Metropol

Hang on.

You are saying these things are not reported on the main stream media such as the BBC and national newpapers. And then quote as your source of the reports as the BBC and the Guardian.

I'm totally confused as to what you are saying now. Did the BBC report this or not.

Lots of things in papers don't make sence. But this is usually because they are wrong. For example for years people will be saying the bombers used militery type explosives because that is what the papers reported.

What doesn't make sence is your assertion that the Prime Minister, who is by all accounts a man with deep personal convictions and beliefs, could suddenly become a mass murderer. It's just not credible.

Marcus wrote:Hang on.

You are saying these things are not reported on the main stream media such as the BBC and national newpapers. And then quote as your source of the reports as the BBC and the Guardian.

I'm totally confused as to what you are saying now. Did the BBC report this or not.

You miss my point.

Whenever you hear about 9/11, you are still told there were 19 hijackers.

There is no proof that those men hijacked the plane, let alone that there were 19 of them. No video tape has ever been released showing them getting onto the plane - we're just asked to take their word for it.

As holes started to appear in the story, these facts were reported. However, despite this, when it appears on BBC TV or radio, or appears in a newspaper, the "official" story continues to be given.

Why don't the BBC refer to them as the 12 hijackers? Why don't they all?

Marcus wrote:Lots of things in papers don't make sence. But this is usually because they are wrong. For example for years people will be saying the bombers used militery type explosives because that is what the papers reported.

What doesn't make sence is your assertion that the Prime Minister, who is by all accounts a man with deep personal convictions and beliefs, could suddenly become a mass murderer. It's just not credible.

I wish you'd stop editing your posts after I'd responded to them - it makes it difficult to keep track of.

You've argued my point then. You've said that the newspapers don't always report things accurately - same goes for all the news media. Therefore, if the mainstream media are overly dependent and influenced by government sources and they have a history of not being that bothered about accuracy, why are you putting so much store on what they report? Why are their questions and conclusions so credible, and why are the questions and conclusions being drawn by others so incredible?

We'll have to agree to differ over Tony. Tony has deep personal beliefs and convictions when it suits him - deceiving a country into war directly responsible for the deaths of 100,000+ is the act of a mass murderer. You have your opinion, I have mine.

johnnyboy wrote:

Marcus wrote:Lots of things in papers don't make sence. But this is usually because they are wrong. For example for years people will be saying the bombers used military type explosives because that is what the papers reported.

What doesn't make sense is your assertion that the Prime Minister, who is by all accounts a man with deep personal convictions and beliefs, could suddenly become a mass murderer. It's just not credible.

I wish you'd stop editing your posts after I'd responded to them - it makes it difficult to keep track of.

You've argued my point then. You've said that the newspapers don't always report things accurately - same goes for all the news media. Therefore, if the mainstream media are overly dependent and influenced by government sources and they have a history of not being that bothered about accuracy, why are you putting so much store on what they report? Why are their questions and conclusions so credible, and why are the questions and conclusions being drawn by others so incredible?

We'll have to agree to differ over Tony. Tony has deep personal beliefs and convictions when it suits him - deceiving a country into war directly responsible for the deaths of 100,000+ is the act of a mass murderer. You have your opinion, I have mine.

But you see every wrong fact as a plot to subvert the truth. In fact it's often just a mistake.

What ever you think about Blair, he believes that he led this country into a just war against Iraq. It doesn't matter whether it was or not, it's what he believes, Thus he claims the moral right to do it. You might as well say Churchill was responsible for millions of deaths of innocent Germans.

Committing a terrorist act against the country he leads is world away from that. It could never happen. As I said there would have to be too many involved. Are you really saying that every member of the Police or Ambulance services who finds a piece of evidence supporting this theory will hush it up. Rubbish.

Your theory about the four suspects not being typical suicide bombers supports my argument. If they were being set up then they would tick all the boxes. The security services are not stupid. Why leave room for doubt.

Your type of argument would be seized on by extremists to try to deflect attention from the reasons behind the bombings.

We must find out from the Muslim community what caused this. We must do all we can to bring the communities together and to ensure this never happens again. Blaming the it all on a massive Government plot is the biggest cop-out ever, it will lead to no lessons being learnt and the chance of the atrocity's happening all over again.

johnnyboy wrote: Correction. Bizarre theories do belong on the Six O'Clock News, if that's what the Government tell them. The BBC and others, despite decades of inaccurate and lazy reporting, will always use a government source as credible because a) it's easier, and b) if they go too much against what the Government say, they will be in danger of losing their contacts and access to information. Ask any journalist this.

And your evidence for this. Have you worked on the Six O'Clock News. I have and I can assure you most journalists in the BBC believe deeply in the independence of the cooperation. Facts are always checked and double checked and they are very willing to publish facts which upset the Government. What do you think Hutton was all about. Why do you think Tony Blair prefers to appear on Richard and Judy rather than Newsnight or Today.

Marcus wrote:But you see every wrong fact as a plot to subvert the truth. In fact it's often just a mistake.

