Tue30Jun - LONDON - Kollerstrom BBC talk meet Conway Hall

Stefan · Post by **Stefan** » Wed Jul 01, 2009 1:49 pm

I think it's worth pointing out that the print outs in Daniel's possession were simply personal photos from people's myspace and facebook pages.

That was his evidence.

Photos of us acomapnied claims that we are MOD. I'm not sure if he's having a laugh or if he really doesn't understand the difference between "exposing" and "accusing".

It was quite nice to see some of those old snaps of friends of mine and myself though, brought back some nice memories. Unfortunate they were acompanied with a rambling narrative which was completely fictional.

Chi_of_life · Post by **Chi_of_life** » Sat Jul 04, 2009 11:23 am

Prole wrote:
Last night's 7/7 CF episode shows precisely why we at J7 have kept clear blue water between ourselves and (the egos of) Kollerstrom, Gosling, Muad'dib & Daniel Obachike.

The reason I didn't feature in the BBC Conspiracy Files docs is because I'm an eye witness.

So J7 actually have more in common with the aforementioned.
Except they seek to out the truth while J7 seem to want to own it for themselves.

Chi_of_life · Post by **Chi_of_life** » Sat Jul 04, 2009 11:35 am

Stefan wrote:I think it's worth pointing out that the print outs in Daniel's possession were simply personal photos from people's myspace and facebook pages.

That was his evidence.

Photos of us acomapnied claims that we are MOD. I'm not sure if he's having a laugh or if he really doesn't understand the difference between "exposing" and "accusing".

It was quite nice to see some of those old snaps of friends of mine and myself though, brought back some nice memories. Unfortunate they were acompanied with a rambling narrative which was completely fictional.

I had to rely on paper as the disruption campaign mounted did its job and I could not use my Powerpoint presentation I prepared.
Nevertheless Simon WAC UK has been OUTED as a very very close relative of a high ranking senior MI6 official.

and Stefan (Andy B, Gareth Newnham) claim thats nothing to be explained?
Who protects Haroon Aswat from CIA extradition... MI6
The same ppl stopping Simon from getting arrested during his heroic WAC campigns and set peices.

Also Stefan opened his big trap and landed Belinda McKenzie in it!

Prole · Post by **Prole** » Sat Jul 04, 2009 11:43 am

Chi_of_life wrote:
Prole wrote:
Last night's 7/7 CF episode shows precisely why we at J7 have kept clear blue water between ourselves and (the egos of) Kollerstrom, Gosling, Muad'dib & Daniel Obachike.
The reason I didn't feature in the BBC Conspiracy Files docs is because I'm an eye witness.

So J7 actually have more in common with the aforementioned.
Except they seek to out the truth while J7 seem to want to own it for themselves.

Rachel North featured and she's an eye-witness.

Yes Daniel we want to 'own it for ourselves' by making it freely available for all to read or research on our website and forum - doesn't cost anyone a penny. Where did 7/7 Rip-Off Effect garner all their information and facts before twisting it all into an unsubstantiated load of b******s? Whose website has NK plagiarised and then added his own unsubstantiated and evidence free assertions?

What you lack Daniel (and Gosling, Kollerstrom & Muad'dib) is credibility. We say that not from malice, but as a direct consequence of your own actions and our experiences of you all.

Not a Mail fan personally, and they seem to have made CTs (David Kelly, Di) a feature over the last few years (which is strange for a paper with such a right-wing and anti-Muslim agenda), but:

"According to the July Seventh Truth Campaign - another group calling for a public inquiry - this again places the official version of the bombers' travelling times in doubt."

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... quiry.html

kbo234 · Post by **kbo234** » Sat Jul 04, 2009 1:02 pm

Prole wrote: What you lack Daniel (and Gosling, Kollerstrom & Muad'dib) is credibility.

I couldn't disagree more.

I understand why Nick Kollerstrom and Muad'dib are under attack from people who oppose the purpose of this site and the 9/11 Truth movement.

They are easy targets. Nick's arguments on the holocaust, however well-researched and reasonable, will always make him easy to discredit in the public domain. Likewise, Muad'dib, however powerful and compelling his film, has (apparently) claimed to be a messiah. Enough said.

It is much harder to understand why you should expend so much of your energies in attacking four individuals who, in my opinion, are amongst the foremost activists in stirring the collective psyche on the 7/7 and 9/11 issues.

You seem determined to control the anti-government narrative re 7/7.

These individuals are obviously saying things of which you do not approve.

