Tom Secker 7/7 london bombings SCADS 2nd Conf – March 2012

See 19:39 timeline

“There’s a pattern here, and I think It’s highly likely that all three of these men: Martin [Abdullah] McDaid,  Mohammed Qayum Khan [a.k.a. Mohammed Quayyum Khan, a.k.a. ‘Q’], Mohammed Junaid Babar [4 years in prison] were all working for the security services- either British or American “

Why not the so called “Israeli” intelligence services Tom?

–

–

p.s. the youtube page with Tom’s performance had this horrible coincidence on the side menu.

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

Terror on the Tube 3rd Ed available now.

I’ve been busy of late so missed Nick Kollerstroms post on the matter.

Best to go to Nick’s website and read what he has to say about it. I’ve got the 2nd edition and thought it a very good book for its analysis of 7/7, I WILL be buying the third edition.

http://terroronthetube.co.uk/2012/01/03/new-edition-of-book-terror-on-the-tube/

My thanks to Nick Kollerstrom for all his superb work investigating the July 6 2005 London bombings.

3rd edition

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

Bridget Dunne, July 7th Campaign, speaks at SCADs conference

The independent  investigator bridget would rather you didn’t know of was Dr Nick Kollerstrom. Nick – while others may have been fixated with power surges – kickstarted the 7/7 truth movement with him uncovering the fact the 7:40am train, which the supposed bombers caught, was actually cancelled that day.

–

–

You can see Nick in a recent interview here: http://www.richplanet.net/starship_main.php?ref=72&part=1

–

Here’s a questioning voice, Paul Taylor, of which I share some views (but I don’t ‘love’ my country)

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

New 7/7 footage: conclusive proof the 4 bombers did it.

Well no, it doesn’t, like nothing about 7/7 does,  but don’t let that stop you from allowing the BBC’s NLP telling you it does.

a) http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11546549

[A lesson in NLP tricks!]

Ben Geoghagen:

“This is really chilling footage, I would describe it John”

– BBC Journo once again expressing a personal opinion, but as a BBC journo (the BBC still, incredibly, can successfully draw upon it’s image of the informed and informative ‘trusted’ institution of Britishness), he has an open passageway into your brain, even though you’ve never het him before and know absolutely nothing about him (esp. his political leanings – or how passionate he holds those views and what what extent therefore that he will promote them)

“What you’re about to see…”

NLP ‘preparation’

“I’ll show you the first one. The first one. It’s of H.H. HE exists KX underground station and you see him going into Boots…” [footage1] time = 08:59:46  “it’s part of the property there part of the concourse”

NLP ‘expansion’

[footage2]

“There you can see hi actually entering the shop”

time = 9:05:54-7 (WH Smith sign seen in footage)

“What is striking about all this footage…”

[footage3 – grey] time = 09:53:13-5

“And here is him coming out of KX station onto the main concourse…”

“…what is so striking about it, is the number of people he passes as he wonders outside Kings Cross station.”

At this point the journo talks about the problems/delays/congestion on the tube that day. [back to footage3 – grey] time = 9:53:13- Note almost impossible to identify any person. And he says

“..a lot of people are on their MOBILE PHONES making calls to friends or their bosses saying they are going to be late.”

Really??? Mobile phones at 09:52:29? This is something that should be checked. Note: it’s almost assured the BBC journo didn’t check.

“and here’s H.H. walking with this rucksack amongst them and obviously they are totally oblivious to the danger they face because here’s a man whose carry a bomb on his back and a bomb which he later detonates on the No 30 Bus at Tavistock square and kills 13 people as he does so” – This is lazy pre-concluded supposition. There is no proof he did it. There has been no trial.

[Inside BMA building? footage.  Time 09:42-04. Supposed explosion on the bus at 9:42:18]

yet Bus aerial debris footage: VLW 173 time = 09:34:23 BST

Of course the “BMA? footage time and the ‘aerial blast debris time” footage is inconsistent. They differ by 7min 41seconds and TAKE A LOOK AT THE BIG TREE: The branches on the left hardly move at all. If this wasn’t ‘explained’ to you, you would have virtually no idea it was describing an explosion. There is NO obvious blast movement up or to the right on the trees left hand side. If this ‘blast debris’ was faked I’d not be surprised, esp. as there only seems to be one shot with ‘hazy blobs’ in it.

Journo goes on about

[how much footage was gone through] in order to get good evidence of the movements of this one bomber H.H.”

Who said it was ‘good’ – the journo. He’s giving you his opinion and his opinion is that it’s good. My opinion (and I’m going to cover it up that it is my opinion) is that it’s bullshit footage and it doesn’t prove anything.

“…there were cameras on some of the busses showing you footage on SOME of the busses, showing you the No 30 thirty bus that he eventually got on”

NLP again. And very clever. He ‘covers’ footage from busses, but not a peep from him about a total lack of footage is available from any specific bus he’s supposed to have gotten onto.

