More beef with Northy

Revised wording 17th Apr:

On the straw-man creator, non-sequiter sower Rachel North in her excessive slurrs about one-size-fits-all ‘conspiraloons’, I feel like saying a bit more. It’s doubtful thick skulled R will understand any such comment but so what… long live blogs.  

Rachel, If a fully independent enquiry (outside the jail of the  Inquiries Act 2005) about 7-7, an enquiry that examined ALL aspects, actually found that 4 Muslims did bomb London on 7-7, then fine – 4 Muslim suicide bombers killed 52 people. If other honest court cases find that there are networks of Muslims in the UK trying to do the same thing then great.

So don’t cast you idiotic aspersions willy nilly in the way that you do, as if nobody will ever accept it could possibly have been the case, and that nobody could ever accept there isn’t a group of Muslims plotting to inflict pain and misery.

You see, your rebuttals are as unstable as your emotional state. Your never answer points of contention in fact you do exactly what you accuse skeptics of (skeptics or fruitloop loons as you like to name call – reminds me of the nasty bully element in school) and that is, you get the teeny weensiest bit of a something (which may or may not be true) and you say its definite proof that the skeptics are wrong. Well YOUR wrong. There isn’t one thing you have ever “rebutted” from which a handful or so of other strong queries spring forth. While you swallow the most meagre bit of illogical ill reasonsed propaganda and outright crapola even before the proverbial drop of a hat, you just can’t comprehend why people don’t believe everything the government say. Unlike in your world, one government statement doesn’t  dismiss all other consequential lines of questioning.

Just one example is this… If as you harp on about “the CCTV times were wrong” something about mobile phones/watches/clocks or whatever it was you said, but then, HOW ON EARTH CAN YOU ASSERT ANY TIME LINE (OR DISPROVE ALTERNATIVE TIME LINES) THAT YOU ARE NOW CLINGING TO AND REPORT IN RESPECT OF THE LATEST 7/7 TRIAL? You have taken it upon yourself to disbelieve the time on the CCTV that raised serious questions about the whole 7-7 narrative. You dismiss it becasue it doesn’t feed into your perception. All other times are correct except the ones that bring about suspicion of alternative explanations to the narrative of what happened that day. Magic! 

You just don’t get it do you?

You post about ‘day one of the trial’ verges on racism and islamophobia – certainly some of your contributors let the mask slip. You seem to think ‘truthers’ (and I’m not embarrassed to use the word despite your best attempts to ridicule people who actually do want the truth, and you too claim to want the truth in your called for a non-independent enquiry, but of course its only your preconcieved truth that doesn’t deserve your unfounded and mean ridicule) have a crush of these for men and Muslims in general. I wonder if you consider yourself to be living in Londonistan?

 With regards as to your ‘lunch with a truther’ (Friday, April 11, 2008), being a personal victim of your bizarre imagination, I’d like to say thanks for reporting it. ‘cos it seems I am now likely to know what DIDN’T happen.

–

–

–

–

 

SO WHAT?

Mind bender BBC spouts out more propaganda with this…

7/7 friend ‘had 9/11 photographs’

headline is a direct copy and paste. No emphasis added by me!

Update: I have had to DE-emphasise it cos I’ve just found out that
THE ORIGINAL HEADLINE WAS TOO BIG FOR MY BLOG!
Hish!~. End of update… 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7348848.stm

SO BLOODY WHAT ??????????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

The BBC has also take it upon itself to publicse its magical ability to determine something that has never come to trial. “Khan, Tanweer, Lindsay and Hussain killed 52 people in four separate suicide bombings on London’s transport network on 7 July that year.”

Bastard BBC.

–

–

–

–

 

Rachel on the latest 7/7 trial

 

 

Yet another thing I very much dislike stemming from her blogging fingers, is her implicit slurr that people who WEREN’T ABLE to get to court to see the latest 7/7 CCTV imagery somehow couldn’t be bothered. Characteristic of her, and damn annoying. She probably knows it – perhaps why she keeps repreating it over and over and over and over and over and over again..

However she does have a seemingly relevant question. Why are the defence NOT contesting that the 4 alleged 7/7 bombers did it. Well, it’s not long before one can provide a plausible answer to that. Some Judges won’t allow certain approaches of a legal defence. Perhaps the defence were briefed as to what line they could or could not pursue.

Secondly, The defence may have thought: to take the possible (IMO probable) conspiracy face on, would be seen in the minds of the jury (or trial Judge – I don’t know the system employed here) as ‘diversionary’ or would carry some other negativism – especially if the defence thought the jury were of an initially skeptical mindset towards the non-official 7/7 conspiracy.

The Peter Power issue has not been debunked IMO because Power was never interviewed as part of a Criminal Investigation. Until investigated, the police should NOT have ruled out the possibility that in some way, “same stations, same times” Power has some kind of connection to the bombs, either directly or an employee passing on information onto the ‘bombers’ (assuming they did it). There would only THREE reasons why he would NOT be interviewed:

1) Police Incompetency (They are very incompetent at times, but unlikely forgetful-incompetency is not likely here)

2) They know Power/Powers company is not a part of it. (Impossible to make this conclusion in the ABSENCE of that criminal investigation)

3) There is some kind a connection between Power or Powers company to the bombers but it’s being covered up.

Which I ask you is most likely? (If you can think of any more, please drop me a line)

Power issue debunked?  I don’t bloody well think so.

 

Her blog is here: http://rachelnorthlondon.blogspot.com

 

2 other pages of note from R on this topic…
1] Monday, April 14, 2008
Title: Nick Kollerstrom, mainstay of the ‘truth movement’ is a holocaust denier
a.k.a The Holocaust denier cum ‘anti-semetic card’ is played early. A well used tool employed by some of the non-Blair watching “Blairwatch”ers

Title links to:
http://www.blairwatch.co.uk/node/2014

Rachel leaves another link in that post, pointing to: http://rachelnorthlondon.blogspot.com/search/label/conpiraloons%20and%20holocaust-denial
2] Next – Off to Kingston for day 2 of the trial

–

–

–

–