Your research and the information on your site might have more hard-nosed forensic (if that's the word) integrity than the outpourings of Muad'dib, for instance. However, it is hard to understand why you don't support (by silence at least) the work of Nick Kollerstrom, the shattering witness evidence of Daniel and the open and fair-minded approach (IMO) of Tony Gosling.

It is difficult to think of 4 individuals who have done more to keep 7/7 a live and controversial issue.

It is difficult to think of 4 people who have done more to shame the government re changing their policy re a 7/7 public Inquiry.

Should you not be sitting back and quietly applauding their efforts for promoting your cause more effectively than you have done yourself?

What are you so angry about?

Why do you attack any 'anti-government' narrative that is not your own?

Prole · Post by **Prole** » Sat Jul 04, 2009 1:21 pm

kbo234 wrote:
Prole wrote: What you lack Daniel (and Gosling, Kollerstrom & Muad'dib) is credibility.
I couldn't disagree more.

I understand why Nick Kollerstrom and Muad'dib are under attack from people who oppose the purpose of this site and the 9/11 Truth movement.

They are easy targets. Nick's arguments on the holocaust, however well-researched and reasonable, will always make him easy to discredit in the public domain. Likewise, Muad'dib, however powerful and compelling his film, has (apparently) claimed to be a messiah. Enough said.

It is much harder to understand why you should expend so much of your energies in attacking four individuals who, in my opinion, are amongst the foremost activists in stirring the collective psyche on the 7/7 and 9/11 issues.

You seem determined to control the anti-government narrative re 7/7.

These individuals are obviously saying things of which you do not approve.

Your research and the information on your site might have more hard-nosed forensic (if that's the word) integrity than the outpourings of Muad'dib, for instance. However, it is hard to understand why you don't support (by silence at least) the work of Nick Kollerstrom, the shattering witness evidence of Daniel and the open and fair-minded approach (IMO) of Tony Gosling.

It is difficult to think of 4 individuals who have done more to keep 7/7 a live and controversial issue.

It is difficult to think of 4 people who have done more to shame the government re changing their policy re a 7/7 public Inquiry.

Should you not be sitting back and quietly applauding their efforts for promoting your cause more effectively than you have done yourself?

What are you so angry about?

Why do you attack any 'anti-government' narrative that is not your own?

You're entitled to your own opinion, although what your conclusions are based on I cannot tell.

Angry? No. Pissed off with the lies, disinfo, misinfo, agendas, yes.

http://www.911forum.org.uk/board/viewto ... 733#136733

http://www.911forum.org.uk/board/viewto ... 482#136482

http://www.911forum.org.uk/board/viewto ... 489#136489

Stefan · Post by **Stefan** » Sat Jul 04, 2009 2:42 pm

Eh? What does Belinda have to do with anything?

And what difference would it make if our face book photos were on a power point or a print out? You charged people a fiver so sit in a space in a pub that was free to reserve with the promise of evidence to back up your accusations. You've still given none.

Stating simon is an mi6 operative is not 'outing' him as one - it's just flapping your mouth as usual. You have given no one any reason to believe it.

And as I said, simon is frequently arrested, refusing to accept socpa is a part of his personal activism and he probably has the world record for socpa arrests at this point.

He's a real activist daniel. What would make you see that? Maybe if he followed your example, wrote a shoddy book and used every protest as an excuse to try and sell it? You're a joke.

illeagalhunter · Post by **illeagalhunter** » Sun Jul 05, 2009 8:30 am

Dont you think no matter how good his research is , he is now discredited due to the BBC docu

kbo234 · Post by **kbo234** » Sun Jul 05, 2009 8:49 am

illeagalhunter wrote:Dont you think no matter how good his research is , he is now discredited due to the BBC docu

John Reid changed the 'official narrative' because Nick's research forced him to. The truth is the truth. Facts are facts.

The only places this does not apply are where there are lies of omission (the greatest lies, according to Orwell) because of determinedly enforced taboos.

In these areas the facts are of little consequence until the taboo is broken.

The holocaust and the money creation system are 'taboo' areas in the media......

......as were 'unofficial narratives' of 9/11 and 7/7. We have watched, witnessed and, hopefully, participated in the breaking down of these taboos over the last four or five years.

It is something, isn't it, that Nick Kollerstrom has been 'discredited' without anyone knowing (well, I don't......has anyone out there read his book?) what he actually said.

