardigheid. Hun quoten is dus slechts een verspilling van webspace. Ik dacht dat je dat toch wel al wist.


[/left]

?????????
U heeft blijkbaar geen enkel benul van de kredietwaardigheid én bekendheid die A. Jones in de VS geniet. Ook onder collega journalisten.
Kan u mij misschien even vertellen waarop u zich basseert om te stellen dat hij niet geloofwaardig is? (voorbeelden van eerdere leugens of onjuistheden die hij naar buiten heeft gebracht)
Of is het enkel omdat hij over 9/11 een andere mening is toegedaan dan U, dat u hem meteen als "ongeloofwaardig" klasseerd?
Om het even met Stone's wooorden te zeggen: Bewijzen!!!!!![edit]
[size=1]Edit:[/size]

[size=1]After edit by democratsteve on 09-08-2005 at 17:41
Reason:
--------------------------------

?????????
U heeft blijkbaar geen enkel benul van de kredietwaardigheid én bekendheid die A. Jones in de VS geniet. Ook onder collega journalisten.
Kan u mij misschien even vertellen waarop u zich basseert om te stellen dat hij niet geloofwaardig is? (voorbeelden van eerdere leugens of onjuistheden die hij naar buiten heeft gebracht)
Of is het enkel omdat hij over 9/11 een andere mening is toegedaan dan U, dat u hem meteen als "ongeloofwaardig" klasseerd?
Om het even met Stone's wooorden te zeggen: Bewijzen!!!!!![/size]

[size=1]Before any edits, post was:
--------------------------------

?????????
U heeft blijkbaar geen enkel benul van de kredietwaardigheid én bekendheid die A. Jones in de VS geniet. Ook onder collega journalisten.
Kan u mij misschien even vertellen waarop u zich basseert om te stellen dat hij niet geloofwaardig is? (voorbeelden van eerdere leugens of onjuistheden die hij naar buiten heeft gebracht)
Of is het enkel omdat hij over 9/11 een andere mening is toegedaan dan U, dat u hem meteen als "ongeloofwaardig klasseerd?[/size]

[/edit]

[parcifal]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door democratsteve

?????????
U heeft blijkbaar geen enkel benul van de kredietwaardigheid én bekendheid die A. Jones in de VS geniet. Ook onder collega journalisten.
Kan u mij misschien even vertellen waarop u zich basseert om te stellen dat hij niet geloofwaardig is? (voorbeelden van eerdere leugens of onjuistheden die hij naar buiten heeft gebracht)
Of is het enkel omdat hij over 9/11 een andere mening is toegedaan dan U, dat u hem meteen als "ongeloofwaardig" klasseerd?
Om het even met Stone's wooorden te zeggen: Bewijzen!!!!!!

Steve, Long time not seen.
Ik heb hier een tijd geleden al eens gepost over de 'geloofwaardigheid'
van Alex Jones maar dat vind ik niet direct terug.
Ik weet dat hij een choryfee is bij sommige amerikaanse journalisten,
eerder diegenen die denken in het enge kader van conspiracy theorieën.

Bewijzen? You are being served.
Laat ons beginnen bij de grote bron van wijsheid op internet, Wikipedia.
Wat zegt die over Alex?

Alex Jones (born 1974) is a controversial U.S. documentary film producer and radio host who vigorously works to investigate his claims that a New World Order is attempting to conquer the world. He is often characterized as a conspiracy theorist, though Jones and his supporters bristle at this label and refer to him as an independent investigative journalist.

hmm. Fishy, nietwaar. The search goes on :
hier bijvoorbeeld : http://www.nndb.com/people/969/000048825/

In the real world, Jones is nothing more than your typical irascible, bombastic radio shock jock. The only difference is that Jones replaces the ordinary vulgarities and titillations with preposterous conspiracy theories. His method is to mix these in with legitimate issues (like encroaching government surveillance and the latest bioethical controversies), in order to maintain a veneer of credibility. It's clearly just his shtick. He has a proven track record of latching onto trendy new lunacies time and again in hopes of keeping his audience's attention. Are there RFID chips hidden in American currency? Is FEMA making plans to round up the entire civilian population? Jones' website says so.

