London Truthers to demonstrate on 9/11

[Slayhamlet]

As you seem to be the only person on this thread who can't see the joke, I suggest, that you should calmly ponder your actual words.

As you read them over, you should pay particular attention to the question you've been asked about a zillion times: what would they have said in the event of real terrorist attacks?

---

And it was this line of reasoning that led you into Truthism? Really?

What did you expect? This comes from the same person who said her warped political views provide better insight into the events of 9/11 than science and physical evidence; the same person who took a remote viewing class taught by a fraud and fell for it. (Yes, she thinks she can remotely view things.) Isn't it sad the sort of people Trutherism attracts?

 

[JihadJane]

What did you expect? This comes from the same person who said her warped political views provide better insight into the events of 9/11 than science and physical evidence; the same person who took a remote viewing class taught by a fraud and fell for it. (Yes, she thinks she can remotely view things.) Isn't it sad the sort of people Trutherism attracts?

Hee hee! Just popped by to staunch the cravings outlined by posters above only to see that a mischievous Forgetter, Slayhamlet, has been telling lies and breaking Rule 12 in my absence!

Naughty, naughty!

Slayhamlet, I doubt you have even the faintest idea what my political views are.

Your comments about "political insight" and "science and physical evidence" do not refelct anything I have ever written on this site.

But yes, my experience of Remote Viewing strongly suggested that it could work as claimed. So what? I wonder if your opinion about the teacher is as factually based as those you hold about me.

Unfortunately, due to your misinformed red herring, some posters above are now going to have to hold their breaths for even longer!

L8R.

 

[JihadJane]

Some posters above are in pain because of my earlier statement:

It was the similarity between post 7/7 and post 9/11 government propaganda that first raised my suspicions about 9/11.

I hope my following words help to relieve their needless suffering! Sorry for making you wait...

When the JREF gang is aroused to a feeding frenzy by the intoxicating scent of twoofer blood I’ve learned that it’s sometimes best to stand back to let the mud settle and to allow the self-referential mutual stroking to reach its solipsistic climax (cue Slayhamlet).

------------ ---------- ----------

Breathe.

------------ ---------- ----------

Bush and Blair’s warmongering, post-atrocity speeches were given at very different historical moments.

Bush gave his to a reeling, shocked, traumatised nation after a supposedly unexpected, out-of-the-blue attack . Blair gave his to a cynical nation many of whose people regarded him as a lying war criminal and US poodle with the blood of tens, if not hundreds, of thousands dripping from his smarmy hands.

Anyone familiar with the consequences of US foreign policy could also feel the sick hypocrisy of Bush’s war speech but Blair’s hypocrisy, because of the context, was starker. Both leaders run the usual war propaganda program of reducing their intended victims to the level of irrational barbarians while painting themselves as saintly beacons of civilised values.

Bush paves the way for US imperial expansion into any country that the US conveniently decides is harbouring terrorists and introduces the deranged concept of a “war on terror”.

“We will make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbor them”

Blair downplays the predicted consequences of his own massive, unprovoked violence by luridly talking up the latest “evil ideology” to threaten the ”civilised” West:

“This ideology and the violence that is inherent in it did not start a few years ago in response to a particular policy.”

Both leaders hurriedly announce the culprits before any proper investigation has established their guilt. The world still waits for the promised conclusive evidence in both cases.

The huge disjunct between Blair’s words and the reality of his murderous, deceitful, criminal actions raised my suspicions that the 7/7 and 911 narratives could also contain similarly shameless, warmongering lies.

 

[funk de fino]

Was 7/7 a false flag?

 

[cludgie]

And I see shes still not filling us in on what they would've said if (in her opinion) the attacks were genuine.

 

[JihadJane]

And I see shes still not filling us in on what they would've said if (in her opinion) the attacks were genuine.

How does that question (which I've already answered) relate to my statements?

 

[funk de fino]

How does that question (which I've already answered) relate to my statements?

Was 7/7 a false flag?

 

[Dr Adequate]

Won't be long now...

Still waiting.