“to piece together his movements on that day…”

Yet more NLP commands telling you what to think. And it’s not pieced together. The timelines once again are inconsistent.

“before he detonated his device”

This is NLP ‘reinforcement’

“on that bus” – my emphasis

more ‘reinforcement’ having been told earlier about the No. 30 bus.

Not once does he expose you to anything other than it’s a ‘fact’ the these guys did it. He never said the word likely, supposed, possible or even the commonly used mild get out clause of ‘alleged”

What a terrible so-called journalist this Ben Geoghagen is. Well, that’s probably why he’s working at the BBC.

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

Oh dear 7/7

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=69M_GhOb8Ug 

Much stupidity on display here, e.g. 19:38 – 21:31 and especially 20:22 – 21:31 by  mental trollop Houriya Ahmad.

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

 

 

5 years and counting.

It was pretty obvious this point would come, where, due to the high number of illogical aspects relating to the 7th July 2010 London bombings, the truth of what happened that day, would never actually get into the public domain.

52 + 4 people are said to have been killed, yet to the power structures in the UK which are supposed to act on behalf of the people, this incident (and 21 & 22 July 2005) played out to be a mere trivality, demonstrable by the point made above.

And so here it is; 7/7 happened and remains unresolved.

Even if it became a publicised psyop, like the well known historical false flags, many people would still be unaware of it, and most of them will still believe the original lie about it, but to most other people, it simply won’t matter.

7/7 joins the lost of other horrific events that COULD have mattered, but really, never mattered.

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

4 years since the July 7th London bombings.

–

On this day, 4 years ago, 52 (probably 56) people died in a series of explosions in London. To date, the British government have gone to great lengths to stop an independent, fully open public inquiry into one of the worst acts of terrorism to take place against the people of Britain in at least 60 years.

This is totally unacceptable.

The government has spun out a narrative of what they claim to be the events of that day. This ‘narrative’ as they call it, contained numerous flaws which have come to light due to a small number of concerned citizens doing what a criminally negligent British government has decided not to do.

The narrative describes 4 youths striking a blow against British people, but not you will note, the British military. In amongst the victims are almost certainly likely to contain a number of people who opposed the UK’s illegal invasion of Iraq and the mass slaughter of its people.

The act of terrorism that took place on 7th July 2005 (7/7) was unquestionably against the teachings of Islam (the so called 4 perpetrators’ were identified as being Muslims) and is just as unquestionably an affront to any standard of morality.

There are issues involving the Zionist entity occupying Palestine (a.k.a. Israyhell) in relation to the 7/7 bombings and it is this aspect of the bombings that commands my attention to this day. And it’s not without basis. I have spent many, many hours of  many days in many weeks throughout many months researching Zionism, and based upon what I have learned, I see it as absolutley legitimate in casting them as protagonists or at least, bit-players in this deadly game.

Let me just share with you what Rabbi David Weiss shared to others about the deadly operations of Zionism, that  Zionist attacks were executed leading to the sinking of two Jewish refugee ships, S.S. Patria (1940) and the S. S. Struma (1941) costing the lives of 276 & 769 innocent Jews respectively. And there are many more historical events one could mention. In particular I’d like to mention one in Iraq on the 14th January 1951, when a bomb (or grenade) was thrown by Zionist terrorists at Jews outside the Masouda Shem-Tov Synagogue in Baghdad, Killing one young Jewish boy, Itzhak Elmacher and leading to the deaths of three other Jews.

However, the facts of that day are still unknown thanks to the UK government and suspected moles tying to shift attention in various different directions. However if faced with what I consider strong enough evidence that Israyhell is not connected with this act of terrorism, then I see no disgrace in accepting that.

In the mean time, I would encourage you to follow closely the work of a very respectable group: the July 7th Truth Campaign: http://julyseventh.co.uk/ who are doing the thankless task of uncovering this horrific affair. I would appeal you also sign their petition: Click here to sign the J7 RELEASE THE EVIDENCE / INQUIRY Petition and demonstrate your demand for the truth to be known.

I will end by making it clear that in no way should my personal viewpoint of 7/7 or beliefs about Zionism be associated with the July 7th Truth Campaign. The issue is about determining the truth. What that quest uncovers is really a chapter for discussion some other time.

–

–

–

–

–

–

My brief turn

It seems this blog is getting a few new readers and I’ve reason to believe some are perhaps a little upset – particularly about the third picture.

 

New readers may not have read enough of this blog (and my previous blog http://lwtc247.blog.co.uk/) to understand my perspectives.

 

So I will ‘explain’ poster#3 just in case anyone was harbouring the very weird idea that I’m a racist.

 

It is a fact that dark skinned people are discriminated against in many parts of the world. As such, life is a lot harder for them. In the UK, compared to whites, people of colour are more likely to be shot by the state, imprisoned by the state, stopped and searched by the state etc etc. That to me is disgraceful.

