Sheffield Forum
Your message here

Evidence Bombs were planted beneath trains on 7/7

Home > General > General Discussions

Topic Closed
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
10-03-2011, 00:36   #1061
Longcol
Registered User
Longcol's Avatar
 
Joined: Sep 2003
Location: Wherever people say I am that's where I'm not.
Total Posts: 14,401
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheaf-Field View Post

Just like a public inquiry would be a "ludicrous diversion" according to Phoney Bliar (Tony Blair), who had foreknowledge of the 7/7 attacks and who would be blamed for them. http://mtrial.org/ripple#download
Please remind us again of the qualifications of the author of the "Ripple Effect".

http://mtrial.org/muaddib/reasons
_______
Helping people escape from Rovvrum since 1991.
 
10-03-2011, 13:42   #1062
RobFr
Registered User
 
Joined: Dec 2010
Total Posts: 251
Quote:
Originally Posted by Longcol View Post
Please remind us again of the qualifications of the author of the "Ripple Effect".

http://mtrial.org/muaddib/reasons

No need. The film speaks for itself. 5 months of the so-called "inquest" and nothing has been produced to counter the evidence provided in the "7/7 Ripple Effect".

For anyone who hasn't seen the "7/7 Ripple Effect" yet, it can be downloaded for free at:
http://mtrial.org/ripple
 
10-03-2011, 14:43   #1063
Longcol
Registered User
Longcol's Avatar
 
Joined: Sep 2003
Location: Wherever people say I am that's where I'm not.
Total Posts: 14,401
Quote:
Originally Posted by RobFr View Post
No need. The film speaks for itself. 5 months of the so-called "inquest" and nothing has been produced to counter the evidence provided in the "7/7 Ripple Effect".

For anyone who hasn't seen the "7/7 Ripple Effect" yet, it can be downloaded for free at:
http://mtrial.org/ripple
Mmmmmm - lets see what the J7 Truth Movement says shall we;

http://www.julyseventh.co.uk/j-for-j...le-effect.html

"We do not support the film, its producers, its unsubstantiated conjecture, or the sending of the film to relatives of victims or survivors, nor has J7 provided any assistance with locating relatives of the deceased."
_______
Helping people escape from Rovvrum since 1991.
 
10-03-2011, 22:08   #1064
RobFr
Registered User
 
Joined: Dec 2010
Total Posts: 251
Quote:
Originally Posted by Longcol View Post
Mmmmmm - lets see what the J7 Truth Movement says shall we;
Looks like J7 agrees with most of the information in the "7/7 Ripple Effect", including the 'impossible' train journey that the 4 alleged suicide bombers could never have made that morning from Luton to Thameslink King Cross,

http://www.julyseventh.co.uk/july-7-...t-1.html#train

that Peter Power admitted during his television and radio interviews on the day of the bombings, 7/7/2005 that he was "…actually running an exercise for, er, over, a company of over a thousand people in London based on simultaneous bombs going off precisely at the railway stations where it happened this morning",

http://www.julyseventh.co.uk/july-7-...tml#interviews ,

that the government CCTV "evidence" appears to have been faked,

http://www.julyseventh.co.uk/7-7-cctv-evidence.html

and let's not forget that the photo evidence that suggests the bombs were planted underneath the carriages (along with eyewitness accounts that there were no backpacks nor were there any Muslims carrying backpacks were the bombs went off (oops, getting back on the thread topic).

http://www.julyseventh.co.uk/7-7-edg...on.html#images

So while the J7 group may have a difficult time making up their minds what all of this means, the evidence presented on their site supports and agrees with the majority of the basic information found in the "7/7 Ripple Effect".
 
11-03-2011, 00:06   #1065
Longcol
Registered User
Longcol's Avatar
 
Joined: Sep 2003
Location: Wherever people say I am that's where I'm not.
Total Posts: 14,401
Quote:
Originally Posted by RobFr View Post
Looks like J7 agrees with most of the information in the "7/7 Ripple Effect", including the 'impossible' train journey that the 4 alleged suicide bombers could never have made that morning from Luton to Thameslink King Cross,

http://www.julyseventh.co.uk/july-7-...t-1.html#train

that Peter Power admitted during his television and radio interviews on the day of the bombings, 7/7/2005 that he was "…actually running an exercise for, er, over, a company of over a thousand people in London based on simultaneous bombs going off precisely at the railway stations where it happened this morning",

http://www.julyseventh.co.uk/july-7-...tml#interviews ,

that the government CCTV "evidence" appears to have been faked,

http://www.julyseventh.co.uk/7-7-cctv-evidence.html

and let's not forget that the photo evidence that suggests the bombs were planted underneath the carriages (along with eyewitness accounts that there were no backpacks nor were there any Muslims carrying backpacks were the bombs went off (oops, getting back on the thread topic).

http://www.julyseventh.co.uk/7-7-edg...on.html#images

So while the J7 group may have a difficult time making up their minds what all of this means, the evidence presented on their site supports and agrees with the majority of the basic information found in the "7/7 Ripple Effect".
No it doesn't.

http://www.julyseventh.co.uk/j-for-j...le-effect.html

Let's see what they say about the 4 being recruited by Power.