In the meantime, could I point out that for the reality or otherwise of the terrorist attacks to impinge on the quality of the rhetoric, the speechwriters would have had to be in on it?

Bush and Blair do not, after all, produce their own rhetoric, they buy it by the yard.

 

[Dr Adequate]

How does that question (which I've already answered) relate to my statements?

Well, it's the obvious question.

If I follow you correctly, you say that the post 9/11 and post 7/7 rhetoric is the sort of rhetoric that Bush and Blair would have come out with after a false-flag.

I concede the point. It is. But it also seems exactly like the sort of rhetoric that they would have come out with after perfectly genuine terrorist attacks.

Especially since in both cases they'd have employed the same speechwriters who (see my previous post) would presumably not be "in the loop".

Now, you say that you have "already answered" the question, by which I suppose you mean your post of 28th September 2008 12:02 PM, but as I pointed out, it is factually inaccurate. Bush did not identify the culprits, Blair did so but not prematurely, and neither of them declared war.

 

[Mince]

If the truthers are willing to demonstrate once a year, maybe the situation is really bad. Maybe we should listen to them. Obviously, they have a lot of conviction.

 

[JihadJane]

Was 7/7 a false flag?

Quite possibly.

Still waiting.

In the meantime, could I point out that for the reality or otherwise of the terrorist attacks to impinge on the quality of the rhetoric, the speechwriters would have had to be in on it?

Bush and Blair do not, after all, produce their own rhetoric, they buy it by the yard.

I do not know about Bush but Blair certainly had a part in writing his speeches, along with his advisers. Not even Blair would need to know if the attacks were a false flag for him to be making the right noises.

"The benefit of self-deception is the more fluid deception of others. The cost is an impaired ability to deal with reality." (Trivers/Newton 1982)

Well, it's the obvious question.

If I follow you correctly, you say that the post 9/11 and post 7/7 rhetoric is the sort of rhetoric that Bush and Blair would have come out with after a false-flag.

I concede the point. It is. But it also seems exactly like the sort of rhetoric that they would have come out with after perfectly genuine terrorist attacks.

Especially since in both cases they'd have employed the same speechwriters who (see my previous post) would presumably not be "in the loop".

Now, you say that you have "already answered" the question, by which I suppose you mean your post of 28th September 2008 12:02 PM, but as I pointed out, it is factually inaccurate.

It's the obvious question from your perspective but, as I explain above, the answer isn't relevant to what first roused my suspicions, namely the vast distance between Blair's version of reality ("We are saintly victims") and real reality ("We are mass murdering war criminals who have launched an unprovoked and illegal invasion of a sovereign country")!

Bush did not identify the culprits, Blair did so but not prematurely, and neither of them declared war.

Bush identified the culprits as terrorists, confident that few people would understand that term could include intelligence and false flag operatives and assets, working (wittingly or unwittingly) for US interests. Blair's announcement of the culprits would still be premature today. The UK government has not presented its promised conclusive evidence even placing the alleged bombers in London on the day of the attacks.

The leaders did not formally declare war but their speeches are warmongering. Bushes introduces his global "War on Terror" concept and Blair pleads for his war to carry on regardless of the risks to those he claims to be protecting, risks which he tries to deny by arguing that the attacks have nothing to do with his war policies. A fearful population is good for warmongers.

 

[funk de fino]

Quite possibly.

Who benefitted from this false flag and what evidence leads you to believe it was?

Were Madrid and Bali also false flags?

Also, there is plenty evidence of the bombers being in London that day.

("We are mass murdering war criminals who have launched an unprovoked and illegal invasion of a sovereign country")!

The above is also lie.

 

[JihadJane]

Who benefitted from this false flag and what evidence leads you to believe it was?

You are jumping the gun somewhat. I said "quite possibly". Various interests, people and countries would stand to benefit if it were one. Mostly the same as benefitted from 911.

Some possible evidence:

-Almost immediate naming of culprits
-Parallel security drills
-Resistance to public inquiry
-Lack of evidence supporting shifting official accounts
-Relationship between alleged bombers (and radical Islam in general) and UK security services

Were Madrid and Bali also false flags?