 

but I don’t believe state discrimination isn’t without consequence. I think it can push (to different degrees, and on an individual level) members of the discriminated group, into a sub culture. In fact, to think how the establishment treats its citizens does not affect those SAME citizens is just plain wrong.

 

As such, sub-culture spawned from oppression is more likely to contain hostility against the state that discriminates against them.

 

At this point, bigots or thinkers may ask ‘chicken or egg’? Bigots ask because they want to rationalise their disgraceful prejudice, but thinkers also from a sociological point of view.

 

But it is a false question as the discrimination occurred long before the blooming of sub-culture – chiefly an urban quazi-metropolitan phenonomen.

 

Initial discrimination endures irrespective of sub-culture yet is reinforced by certain sub-cultures.

 

Poster#3 was saying the white people were never watched hence the camera never had to sweep (i.e. pan) left. It was only because there were black people to the left of the camera, the camera’s operators had a ‘need’ to make it go left to watch them, revealing the fault.

 

I wrote the word darkies because racists often use such terms emphatic ally and usually in a derogatory way, and the branches of the UK establishment are institutionally racist.

 

There.

–

–

If you suspect it, report it – The Antagonist

 

–

–

–

–

rachel-north-liar-and-charletane

–

= NOTHING TO DO WITH ME !!!

–

I have just followed up a link to a Rachel North ‘exposed’ website. The link was posted on StefZ’s website and points here: http://rachel-north-liar-and-charletane.blogspot.com/

There is text there taken from a blog post I made about Rachel North.

One bit that I instantly recognised was this

Jon then talks to Rachel North. Rachel recounts of her experience in the bomb train (Piccadilly line) which she boarded at Finsbury park. Rachel says “I felt this huge {pause} POWER smashing me to the floor.”

Ooooh Rachel that was close. Were the words ‘heat blast’ or ‘fireball’ on the tip of your tongue then? Rachel, do be careful. Remember, there’s a conspiracy to ignore.

But wait, what’s this? Rachel says “The air was thick with smoke” Hummm. Interesting. SMOKE. Something’s burning right? What causes smoke? Heat or fire, for example incendiaries – incendiary explosives. Why and I talking about fireballs, smoke and incendiaries? Well, because TATP, the supposed explosive used, doesn’t give off flames or significant heat when it explodes. Oh dear Rachel…. I’m not saying your lying,

It comes from my post entitled:

 

“Mad yelling wild eyed loons.”

by lwtc247 @ 18. Jun 2007 – 05:38:42

on my http://lwtc247.blog.co.uk blog.

–

–

–

–

I want to say: I have nothing to do with that rachel-north-liar-and-charletane blog at all. Even if the author/s of rachel-north-liar-and-charletane share exactly the same opinions as me, or otherwise, I don’t want people using what I write of think about her, to be spun into some kind of critique that my words not meant for.

My views on RN are perfectly clear. I am not ashamed for thinking what I do about her. I have written how I feel about her and directly to her (waiting now to hear back from her saying she’s never ever commnicated with me – as she does) But I don’t like the way my comments are used on that website. I am also perfectly willing to junk my opinion of her should I come across information which shows my current belief about her to be wrong. {been waiting a long long time!}

If my comments were referenced to my http://lwtc247.blog.co.uk website and it was clear my commentary was my own opinion at the time of writing, then fine… but it doesn’t.

It gives the impression I am a co-author or contributor or in some way connected to that site which I am not.

There. The record is put straight.

Here’s a comment I just sent them:

You have lifed text from my blog.co.uk website about Rachel North (e.g. when she talks with Jon Ronson about the explosion on ‘her’ carraige) and woven them into your website as if it is your own work.

Whether or not I share the same opinion Re: Rachel North as you do. I do not want you to use my stuff unreferenced and in this fashion.

Please quote me and make sure you state what I write is my personal opinion about Rachel.

<a href=”https://lwtc247.wordpress.com”>lwtc247</a>

21:19 BST (my computer time) 05-July-08

–

–

–

–

–

Cheers Alex…

—

 

… A choice cut from Prison Planet. (http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/june2008/062008_smear_attack.htm)

–

The BBC’s first stab at debunking the 9/11 truth movement was a jaw-dropping exercise in journalistic prostitution more befitting of state-controlled TV stations in Communist China or Zimbabwe.

The show was a tissue of lies, bias and emotional manipulation from beginning to end, structured around fallacy, lying by omission and an overwhelming dearth of impartiality.

During a follow-up radio debate, producer Guy Smith had no answers for the plethora of inaccuracies that littered the program.

The BBC has also completed a documentary on the 7/7 bombings, set to air in Autumn, which puts forward an individual called Nick Kollerstrom as the main proponent of “conspiracy theories” surrounding the 2005 London Underground attacks.

Despite the fact that we were at the forefront of 7/7 coverage immediately after it happened and have produced scores of articles on the subject that received millions of readers, the BBC did not choose to speak to us and instead interviewed a radical astrologist who also dabbles in crop circles, holocaust denial and making apologies for Hitler.

–

Full article here…

–

–

–

–