According to the Ripple Effect.

"Therefore, as part of the exercise, they would have recruited four young Muslim men to carry four backpacks, that were to contain mock explosive devices.

Who were their Muslim recruits?

These Muslim men would naturally buy return train tickets, and not one-way tickets, because they would be going home after playing their parts in the training exercise
”.

J7

"No evidence is produced to support this conclusion and no matter how neat and appealing this alternative scenario might be, it remains totally hypothetical and without supporting evidence."

What do J7 say about the claims in the Ripple Effect that 3 of them were shot at Canary Wharf?

"On 7th July 2005 there were reports that 'suicide-bombers' had been shot dead at Canary Wharf, Brian Paddick of the Metropolitan Police was even asked at a press conference whether he could confirm these reports, and replied “We have no reports of any police sniper shooting at anybody today”. Once again, there is no tangible evidence to prove or disprove the reports, or the subsequent denial of these reports by Brian Paddick. However, 7/7 Ripple Effect makes the claim that Khan, Tanweer and Lindsay were all shot at Canary Wharf, with a further stretch that perhaps they were attempting to find sanctuary in the offices of a newspaper"

Where do they claim bombs where planted under the trains?

Where do they agree with the reason stated in the Ripple Effect (a lost by election if I recall) for the reason the Government did it?

About the only thing they agree on is the train times - because the Ripple Effect used the evidence that had been gathered by J7!

And J7 say it could be feasible for them to catch the train that left at 7:25.

"Was any train feasible? Let us consider an earlier train, which left Luton station at 07.25, and arrived into King’s Cross Thameslink at 08.23 am; thus, its journey took 58 minutes. This scenario would give the four young men barely three minutes to walk up the stairs at Luton, buy their tickets in the morning rush-hour and then get to the platform. Some have suggested that Lindsay German from Aylesbury had arrived early and bought the four tickets in advance (day-returns at 22 pounds each), to make this feasible."

We've since seen Lindsay did arrive early and enter the station. Luton isn't that big a station to get from the entrance to the platform in three minutes.

Why do the say that the Ripple Effect is "unsubstantiated conjecture"? Well their forum makes very interesting reading as well;

http://z13.invisionfree.com/julyseve...showtopic=2374
_______
Helping people escape from Rovvrum since 1991.
 
11-03-2011, 00:14   #1066
RobFr
Registered User
 
Joined: Dec 2010
Total Posts: 251
Quote:
Originally Posted by Longcol View Post
No it doesn't.
Sure it does. And maybe J7 will eventually uncover enough additional evidence in their own way and in their own time so that they can see the truth depicted in the "7/7 Ripple Effect".

J7 has the facts. They just need the story to understand what most likely really did happen that day. That is what the "7/7 Ripple Effect" provides.
 
11-03-2011, 00:19   #1067
RobFr
Registered User
 
Joined: Dec 2010
Total Posts: 251
Quote:
Originally Posted by Longcol View Post
About the only thing they agree on is the train times - because the Ripple Effect used the evidence that had been gathered by J7!
Nick Kollerstrom was the one who uncovered the train times and reported that information to Muad'Dib and to J7. J7 did their own follow-up, but Nick was the one who originally made the discovery.
 
11-03-2011, 00:25   #1068
Longcol
Registered User
Longcol's Avatar
 
Joined: Sep 2003
Location: Wherever people say I am that's where I'm not.
Total Posts: 14,401
Quote:
Originally Posted by RobFr View Post
Nick Kollerstrom was the one who uncovered the train times and reported that information to Muad'Dib and to J7. J7 did their own follow-up, but Nick was the one who originally made the discovery.
Evidence please.

The only thing I've seen linking Kollerstrom to Luton was the ridiculous video he did with the other wannabee Messiah, Shayler.
_______
Helping people escape from Rovvrum since 1991.
 
11-03-2011, 00:30   #1069
Longcol
Registered User
Longcol's Avatar
 
Joined: Sep 2003
Location: Wherever people say I am that's where I'm not.
Total Posts: 14,401
Quote:
Originally Posted by RobFr View Post
Sure it does. And maybe J7 will eventually uncover enough additional evidence in their own way and in their own time so that they can see the truth depicted in the "7/7 Ripple Effect".