Alex krijgt er nogal van langs dus.
Wacht, ik heb er nog een : http://www.stuffiveheard.com/archive...host_alex.html

While Jones claims his show is documented, the articles and stories he cites vary in credibility. Often, he cites mainstream sources, which are considered credible by most. But in some cases, such stories are mere allegations and accusations without a credible basis. Some cited articles are written by foreign press with unclear motives and sources. And often enough, Jones' sources are protected. Jones recently told his listeners that some of his best sources are high ranking officials within the government and the military. It remains unknown though what motives these secret sources have for feeding Jones their inside information, segmented as it may be. When those in local law enforcement feed inside stories to Alex Jones, are those reports credible accounts or sour grapes? For Jones, there's little difference between technical possibility and reality. If new technology could possibly be misused, that's enough for Jones to assume it will be used for ill-gain by the globalists. When it was announced that manufacturers may use embedded microchips for inventory control of products, Jones assumes it's part of a plan for the government to track the entire population. When the "alert-technology" of weather radios is considered in televisions, Jones describes such plans as the government wanting to take control of your TV, to know and control what you watch. If Jones believes it fits with his theories about a globalist takeover, he'll run with it.

[Mephisto]

Waar halen die mensen de tijd vandaan om zoveel onzin te posten?
Exodus & Co.: Zonde!
Die tijd nuttig gebruiken zou je nog heel ver kunnen brengen in deze maatschappij!
Maar ik ben bang dat jullie daarvoor te bang geworden zijn; elke fout is een inside-job, dus er mag zowieso niets verkeerd gaan. Beter thuis zitten en boekjes lezen. Zien hoe fout die anderen allemaal zijn..

[Mephisto]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door X_MAN

Exodus
even voor alle duidelijkheid : hou u met iets nuttigs bezig of leer eens breien of haken dan uw cut and past bazaar hier . Er zijn 52 mensen op een laffe manier vermoord en het is ongepast om op hun lijken te staan dansen.

Mee eens.

[democratsteve]

Je leest niet goed Parci.
Dat er Jones bashers bestaan weet ik ook wel.
Ik vroeg naar BEWIJZEN van vroegere leugens, niet naar wat modder gooiende reacties zonder enige grond.
't Is toch raar he.
Nooit wordt door de apostelen van de officiele theorie ingegaan op de INHOUD van wat "conspirators" vertellen. Telkens worden zij in algemene termen afgedaan als conspiracy freaks of zoiets. WAAROM citeren ze dan hun "leugens" niet?????
Ik heb zowat alle reacties (het waren er maar een paar) in de mainstream pers in de VS gelezen bij het verschijnen van het boek in Frankrijk van T. Mayson.
Het boek was "vulgair", "onbetamend", "ridiculous", etc...
En de schrijver was een "linkse extremist", "fantast", enz.... Maar nérgens werd ook maar één woord besteed aan de inhoud van het boek.
NIETS, maar dan ook niets werd weerlegd.
En zo gaat het sindsdien met elk boek of website die de officiele versie iun vraag stelt.
"Ach , weer een conspiracytheorie", zonder op de inhoud te reageren.
Makkelijk natuurlijk.
Dont look at the message, just shoot the messenger.[edit]
[size=1]Edit:[/size]

[size=1]After edit by democratsteve on 19-08-2005 at 14:41
Reason:
--------------------------------

Je leest niet goed Parci.
Dat er Jones bashers bestaan weet ik ook wel.
Ik vroeg naar BEWIJZEN van vroegere leugens, niet naar wat modder gooiende reacties zonder enige grond.
't Is toch raar he.
Nooit wordt door de apostelen van de officiele theorie ingegaan op de INHOUD van wat "conspirators" vertellen. Telkens worden zij in algemene termen afgedaan als conspiracy freaks of zoiets. WAAROM citeren ze dan hun "leugens" niet?????
Ik heb zowat alle reacties (het waren er maar een paar) in de mainstream pers in de VS gelezen bij het verschijnen van het boek in Frankrijk van T. Mayson.
Het boek was "vulgair", "onbetamend", "ridiculous", etc...
En de schrijver was een "linkse extremist", "fantast", enz.... Maar nérgens werd ook maar één woord besteed aan de inhoud van het boek.
NIETS, maar dan ook niets werd weerlegd.
En zo gaat het sindsdien met elk boek of website die de officiele versie iun vraag stelt.
"Ach , weer een conspiracytheorie", zonder op de inhoud te reageren.
Makkelijk natuurlijk.
Dont look at the message, just shoot the messenger.[/size]

[size=1]Before any edits, post was:
--------------------------------

Je leest niet goed Parci.
Dat er Jones bashers bestaan weet ik ook wel.
Ik vroeg naar BEWIJZEN van vroegere leugens, niet naar wat modder gooiende reacties zonder enige grond.[/size]

[/edit]