The 7/7 Conspiracy Trial

Rachels post is very good. Better than any press / media coverage i haev seen. It convey's the horror well and makes me sad.

What else is sad, is the first comment on her site. What i believe is the root of our problem .....

"I have a fear that the root of the hate of the 7/7 bombers lies not in disadvantage, or social deprivation, or racial intolerance but in their faith. I would like to think otherwise but Islam is not forgiving to those not of its faith and those who want to hate us will find their justifications there."

People like this, will only bring more terror.

Is is exactly the fact that "Racial Intolerance" exists that is the problem. That our lives (i.e. one soldier) is more important than a hundred Islamic people. The fact we are helping with a US crusade for Oil, devastating whole countries with no "SORRY" or anything.

Unless we pull our troops out and reinstate our morals, then this horrible thing will more than likely happen again, and again.

Daniel Obachike has an interesting view on 7/7

Wonder how much Rachel gets paid to write that drivel?

Daniel Obachike has an

You are entitled to your opinion, Rachel, just as Daniel is entitled to his. He was also a witness, and what would be his motivation for making things up?

What you saw was a story build around some pictures. May be right, may be wrong.

The truthful answer about 7/7 must be that no-one really knows the definitive truth, because there are many contradictory accounts.

No offence Rachel.I heard an interview by Daniel Obachike on youtube.He said as he was running away from the bus at Tavistock there was a guy running towrds the bus with a video camera,he looked back at the scene and realized  intuitively that scene of chaos somehow looked staged.

He raises many points worth considering.Maybe you have misinterpreted events?

Hey; am I missing something here.

Yes, rachel's piece was moving. Any normal person can sympathise.

However, what what shown was during an 'opening statement' if one can call several days an opening statement. Unless produced after the opening statements and the defence given an opportunity to examine what is put before the court, it is not evidence. It is definately not proof.

Don't get me wrong. I too have seen the videos. However, I really would like to hear a bit more truth.

Like who organised the 'exercise' on the exact day of 7/7 that was supposed to deal with urban terrorism?

Perhaps we could know what is the likelyhood of the bus exploding on camera (how many miles does this bus travel, where it is not covered by CCTV)?

How many hours did the police spend finding all this damming CCTV footage; or perhaps they were watching them all the time?

Yes, all those involved in 7/7 have suffered terribly, including police and other emergency services, but that is not an excuse to loose sight of the need for a real examination of events and a search for the truth.

You are entitled to your opinion, Rachel, just as Daniel is entitled to his. He was also a witness, and what would be his motivation for making things up?

Well, for starters he invented an entire section of his book where he wrote about a day inside my flat featuring dialogue between me and my hsuband.

 He has never met me, or my husband, or been inside my flat.

So he certainly lied and misrepresented there, didn't he?

draw your own conclusions, about what sort of person  writes about someone''s flat husband and conversation when they have never even met them, and presents it as factual truth, when it is a lie.

It should be perfectly bloody obvious that I was reporting back from the first day of the CPS opening speech, not the verdict. Trail reporting is restricted to what is shown and discussed in court.

It should also be perfectly obvious why 7/7 evidence was introduced on day one.

Because  the prosecution have to

a) FIRST prove 7/7 happened as reported - that MSK + 3 mates bombed London,

b) THEN put forward evidence that the 3 men in the dock helped them plan it

Now - the 3 men in the dock and their defence teams have had every opportunity to query a).

But they haven't.

 They have accepted it, and it is not being challenged.

 Think about that, eh? Think about it very very hard.

They will of course be challenging their alleged involvement wiht the bombings, but they are NOT challenging that MSK etc did the bombings in the first place.

Okay?

It's over. The conspiracy theory 'bombers were innocent' nonsense is OVER.

That was only day one, if all the CCTV had been shown it would have been the longest opening speech ever. Relevant extracts were shown as the case was sketched out, as is normal on day one.

Finally, the Power/Visor nonsense was debunked ages ago.

http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/uk/coincidence+of+bomb+exercises/109010

Give it up, the defence have, the men in the dock have -  MSK, Tanweer, Lindsey and Hussein bombed London - it's a FACT.

I can't be arsed to bother indulging you in it by arguing any more, you can believe what you like, you can  beleive the earth is flat if you want, I can't help you.

The link you provided does not debunk anything Rachel.

Have you watched the 7/7 Ripple Effect??it may surprise you.

It did indeed surprise me - it was so piss-weak that even I was surprised by the depths to which conspiraloons had plumetted,

I thought Mind The Gap, Ludicrous Diversion were lames enough but Ripple Effect should  get a prize for fruitloopery.

The men in court are represented by Joel Bennathan, Andrew Hall, Michael Wolkind - some of the finest, cleverest QCS in the UK.

Neither they nor their QCs are challenging the FACT that MSK, Tanweer, Hussein, Lindsey killed 52 people plus themselves with 4 homemade bombs on 7/7 05.

Don't you think that if they believed that it was a terrible injustice, the pals of the defendants were innocent and the bombs were placed by the security services they might have bloody well mentioned it by now, instead of completely accepting and agreeing with the facts of 7/7 bombings?

We're now down to a few silly people on the internet, who haven't even bothered going to court to see the CCTV evidence they have been clamouring for  being presented ,

even the men who were best mates with the bombers and are looking at 30 years for conspiring with them if found guilty are not arguing with the fact that their pals MSK, Hussein, Lindsey, Tanweer suicidebombed London on 7/7/05.

Don't you see how silly you look?

The irony of you people referring to yourselves as 'truthseekers' and demanding the CCTV to be shown in a public court does amuse me.

Look at yourselves.

Rachel,

You know I would be willing to accept the 7/7 attacks at face value were it not for one large thing.Sept11th 2001 in New York.Most of the planet is now extremely sceptical to say the least of the Bush admin ripping yarn of events that day.

My suspicion is that Tony Bliar and his goons may have tried a similar trick albeit on a smaller scale.I cannot prove it of course but I would not put it past the lying bastards.

Who owns the security company that runs the cctv cameras by the way?

Here we see a classic conspiraloon tactic. When shown to be wrong, move the goalposts!

This is an interesting site Conspiracy Busters Many people should know about this.

Members of We are Change UK were at the European Parliament in Brussels to watch the Premiere of Zero, a new film that questions the official version of events on 9/11. A panel of guests were in attendance to answer questions before and after the film. These included David Ray Griffin, Yukisha Fujita MP and Giullietto Chiesa MEP.

www.youtube.com/watch

  Much, much more needs to be found out about Peter Power's company particularly what work it's done in the past, who for, where its registered etc. Companies set up by /associated with the secret services tend to use particular formation agents.