J7 has the facts. They just need the story to understand what most likely really did happen that day. That is what the "7/7 Ripple Effect" provides.
Truth and the Ripple Effect in the same sentence?

The Ripple Effect gives us a good insight into a recruiting campaign for people who believe this.

http://mtrial.org/muaddib/reasons

If they believe that they'll swallow anything.

Not many though are there.

http://bornagainfreeman.ning.com/
_______
Helping people escape from Rovvrum since 1991.
 
11-03-2011, 07:56   #1070
RobFr
Registered User
 
Joined: Dec 2010
Total Posts: 251
from http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2009...alse-flag.html :-

7/7 Ripple Effect caused sufficient concern in the UK about the truthfulness of the official account that the BBC broadcast a response. As the centerpiece of this blog, a new study prepared by Rory Ridley-Duff offers a very detailed comparison between them. This superb analysis, in my estimation, explains that the weight of the available evidence support's Muad'Dib and that the circumstances of the attack suggest that a "training exercise" was used to camouflague a "false flag" attack as he has alleged. Consider the following:


7/7 The Conspiracy Files vs Ripple effect - part 1 of 6
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vcl5Y...embedded#at=12

When the internet documentary 7/7 Ripple Effect, released in 2007, became popular, a BBC response titled Conspiracy Files: 7/7 was broadcast in June 2009. Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5, Part 6.

As a professional philosopher, I would observe that, of the three theories of truth that Dr. Ridley-Duff applies in his analysis of conflicting reports, the first--the correspondence theory--is widely regarded as the definition of truth, where a claim is true when it corresponds to reality (or, alternatively, that a sentence is true when what it asserts to be the case, is the case). The problem thus becomes knowing what corresponds to reality or, in other words, how we can judge which assertions are more likely to be true. The second--the coherence theory--provides an answer by offering the coherence of the evidence as a criterion of credibility. The account that creates the higher degree of coherence of all the available evidence should be given greater credence. But it may be necessary to separate bona fide (or genuine) evidence from fabricated evidence. The third--the social constructivist theory--has the different purpose of illuminating cultural and political contextual considerations that enter into the interpretation of evidence. It is therefore telling that, by the coherence standard, Muad'Dib's account fares better than the BBC alternative and provides the more adequate explanation.

Theorising Truth

What Happened at Canary Wharf on 7th July 2005?

Dr Rory Ridley-Duff, Sheffield Hallam University*

r.ridley-duff@shu.ac.uk

Abstract
This paper uses three different theories of truth to consider claims broadcast in two documentaries about the London bombings of 7th July 2005: 7/7 Ripple Effect and the BBC’s Conspiracy Files: 7/7. 7/7 Ripple Effect argues that the alleged bombers were not in central London when the bombs exploded, and supports this with press reports of shootings at Canary Wharf. To test this claim, press reports from Canary Wharf were retrieved using a search of the Nexis UK News Database for the period 7th to 30th July 2005. Further searches were made using Google to locate blogs and discussion forum archives from 7th July 2005. The findings are assessed using three different theories of truth. When adopting a correspondence theory of truth, it is just plausible that the evidence found supports the theory implicit in the BBC documentary. The theory presented in 7/7 Ripple Effect is also plausible. When deploying a coherence theory of truth, the thesis put forward by the government and BBC collapses due to low probability that four men would choose the same targets, at the same time, and on the same day as a simulated crisis management exercise organised by Visor Consultants. The thesis put forward in 7/7 Ripple Effect remains coherent with available evidence. A social constructivist (critical) perspective identifies cultural and political interests that influence the selection and interpretation of available evidence. While the paper concludes that both documentaries construct truth that supports their political outlook and agenda, the theory advanced in 7/7 Ripple Effect is better able to explain anomalies in the official account as well as the evidence of a crisis at Canary Wharf on the same day.

About the author
Dr Rory Ridley-Duff is a Senior Lecturer in Organisation Behaviour and Human Resource Management at Sheffield Business School, Sheffield Hallam University. Amongst other teaching duties, he is leader of Philosophies of Business and Management Research on an ESRC approved Masters in Social Science Research programme (MRes), and leader of Research Methods for the university’s Masters in Human Resource Management (MSc). He completed his PhD in 2005, and now regularly publishes papers in journals and as part of academic conference proceedings.

For more information see his personal web-site and academic research profile.

Introduction
On 7th July 2005, at 09.48 US Eastern Standard Time, a CNN breaking news report was filed with a news service giving details of a conversation between a reporter and Brian Paddick of the Metropolitan police (CNN, 2005). In this conversation, a reporter asked Brian Paddick:

“Can you tell me -- the rumors that a police sniper shot dead a suicide bomber at Canary Wharf -- do you know anything about that?”
Paddick responded:
“We have no reports of any police sniper shooting at anybody today.”

The time stamp on the CNN report indicates that the news summary was posted at 13.48 GMT. At least one press agency and media outlet were aware of an alleged shooting at Canary Wharf on the morning of 7th July. These alleged shootings have now become central to an alternative theory about 7/7 presented in an internet documentary called 7/7 Ripple Effect (Hill, 2007). The documentary has become the subject of a controversy, not only for its content, but also because it was sent to the judge in a trial of alleged 7/7 conspirators. The campaign to publicise the documentary resulted in an attempt to extradite the documentary maker, John Anthony Hill, a 60-year old man born in Sheffield and living in Ireland, on the basis that he fabricated evidence to pervert the course of justice (O’Hara, 2009).

The popularity of 7/7 Ripple Effect prompted the BBC to devote an episode of its Conspiracy Files series to issues raised by the internet documentary (BBC, 2009a). In the first section of the paper, the core theories of the BBC and John Hill’s documentaries are set out. The second section considers the first of two divergences in these theories: the train that the alleged suicide bombers caught from Luton to King’s Cross London. The third section then focuses on the second divergence: press reports that a ‘crisis’ occurred at Canary Wharf, allegedly involving the shooting of several terrorists. As these reports form part of the evidence provided by John Hill in support of his theory, both the evidence presented in 7/7 Ripple Effect, and evidence from a further search for press reports of shootings, are set out in some detail. Section four critically analyses the evidence presented using correspondence, coherence and social constructionist theories of truth. The final section sets out conclusions, and assesses the BBC claim that 7/7 Ripple Effect is distributing a divisive message.

1. Theoretical Perspectives on the Events of 7th July 2005.
On 7th July 2005, four bombs exploded in London. Three bombs exploded simultaneously on different underground tube trains at 08.50. A fourth bomb exploded on a bus roughly an hour later, at 09.47 (Reid, 2009). There are nine hypotheses regarding the events of 7/7 that have been set out at the website http://julyseventh.co.uk (see Appendix A). The BBC documentary Conspiracy Files is closest to the third of these: the bombings constituted “homegrown and autonomous action by four British Muslims with no mastermind”. Hill’s documentary is closest to the eighth hypothesis listed: it claims that “the four men were chosen or lured in to be patsies in a classic 'false flag operation'” involving one or more of the intelligence services.

Although the BBC documentary was a response to 7/7 Ripple Effect, it largely reasserts the views expressed in the government’s own report. It is, therefore, worth starting with the version of events that is best known to most people, and which has been reported widely in the media and BBC news outlets. The Euro-Med News site summarises this version as follows:

…four British Muslims - Mohammad Sidique Khan, 30, Shehzad Tanweer, 22, Jermaine Lindsay, 19, and Hasib Hussain, 18 - blew themselves up using home-made explosives, killing 56 and injuring 700 on three Tube trains and a double-decker bus. They had travelled on a mainline train from Luton into King's Cross Thameslink Station in London, each carrying a heavy rucksack of explosives.

It is a version of events that has been endorsed by a high-level Parliamentary inquiry and a government report, both published in May 2006 ten months after the event, based on 12,500 statements, a police examination of 142 computers and 6,000 hours of CCTV footage. The report insisted that the bombers acted on their own, constructing explosives from chapatti flour and hair bleach mixed in the bath at a flat in Leeds, Yorkshire, where all four had family and friends.

Anders (2009), http://euro-med.dk/?p=9593

A key element of the evidence in the official government report (House of Commons, 2006:4) is the claim that the four Muslims were caught on CCTV at 07.21 entering Luton train station to catch the 07.40 train to London King’s Cross. The report proceeds to claim that the Luton train arrived in London at 08.23, that the four men were caught a few minutes later on CCTV footage at 08.26, then three of them caught tube trains before blowing themselves and the trains up at 08.50.

2. Diverging Accounts of Train Times
An inaccuracy in the House of Commons report has become central to Hill’s alternative thesis. It was later established that the 07.40 train from Luton was cancelled on 7th July. An acknowledgement of the error was made by Dr John Reid in parliament (BBC, 2006). He amended the official account to claim that the four Muslims caught a train at 07.25, which arrived at King’s Cross at 08.23.