Don't know.

Also, there is plenty evidence of the bombers being in London that day.

Where is it?

The above is also lie.

What was the other "lie?

 

[funk de fino]

You are jumping the gun somewhat. I said "quite possibly". Various interests, people and countries would stand to benefit if it were one. Mostly the same as benefitted from 911.

its not difficult. Who benefitted from a 7/7 false flag?

Some possible evidence:

-Almost immediate naming of culprits
-Parallel security drills
-Resistance to public inquiry
-Lack of evidence supporting shifting official accounts
-Relationship between alleged bombers (and radical Islam in general) and UK security services

Almost immediate?

Drills are nonsense and you know it.

Plenty of evidence been shown in court.

relationship? care to clarify?

Don't know.

But they could be?

Where is it?

Its been shown in a court of law.

What was the other "lie?

This was.

The UK government has not presented its promised conclusive evidence even placing the alleged bombers in London on the day of the attacks.

 

[cludgie]

The UK government has not presented its promised conclusive evidence even placing the alleged bombers in London on the day of the attacks.

So the CCTV is all faked and the eyewitnesses who survived the blasts are telling lies then?

Perhaps too you can tell us too why those tried in connection with the attacks tried 'inside job false flag' as a defence? Just like i'm amazed no one tried in relation to 9/11 went down that road. Maybe you should tell them what you know and help their defence.

 

[JihadJane]

So the CCTV is all faked... and the eyewitnesses who survived the blasts are telling lies then?

The UK governemnt hasn't released any CCTV images placing the alleged bombers in London on the day of the attacks

...and the eyewitnesses who survived the blasts are telling lies then?

Details, please.

Perhaps too you can tell us too why those tried in connection with the attacks tried 'inside job false flag' as a defence? Just like i'm amazed no one tried in relation to 9/11 went down that road. Maybe you should tell them what you know and help their defence.

Why are you amazed?

 

[JihadJane]

Drills are nonsense and you know it.

If I knew it was nonsense I wouldn't have suggested it as possible evidence. What makes you think it's nonsense?

Plenty of evidence been shown in court.

Details please.

relationship? care to clarify?

Details here, for example:

http://www.globalcrisis.org.uk/main/PDF/Inside the Crevice.pdf

Its been shown in a court of law.

Details please.

This was.

Details please.

 

[cludgie]

The UK governemnt hasn't released any CCTV images placing the alleged bombers in London on the day of the attacks

This kind of stuff is rarely released in a hurry when its likely to be used as trial evidence. The Met claim to have identified the bombers from a trail of CCTV all the way back through the network to their car in Luton. Or are the Met in on it too now?

And perhaps if you claim the men weren't in London on 7/7 you can tell us where they were and now are?

Details, please.

Try googling the Russell Square bus bombing. There were persons who surivived the attack who saw the bomber fiddling with his bag beforehand if I remember rightly.

Why are you amazed?

Well if both 9/11 and 7/7 are both the false flags you claim and the accussed are therefore being stitched up then you'd expect them to not go quietly. Its not like they're getting nice short sentences if they don't make a fuss, is it.

 

[funk de fino]

If I knew it was nonsense I wouldn't have suggested it as possible evidence. What makes you think it's nonsense?

Drills involved no-one in the field and were desktop emergency response games run for private companies by a private company. Role playing games if you like.

Details please.

Are you serious?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7377649.stm

Details here, for example:

Is this guy a truther? Care to show me where it states there was a relationship between the 4 bombers and the scurity services that would make you think it could have been a false flag?

Details please.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7377649.stm

Details please.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7377649.stm

You missed out a few from my post. I have to wonder why?

Who would have benefitted from a 7/7 falseflag?

What do you mean almost immediate naming of suspects?

 

[Mancman]

The UK governemnt hasn't released any CCTV images placing the alleged bombers in London on the day of the attacks

The bombers enter Kings Cross station:

Hasib Hussain in a store at Kings Cross: