dosxuk Posted May 22, 2011 Share Posted May 22, 2011 I don't need evidence ,they are innocent until proven guilty. Only applies to the living. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truthlogic Posted May 22, 2011 Author Share Posted May 22, 2011 Nope, I didn't watch the video, because I don't have hours and hours to spare chasing up whether what you say is true or not. I, suppose stupidly, thought you might have mentioned the fact that they had offered to hand him to Saudi and not the US somewhere amongst your ranting about the American's not taking him. again ? conversation OVER! how can it be called a debate if the other party refuses too ( by the looks of it out of shear laziness ) investigate the other parties claims of evidence?? ""dosxuk the sky is blue , just look up , no its not and i wont look!"" sorry but thats pity full to say the least., 1) The Taliban are not a country, and therefore do not have an ambassador. They only have representatives. ok good point , but have you even attempted to discuss what he said? NO ( due to you being too lazy to investigate some ones claims ) I don't think they had him in custody, and I also think if the US had agreed, they would have had to start a manhunt to find and capture him. no need for man hunt as when the Taliban offered him , they were ignored even after the bombing started they offered him again but Bush refused! ( evidence for this has been posted one of the links was to the Guardian ) Don't bother trying to argue, you can't convince me like that. If you post links to reputable sources and explain your viewpoint sensibly, you may convince me. My opinion is not swayed by people posting rants or repeating themselves over and over again, it is swayed by reputable, verifiable evidence. hahaha how can you debate with some one who refuses to look at your side of the story ( its:loopy: ) as for reputable sources some of the ones i have linked on this thread have been from nmbc, Charlie Rose interview, the global herald, idependant, white house press office, But i know you did not know that as you could not be bothered to read or click the links. this is a real no brainier for me, i am having this debate with you and you claim my sources are rubbish even though you have not even seen them. this is getting realy realy bad Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vResistance Posted May 22, 2011 Share Posted May 22, 2011 Only applies to the living. They have no more evidence against them than any other person killed on 7/7yet you blame them because the media tells you. The government have the power to take over any news source governed by the broadcasting act and make them report whatever they want. That obviously happened as they said it would in the panorama programme made a year before 7/7,again imagining the same scenario and also including Peter Power who was conducting the same exercise on the morning of 7/7. Only this time they had chosen the same place and time as the alleged bombers. Evidence of this can be seen in the first 5 mins of the film in my signiture. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quisquose Posted May 22, 2011 Share Posted May 22, 2011 They have no more evidence against them than any other person killed on 7/7yet you blame them because the media tells you. Google Daniel Biddle. Another liar in your fantasy scenario? How much was he paid to lie? After all, he lost both legs, an eye and his spleen. The price for his lies must have been very high. At the inquest he described the moment he watched Mohammad Sidique Khan reach inside his rucksack and detonate his bomb. That must have cost the taxpayer a lot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truthlogic Posted May 22, 2011 Author Share Posted May 22, 2011 Google Daniel Biddle. Another liar in your fantasy scenario? How much was he paid to lie? After all, he lost both legs, an eye and his spleen. The price for his lies must have been very high. At the inquest he described the moment he watched Mohammad Sidique Khan reach inside his rucksack and detonate his bomb. That must have cost the taxpayer a lot. i dont whant to change the subject , as i have asked you a question previoslu but 7/7 all i can ask is this does the London underground have cctv at all platforms and subway trains? YES IT DOES were is this evidence? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dosxuk Posted May 22, 2011 Share Posted May 22, 2011 They have no more evidence against them than any other person killed on 7/7yet you blame them because the media tells you. No, I blame them because it is the most likely scenario, with the least number of holes in the story. Everything that happened that day is explainable. The government have the power to take over any news source governed by the broadcasting act and make them report whatever they want. No they can't. They have the power to take over any broadcaster's output, but they can't "make them report whatever they want". The broadcasters are still independant and can choose to not broadcast what they are told if they don't feel it is in the public interest, however, they may have their licence revoked, preventing them from broadcasting at all. The only reason this provision is in place is in case of a national emegency where it becomes critical to inform the public. On 7/7, the Government were considering enacting their abilities to do this, in order to force all the major channels to carry messages about travel out of London, but then realised with the 24 hour news channels, they didn't need to. All of this has subsequently and verifiably been reported. Evidence of this can be seen in the first 5 mins of the film in my signiture. There is virtually no evidence in that film, just lots of supposition and portraying theories as fact. There are more holes in Anthony's story than the official one, a view which is supported by the J7 group, who know far more about the events of that day than you or me. Anyway, this is off topic. Nobody has suggested that Bin Laden is responsible for 7/7. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dosxuk Posted May 22, 2011 Share Posted May 22, 2011 does the London underground have cctv at all platforms and subway trains? YES IT DOES No it doesn't. Only a small number of the trains carry CCTV systems, which did record pictures of the attacks, however they've never been publically released as they're "disturbing". Nobody has yet demonstrated any evidence that the CCTV systems on platforms, which were installed for the purposes of allowing drivers to see that all the doors are clear before departing, are actually recorded. Irregardless, with the recording fault at King's Cross, they wouldn't have been on the day of the attacks anyway. There is continuous recorded footage from the 4 arriving at Luton station, boarding the train, departing the train, walking through King's Cross Thameslink station, and into King's Cross underground station. We are told that footage of them on at least one train exists, however the pictures will not be released due to their contents, something which I understand but I assume you will decide that is evidence of conspiracy. What there isn't, is any evidence that these men travelled anywhere other than the parts of the underground system which they are alleged to have been in. According to Anthony Hill, we are supposed to accept without question the idea that three of the men were shot at Canary Wharf without being filmed, photographed or seen by any members of the public, except one person, who was friend of a friend of someone who worked in the media. For one of London's busiest places, that's one hell of a cover up if true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vResistance Posted May 22, 2011 Share Posted May 22, 2011 Google Daniel Biddle. Another liar in your fantasy scenario? How much was he paid to lie? After all, he lost both legs, an eye and his spleen. The price for his lies must have been very high. At the inquest he described the moment he watched Mohammad Sidique Khan reach inside his rucksack and detonate his bomb. That must have cost the taxpayer a lot. With respect to Mr Biddle, he did suffer severe head trauma and was in a coma for several weeks,he awoke to the official story and pictures of the alleged bomber would be wide spread by then. His story has not been consistant and could easily just be filling in the gaps with what he was told rather than what he actually remembers. I can not take his word he saw what he thinks he saw when all but one camera in the whole of london failed to see the alleged bombers making their way to or boarding the trains. (and even that picture was rather dodgy looking) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vResistance Posted May 22, 2011 Share Posted May 22, 2011 No it doesn't. Only a small number of the trains carry CCTV systems, which did record pictures of the attacks, however they've never been publically released as they're "disturbing". Nobody has yet demonstrated any evidence that the CCTV systems on platforms, which were installed for the purposes of allowing drivers to see that all the doors are clear before departing, are actually recorded. Irregardless, with the recording fault at King's Cross, they wouldn't have been on the day of the attacks anyway. There is continuous recorded footage from the 4 arriving at Luton station, boarding the train, departing the train, walking through King's Cross Thameslink station, and into King's Cross underground station. We are told that footage of them on at least one train exists, however the pictures will not be released due to their contents, something which I understand but I assume you will decide that is evidence of conspiracy. What there isn't, is any evidence that these men travelled anywhere other than the parts of the underground system which they are alleged to have been in. According to Anthony Hill, we are supposed to accept without question the idea that three of the men were shot at Canary Wharf without being filmed, photographed or seen by any members of the public, except one person, who was friend of a friend of someone who worked in the media. For one of London's busiest places, that's one hell of a cover up if true. No there is not ,that footage is from a "dummy run" previous. You are lying or misinformed. Reports of a man wearing a suicide vest being shot did go out and there was an incident/s around canary wharf that were played down. Professor Rory Ridley Duff did a study of the information,statements etc about what happened at canary wharf and concluded John Hill's film had the stronger evidence to support his claims than they did for the official story. Did you catch his visit the other day. Shame they closed the thread just after. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Karis Posted May 22, 2011 Share Posted May 22, 2011 No there is not ,that footage is from a "dummy run" previous. You are lying or misinformed. Oh, you can practically feel the love in the room Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.