The BBC’s Conspiracy Files and 7/7 Ripple Effect draw different inferences from the error in the House of Commons report. The BBC documentary uncritically accepts the government claim that the alleged bombers caught an earlier train. Surprisingly, it does not comment on the claim in 7-7 Ripple Effect that the four men caught the next available train (at 07.56). If the alleged terrorists missed the 07.40 train, they could not have got to London in time to catch the trains they allegedly bombed.

Last edited by RobFr; 11-03-2011 at 07:58.
 
11-03-2011, 07:57   #1071
RobFr
Registered User
 
Joined: Dec 2010
Total Posts: 251
(continued from above)


Figure 1: Alleged Bombers Arriving at Luton

Source: julyseventh.co.uk/7-7-cctv-evidence.html

The amendment of the official version has not ended the controversy over train times. The government had already placed in the public domain photographic evidence showing the alleged bombers entering Luton train station at 07.21:54. This time is reasonable for a group of people aiming to catch a train at 07.40. It is problematic, however, for a group planning to catch a train due to leave at 07.24. On the day, the 07.24 train left Luton at 07.25: a web-site campaigning for a judicial inquiry states the problem as follows:

Let us consider an earlier train, which left Luton station at 07.25, and arrived into King’s Cross Thameslink at 08.23 am; thus, its journey took 58 minutes. This scenario would give the four young men barely three minutes to walk up the stairs at Luton, buy their tickets in the morning rush-hour and then get to the platform. Some have suggested that Lindsay German from Aylesbury had arrived early and bought the four tickets in advance…to make this feasible. But, from King’s Cross Thameslink, it takes a good seven minutes to walk through the long, underground tube passage which includes a ticket barrier, to reach the main King’s Cross station, in the morning rush-hour with large rucksacks – in no way could they have been captured on the 08.26am alleged CCTV picture.

This major breakdown of the official story came about through the testimony of a commuter who wished to remain anonymous: she arrived at Luton station that morning at 7.25am, and testified that she had no train to catch until 7.58am, because the 7.30am and 7.40am trains from Luton were cancelled on July 7th. She could only get a slow train at 7.58am from platform 3 to King's Cross, which didn't arrive there until 8.43am. It was so packed that many could not get onto the train at Luton.

julyseventh.co.uk/july-7-luton-kings-cross-train-times.html, accessed 3rd October 2009.

The same web-site provides details of information provided by Vicky Hutchinson, working at the Transport Security Directorate, of the times that the tube trains left King’s Cross:

- the Eastbound Circle line train (204) left King's Cross at 08:35.
- the Westbound Circle line train (216) left King's Cross at 08:42
- the Piccadilly Line train south left King's Cross at 08:48

Figure 2 – Alleged Bombers Parking at 7.20am (BBC Documentary)

youtube.com/watch?v=vcl5YLYvFZA, timeframe 03:21.

The BBC Conspiracy Files:7/7 documentary accepts the claim that the alleged bombers caught the 07.25 train from Luton. The credibility of this claim, however, is called into question by the CCTV image broadcast in the BBC documentary which shows the bombers parking at 07.19:49. In the official government report, the time given for the bombers entering the station is 07.15.

This is a considerable contradiction as the official government report states that a Micra arrived at Luton at 6.49 and parked next to a Brava. The men are then reported to have spent 25 minutes by their cars preparing before entering the station at 7.15:

The 4 men get out of their respective cars, look in the boots of both, and appear to move items between them. They each put on rucksacks which CCTV shows are large and full. The 4 are described as looking as if they were going on a camping holiday.

House of Commons, 2006, p.3

The question arises how the four men could have spent 25 minutes in the car park preparing for their journey and yet be recorded on a CCTV camera near the platform 2 minutes after the CCTV camera recorded them parking a car. The question becomes more urgent as a result of the BBC documentary showing two frames of CCTV footage of the men entering Luton station. The timestamp on the CCTV images is deliberated blurred out so the viewer cannot use these images to corroborate the time that the four men entered Luton station:

Figure 3 – Men Entering Luton Station (BBC Documentary)

youtube.com/watch?v=vcl5YLYvFZA, timeframe 03.25

The BBC documentary also claims to provide evidence in support of the government position that the alleged bombers were caught on CCTV footage at King’s Cross at 08.26. BBC series producer Mike Rudin responded to a request for clarification by writing that:

…there is evidence to suggest [the alleged bombers] did catch the delayed 0725, which would have arrived in time for them to carry out the attacks. Crucially there is CCTV footage from Kings Cross Station showing all four men at 0826…
Rudin (2009)

Unfortunately, no date or timestamp is visible on any of the Luton or King’s Cross CCTV footage (see Figure 4). As a result, it is not possible to confirm Rudin’s claims that the men arrived at King’s Cross at 08.26am using the broadcast by the BBC.

Figure 4 – Obscured Timestamps, Luton and King’s Cross

youtube.com/watch?v=vcl5YLYvFZA, timeframes 03.27, and 03.48 to 03.53.

These are by no means the only problems with the official report and BBC documentary. Further timestamp anomalies occur when CCTV footage is shown that is claimed to be one of the tube trains exploding (also shown on Sky News, 200. The timestamp on this video image is 07.46:45am, over an hour before the trains actually blew up. Even accounting for a failure to adjust for British summer time, the timings are several minutes out.

Other anomalies are not materially important to the second core departure between the theories. In the BBC programme, having accepted the account of the government (that the men caught the 07.25 train from Luton and arrived in London at 08.23), the programme makers make no attempt to refute the claim in 7/7 Ripple Effect that the men could not have arrived in London until after the tube trains had left King’s Cross. 7/7 Ripple Effect, however, assumes that the four men were not on the trains that blew up.

3. Evidence that “Suicide Bombers” Went to Canary Wharf
7/7 Ripple Effect, by rejecting the thesis put forward in the BBC documentary that the men exploded bombs and died, has to account for what happened to the four men during the remainder of the day. It puts forward an argument that the men were recruited to an event organised by Peter Power, a former PR officer for the Metropolitan Police, who simulates terrorist attacks for clients to practice their crisis management skills. The information in the following paragraphs is drawn from the documentaries, and multiple sources collected together at julyseventh.co.uk/july-7-terror-rehearsal.html#cbc (accessed 3rd October 2009).

Both documentaries show Peter Power appearing on several TV programmes on the morning of 7th July 2005 claiming to have been running a crisis management simulation for a ‘client’ based on a scenario of four bombs going off in London at precisely the same locations and times. 7/7 Ripple Effect includes video footage of Peter Power’s involvement in an earlier BBC Panorama programme made during 2004, in which public figures examine how the media should cover a terrorist attack involving three tube trains and a truck in central London. There is, therefore, no dispute between the two documentary makers that Power was running a mock terrorism exercise in London on the same day, or that he specialised in terrorist crisis management techniques. The theoretical dispute centres on whether the Muslim men were bone fide bombers, or patsies recruited to participate in Peter Power’s simulation exercise to take the blame for the real bombings.

Power has admitted that he recruits people to make videos, including people who role play different parts in the simulated crisis, so that the simulations he runs are as realistic as possible (J7, 200. The 7/7 Ripple Effect claims that it is plausible that the four Muslim men were part of Peter Power’s simulation, but offers nothing more than circumstantial evidence to support this view. Power is interviewed in the BBC documentary and rejects a claim that a 1,000 people were involved in a simulation that day. Instead, he claims that the simulation was a ‘run through’ with only six people in a control room. This retraction is problematic in light of eye-witness evidence from Daniel Obachike who saw people acting out their injuries and the provision of medical help near Tavistock Square after the bomb blast on 7th July (Jones, 2007). Within 15 seconds of the bomb blast, Obachike saw an actor covered with bandages, surrounded by cameras and helpers, being filmed as he was taken away from the scene. The person was filmed leaving before any ambulances or medical staff had arrived at Tavistock Square and images later appeared in press and TV reports. This suggests that the coverage was planned in advance. So, even if Peter Power did not hire people to participate in his ‘real life’ simulations, an eye-witness account confirms that a terrorist simulation involving many more than six people took place in London on 7th July 2005 (Obachike, 2007).

The thesis put forward by 7/7 Ripple Effect is that the four Muslim men, having been recruited to participate in the simulation, realised that the explosions were real. They found themselves contemplating that they were intended to die in the ‘simulation’, and that they had survived only through luck as a result of train delays and cancellations at Luton. Consequently, they became fearful for their own lives. Hill (2007) sets out the rest of his thesis in Chapter 5 of 7/7 Ripple Effect[1]:

The phones are all not working, first of all because they were jammed, and then shut down by the authorities, so they cannot phone anyone to tell them what has happened. What can they do to prevent themselves from being wrongly blamed for the explosions? What would you do in that situation?

He then draws attention to reports of shootings at Canary Wharf:

On one of the early TV news broadcasts that day, a newsreader announced that a report has come in, that three of the terrorists involved in the bombings have been shot and killed, by the anti-terrorist branch of the police, at Canary Wharf, in the Docklands area of London’s East-end. The announcement was made only once, and never repeated, for obvious reasons. How could suicide-bombers possibly have survived the tube-train bombings, and then been in the Docklands to be shot?