You really do have a problem reading for content, don't you, Marcus? The fact that, instead of concentrating on what I'm saying and not saying, you're trying to spin me into some David Icke wannabe. And you say you worked on the news?

Multiple times through this thread, I have said I don't know what to believe and disbelieve. I said I have formulated no theory yet - I'm simply reading the information and questions about there, and presenting them here.

So, FOR THE HARD OF READING MARCUS, "I AM NOT PRESENTING ANYTHING HERE AS FACT OR AS MY OPINION ON THE LONDON BOMBINGS". Comprendez???

Marcus wrote:What ever you think about Blair, he believes that he led this country into a just war against Iraq. It doesn't matter whether it was or not, it's what he believes, Thus he claims the moral right to do it. You might as well say Churchill was responsible for millions of deaths of innocent Germans.

You're a journo and the best argument you can come back with is completely unrelated to what I'm saying, but a cheap attempt to draw a false comparison to try to make me look stupid? You really are getting desperate now.

Bliar LIED about taking us into war. He LIED repeatedly and deliberately about Iraq's WMD capabilities. He LIED, telling us we were "45 minutes away from destruction".

LYING, which costs the lives of 100,000+ people, is not the behaviour of a moral man.

LYING is not what someone does when he sincerely believes that a battle should be fought - why did he lie? Because he realised what he claimed had no substantive evidence to back it up.

He does not BELIEVE it, as you suggest, because he had to LIE about it. Why does that seem incapable of entering your skull?

Marcus wrote:Committing a terrorist act against the country he leads is world away from that. It could never happen. As I said there would have to be too many involved. Are you really saying that every member of the Police or Ambulance services who finds a piece of evidence supporting this theory will hush it up. Rubbish.

Your theory about the four suspects not being typical suicide bombers supports my argument. If they were being set up then they would tick all the boxes. The security services are not stupid. Why leave room for doubt.

Again, you simply miss the point. I am not claiming that the UK government or security forces were behind it - I am saying that there is always the possibility.

British security services and Loyalist paramilitaries colluded in all sorts of crap in the 70s and 80s. They have form - it has been done before. You do not seem to be disputing that point. So why do you dispute the fact that it is even just a possibility, no matter how small, that it might have happened again? How can you be so sure that Blair wouldn't but Thatcher would?

Do you really think the press are that interested in the inconsistencies in the stories of both the bombings themselves or the character profiles of the alleged suicide bombers? What has been printed and shown this week suggests not.

Marcus wrote:Your type of argument would be seized on by extremists to try to deflect attention from the reasons behind the bombings.

Yeah yeah, bullshit. That's what they said in America after 9/11 - don't speak out, don't speak up, don't ask questions.

I am interested in finding out the reasons behind the bombing, dummy. For some wierd reason, you think it's case closed already. Life is never that simple. I am asking questions, as are millions of others. Because there is a lack of clear information about it, I and millions of others have not made up our mind.

Marcus wrote:We must find out from the Muslim community what caused this. We must do all we can to bring the communities together and to ensure this never happens again. Blaming the it all on a massive Government plot is the biggest cop-out ever, it will lead to no lessons being learnt and the chance of the atrocity's happening all over again.

How can you be sure it's not a massive government plot? How can I be sure it's not the Muslims? Neither of us can say, but I know which one of us is too closed-minded to consider other possibilities.

Your argument strategy is appalling anti-intellectual and weak. It basically goes like this -

johnnyboy: Something about the bombings worries me
Marcus: You conspiracy freak
johnnyboy: I haven't said I believe in a conspiracy. I am just interested in the answers to a few questions.
Marcus: Blame the Muslims
johnnyboy: On what evidence?
Marcus: Because the papers and the TV say so
johnnyboy: There is a strong possibility it was them, but there are still some troubling things here.
Marcus: You conspiracy freak. The media and government never lie.
johnnyboy: Of course they do.
Marcus: Stop giving succour to the terrorists.
johnnyboy drifts off to sleep.

Marcus wrote: Facts are always checked and double checked and they are very willing to publish facts which upset the Government. What do you think Hutton was all about.

Hutton was originally a storm in a teacup which would have blown away if Alistair Campbell's ego hadn't intervened.

And if "facts are always checked and double checked", why do the BBC and other continue with the myth that there were 19 hijackers, smarty?

I mean, it's only the biggest news event for the last 10 years which has led to global instability.

For all of you interested in this (except Marcus who has already solved the case), an interesting article in today's Mirror...

EXCLUSIVE: WAS IT SUICIDE?

Why did they buy return train tickets to Luton? Why did they buy pay & display tickets for cars? Why were there no usual shouts of 'Allah Akhbar'? Why were bombs in bags and not on their bodies?

iBy Jeff Edwards

THE London bombers may have been duped into killing themselves so their secrets stayed hidden.

Police and MI5 are probing if the four men were told by their al-Qaeda controller they had time to escape after setting off timers. Instead, the devices exploded immediately.

A security source said: "If the bombers lived and were caught they'd probably have cracked. Would their masters have allowed that to happen? We think not."

The evidence is compelling: The terrorists bought return rail tickets, and pay and display car park tickets, before boarding _ a train at Luton for London. None of the men was heard to cry "Allah Akhbar!" - "God is great" - usually screamed by suicide bombers as they detonate their bomb.

Their devices were in large rucksacks which could be easily dumped instead of being strapped to their bodies. They carried wallets containing their driving licences, bank cards and other personal items. Suicide bombers normally strip themselves of identifying material.

Similar terror attacks against public transport in Madrid last year were carried out by recruits who had time to escape and planned to strike again.

Bomber Hasib Hussain detonated his device at the rear of the top deck of a No 30 bus, not in the middle of the bottom deck where most damage would be caused.

Additionally, two of the bombers had strong personal reasons for staying alive.

Jermaine Lindsay's partner Samantha Lewthwaite, 22, mother of his one-year-old son, is expecting her second baby within days. Mohammed Sidique Khan's wife Hasina, mum of a 14-month-old daughter, is also pregnant.

Our source disclosed: "The theory that they were not a suicide squad is gathering pace. They were the weakest link.

"We think it's possible they were told that when they pressed buttons to set off timers they'd have a short time to abandon the bombs and get away before the blast. Instead, the bombs exploded immediately."

Another intelligence source added: "Whoever is behind this didn't want to waste their best operatives on a suicide mission. Instead they used easily recruited low-grade men who may have believed they'd walk away."

At least 54 people were killed in the 7/7 blasts. Khan, 30, of Dewsbury, Shehzad Tanweer, 22, of Leeds, and Jamaican-born Lindsay, 19, of Aylesbury, Bucks, detonated devices on the Tube at Edgware Road, Aldgate and King's Cross.

Hussain, 18, of Leeds, blasted the bus at Tavistock Square. The Tube explosions went off almost simultaneously. But the bus went up an hour later.

Yesterday, Hussain's family told of their horror at the teenager's involvement in the massacre. They said in a statement: "We are devastated over the events of the past few days. Hasib was a loving and normal young man who gave us no concern and we are having difficulty taking this in.

"Our thoughts are with all the bereaved families. We have to live with the loss of our son in these difficult circumstances.

"We had no knowledge of his activities and, had we done, we would have done everything in our power to stop him. We urge anyone with information to cooperate fully with the authorities."

Police are urgently investigating the missing 81 minutes between Hussain arriving from Luton in London and the time his bomb went off.

His device may have malfunctioned. He may have lost his nerve. Or he may have panicked when he discovered the Northern Line, on which he is thought to have been due to travel, was suspended.

Officers want to discover if Hussain met anyone else who either strengthened his faltering resolve or reset his flawed bomb.

johnnyboy wrote:Why did they buy return train tickets to Luton? Why did they buy pay & display tickets for cars? Why were there no usual shouts of 'Allah Akhbar'? Why were bombs in bags and not on their bodies?

The pay-and-display question is easily explained away by saying that they didn't want to attract undue attention to a car which was apparently full of explosives. The return train tickets, lack of 'Allah Akbar', unusual packaging are difficult to explain, and most of all the ID situation, appear to point to something not being quite right - and I have no idea what that 'thing' is. But to me, this explanation doesn't fit: If they only thought they had a short time to get away, why start the timer in a tunnel, shortly after leaving a staton and therefore at almost the maximum time before reaching the next station and being able to escape?

tillyoshea wrote:

johnnyboy wrote:Why did they buy return train tickets to Luton? Why did they buy pay & display tickets for cars? Why were there no usual shouts of 'Allah Akhbar'? Why were bombs in bags and not on their bodies?

The pay-and-display question is easily explained away by saying that they didn't want to attract undue attention to a car which was apparently full of explosives. The return train tickets, lack of 'Allah Akbar', and unusual packaging are difficult to explain, and appear to point to something not being quite right - and I have no idea what that 'thing' is. But to me, this explanation doesn't fit: If they only thought they had a short time to get away, why start the timer in a tunnel, shortly after leaving a staton and therefore at almost the maximum time before reaching the next station and being able to escape?

Deffo a bit strange.

I wonder if they were set up to do something, and genuinely had no idea of what was in the bag? What they thought they might be up to, I haven't the foggiest, but it is the start of an answer towards the unlikeliness of this lot being suicide bombers. Hopefully, the rest of the media will take this up and run with it. I don't hold out any hope though!

The problem with looking at the tickets and pay-and-display evidence is simple - you are looking for common-sense logic. Logic that I don't believe is there - sure they bought return tickets etc, but normally people don't blow up trains/buses so the circumstances are odd.

One of them had a reason for living due to this baby, so he must have wanted to come home? Normally I'd believe this, however he was happy for hundreds of people to be killed or injuried so I don't consider him to have 'normal person' logic.

If you get what I'm saying