Hill theorises that they were trying to take their story to the media in the Dockland’s area to avoid being framed for the bombings:

In a New Zealand Herald newspaper article it says that two people were shot dead outside the HSBC building, and in Canada's Globe and Mail Newspaper only one. There is another newspaper report, that the police shot a suicide bomber outside the Credit Suisse First Boston Bank…

Checking these claims provided the motivation for writing this paper. The author found they exist as bone fide news reports in overseas publications. Following this, a search of Nexis UK, a database used by universities to research news stories, was undertaken. This revealed a number of other reports in US, Canadian, New Zealand and UK newspapers. Further to this, Google searches found verbatim blogs and discussion forum archives that comment on these events. These add support to claims that a serious ‘crisis’ occurred at Canary Wharf. Table 1 summarises the news stories that surfaced at the time of the alleged shooting.

Last edited by RobFr; 11-03-2011 at 08:01.
 
11-03-2011, 10:06   #1072
Longcol
Registered User
Longcol's Avatar
 
Joined: Sep 2003
Location: Wherever people say I am that's where I'm not.
Total Posts: 14,401
Rory Ridley Duff took a good pasting here.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=157202
_______
Helping people escape from Rovvrum since 1991.
 
11-03-2011, 10:30   #1073
RobFr
Registered User
 
Joined: Dec 2010
Total Posts: 251
Quote:
Originally Posted by Longcol View Post
Rory Ridley Duff took a good pasting here.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=157202


argumentum ad hominem ("argument against the person") -- A common fallacy in which someone argues against a position or claim by assailing the proponent of it. The truth or falsehood of a position doesn't depend on who does (or doesn't) espouse it. e.g. "You can't trust Jones' theory of electromagnetic particles because he's a communist." (The theory is good or bad because it comports (or doesn't comport) with certain facts and evidence, not because the man propounding it holds a political affiliation.)

http://www.philosophicalsociety.com/...0Fallacies.htm


Fallacy

In logic and rhetoric, a fallacy is incorrect reasoning in argumentation resulting in a misconception. By accident or design, fallacies may exploit emotional triggers in the listener or interlocutor (e.g. appeal to emotion), or take advantage of social relationships between people (e.g. argument from authority). Fallacious arguments are often structured using rhetorical patterns that obscure the logical argument, making fallacies more difficult to diagnose. Also, the components of the fallacy may be spread out over separate arguments.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy
 
11-03-2011, 10:41   #1074
Longcol
Registered User
Longcol's Avatar
 
Joined: Sep 2003
Location: Wherever people say I am that's where I'm not.
Total Posts: 14,401
Quote:
Originally Posted by RobFr View Post
argumentum ad hominem ("argument against the person") -- A common fallacy in which someone argues against a position or claim by assailing the proponent of it. The truth or falsehood of a position doesn't depend on who does (or doesn't) espouse it. e.g. "You can't trust Jones' theory of electromagnetic particles because he's a communist." (The theory is good or bad because it comports (or doesn't comport) with certain facts and evidence, not because the man propounding it holds a political affiliation.)

http://www.philosophicalsociety.com/...0Fallacies.htm


Fallacy

In logic and rhetoric, a fallacy is incorrect reasoning in argumentation resulting in a misconception. By accident or design, fallacies may exploit emotional triggers in the listener or interlocutor (e.g. appeal to emotion), or take advantage of social relationships between people (e.g. argument from authority). Fallacious arguments are often structured using rhetorical patterns that obscure the logical argument, making fallacies more difficult to diagnose. Also, the components of the fallacy may be spread out over separate arguments.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy
Using that tired stuff again are we - you've tried it before and failed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

"The ad hominem is a classic logical fallacy,[2] but it is not always fallacious; in some instances, questions of personal conduct, character, motives, etc., are legitimate and relevant to the issue."

So perfectly legitimate to question, for example, the motives of the author of the Ripple Effect.
_______
Helping people escape from Rovvrum since 1991.
 
12-03-2011, 09:18   #1075
vResistance
Registered User
vResistance's Avatar
 
Joined: Jun 2010
Location: The Shadow Gallery
Total Posts: 2,640
Quote:
Originally Posted by Longcol View Post
Rory Ridley Duff took a good pasting here.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=157202
What does that prove ?..........Nowt.

Whereas all the information provided above kindly by Rob proves a lot.

And all the enqiry has done is cause even more suspicion and has revealed further holes in the official account.

You can't make that all go away by saying "Rory Ridley Duff took a good pasting here".

We know you will never accept the truth Longcol but do you really think peolple are stupid enough to give you any credit for your obvious underhand tactics ?
 
12-03-2011, 12:03   #1076
Longcol
Registered User
Longcol's Avatar
 
Joined: Sep 2003
Location: Wherever people say I am that's where I'm not.
Total Posts: 14,401
Quote:
Originally Posted by vResistance View Post
What does that prove ?..........Nowt.

Whereas all the information provided above kindly by Rob proves a lot.
All it proves is Ridley Duff never checked any of the supposed "facts" in the Ripple Effect.

As J7 Truth say - the Ripple Effect is "unsubstantiated conjecture".

Some would say it's also a recruiting film for someone who wants to be the "Messiah".

http://mtrial.org/muaddib/reasons
_______
Helping people escape from Rovvrum since 1991.
 
12-03-2011, 15:03   #1077
RobFr
Registered User
 
Joined: Dec 2010
Total Posts: 251
Quote:
Originally Posted by vResistance View Post
What does that prove ?..........Nowt.

Whereas all the information provided above kindly by Rob proves a lot.

And all the enqiry has done is cause even more suspicion and has revealed further holes in the official account.

You can't make that all go away by saying "Rory Ridley Duff took a good pasting here".

We know you will never accept the truth Longcol but do you really think peolple are stupid enough to give you any credit for your obvious underhand tactics ?
Thank-you for your reply vResistance,

When people cannot see the fallacy in attacking the messenger instead of addressing the message itself, after it has been kindly pointed out to them, there is little hope of reasoning with them.

The idea that their little world--created by the governments that they trust in and the complicit mainstream media that fills their heads with whatever the government wants it to--isn't what they have been programmed to believe, is just too much information.

They prefer lies to the truth. So sharing the truth with them is the last thing they want to hear or read.

"Don't confuse me with the facts, my mind is made up".

Grass is green. The sky is blue. 7/7 was an inside job. Very conservatively speaking, the probability of the 7/7/2005 Drill and Attack Coinciding, without being planned to coincide, in a 10 year period is: ONE Chance 3,715,592,613,265,750,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000.

THAT is how untenable the official story REALLY is and proof of how desperate any claim is to the contrary.
 
12-03-2011, 16:28   #1078
Eater Sundae
Registered User
 
Joined: Dec 2007
Total Posts: 6,995
Quote:
Originally Posted by RobFr View Post
Thank-you for your reply vResistance,

When people cannot see the fallacy in attacking the messenger instead of addressing the message itself, after it has been kindly pointed out to them, there is little hope of reasoning with them.

The idea that their little world--created by the governments that they trust in and the complicit mainstream media that fills their heads with whatever the government wants it to--isn't what they have been programmed to believe, is just too much information.

They prefer lies to the truth. So sharing the truth with them is the last thing they want to hear or read.

"Don't confuse me with the facts, my mind is made up".

Grass is green. The sky is blue. 7/7 was an inside job. Very conservatively speaking, the probability of the 7/7/2005 Drill and Attack Coinciding, without being planned to coincide, in a 10 year period is: ONE Chance 3,715,592,613,265,750,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000.

THAT is how untenable the official story REALLY is and proof of how desperate any claim is to the contrary.
Can anyone show the workings that produce this number?
 
12-03-2011, 16:30   #1079
Halibut
Hooked
Halibut's Avatar
 
Joined: Aug 2005
Location: Next to the woods
Total Posts: 30,511
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eater Sundae View Post
Can anyone show the workings that produce this number?
No, of course not - that'd expose it as the nonsense it is. RobFR keeps blindly quoting it all the same though.
_______
This machine kills fascists. Up the Roma! Porn kills love.
 
12-03-2011, 16:33   #1080
Halibut
Hooked
Halibut's Avatar
 
Joined: Aug 2005
Location: Next to the woods
Total Posts: 30,511
Quote:
Originally Posted by RobFr View Post
the probability of the 7/7/2005 Drill and Attack Coinciding, without being planned to coincide, in a 10 year period is: ONE Chance 3,715,592,613,265,750,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000.

THAT is how untenable the official story REALLY is and proof of how desperate any claim is to the contrary.
It's certainly a measure of how hopeless you are Rob that you keep on quoting this figure - even though you can't explain how you arrived at it.

Furthermore even if it had some kind of scientific basis, it doesn't do what you claim it does.

Unlikely things - even staggeringly unlikely things - happen all the time.
_______
This machine kills fascists. Up the Roma! Porn kills love.
 
Topic Closed

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:51.
POSTS ON THIS FORUM ARE NOT ACTIVELY MONITORED
Click "Report Post" under any post which may breach our terms of use.
©2002-2017 Sheffield Forum | Powered by vBulletin ©2017

Nimbus Server