Chi_of_life · Post by **Chi_of_life** » Mon Jul 06, 2009 1:33 pm

Stefan Of We Are Change UK leading the hounding of any talk about 7/7
Stefan and his lot during an interlude between Nick Kollerstroms Terror on the Tube launch. The 2 guys nearest the camera have been following my protests for 2 years, La Shunt, Speakers corner, etc.

What was quite telling to all present was after Nick Kollerstrom and my talk... his lot buggered off, even though the BBC 7/7 Conspiracy was being screened live there. It shows you how utterly unconcerned We Are Change UK are and why they continue to divert attention away as much as possible from 7/7 truth. One of the disrupters shown below went outside and yelled 911-Inside job!

This one became aggresive when I pulled out my phone.
He also said maybe Simon was closely related to MI6 when the vociferous heckling Stefan suddenly became very tight lipped about it.

Stefan · Post by **Stefan** » Mon Jul 06, 2009 5:16 pm

Daniel,
Your talk was about We Are Change London being an MOD front, not 7/7.

And please, do inform us, in what way was your talk "Heckled"?

And no, that guy did not get aggressive, he laughed at you and did silly poses for your camera.

You have a serious problem with the truth. Which is obviously why you won't let anyone film or record your talks - you can make up anything you like about them afterwards, even saying "in the interlude"... you can't tell the truth even when there's no need not to. That was before the talk started.

paul wright · Post by **paul wright** » Tue Jul 07, 2009 12:46 am

kbo234 wrote:
Prole wrote: What you lack Daniel (and Gosling, Kollerstrom & Muad'dib) is credibility.
I couldn't disagree more.

I understand why Nick Kollerstrom and Muad'dib are under attack from people who oppose the purpose of this site and the 9/11 Truth movement.

They are easy targets. Nick's arguments on the holocaust, however well-researched and reasonable, will always make him easy to discredit in the public domain. Likewise, Muad'dib, however powerful and compelling his film, has (apparently) claimed to be a messiah. Enough said.

It is much harder to understand why you should expend so much of your energies in attacking four individuals who, in my opinion, are amongst the foremost activists in stirring the collective psyche on the 7/7 and 9/11 issues.

You seem determined to control the anti-government narrative re 7/7.

These individuals are obviously saying things of which you do not approve.

Your research and the information on your site might have more hard-nosed forensic (if that's the word) integrity than the outpourings of Muad'dib, for instance. However, it is hard to understand why you don't support (by silence at least) the work of Nick Kollerstrom, the shattering witness evidence of Daniel and the open and fair-minded approach (IMO) of Tony Gosling.

It is difficult to think of 4 individuals who have done more to keep 7/7 a live and controversial issue.

It is difficult to think of 4 people who have done more to shame the government re changing their policy re a 7/7 public Inquiry.

Should you not be sitting back and quietly applauding their efforts for promoting your cause more effectively than you have done yourself?

What are you so angry about?

Why do you attack any 'anti-government' narrative that is not your own?

Making themselves available for public vilification, which I avoided by a mere shave, yes Id agree with this
Probably a complete stimulus for many for a re-investigation
Probably the 4 who have done the most, whatever the viability

paul wright · Post by **paul wright** » Tue Jul 07, 2009 12:47 am

kbo234 wrote:
Prole wrote: What you lack Daniel (and Gosling, Kollerstrom & Muad'dib) is credibility.
I couldn't disagree more.

I understand why Nick Kollerstrom and Muad'dib are under attack from people who oppose the purpose of this site and the 9/11 Truth movement.

They are easy targets. Nick's arguments on the holocaust, however well-researched and reasonable, will always make him easy to discredit in the public domain. Likewise, Muad'dib, however powerful and compelling his film, has (apparently) claimed to be a messiah. Enough said.

It is much harder to understand why you should expend so much of your energies in attacking four individuals who, in my opinion, are amongst the foremost activists in stirring the collective psyche on the 7/7 and 9/11 issues.

You seem determined to control the anti-government narrative re 7/7.

These individuals are obviously saying things of which you do not approve.

Your research and the information on your site might have more hard-nosed forensic (if that's the word) integrity than the outpourings of Muad'dib, for instance. However, it is hard to understand why you don't support (by silence at least) the work of Nick Kollerstrom, the shattering witness evidence of Daniel and the open and fair-minded approach (IMO) of Tony Gosling.

It is difficult to think of 4 individuals who have done more to keep 7/7 a live and controversial issue.

It is difficult to think of 4 people who have done more to shame the government re changing their policy re a 7/7 public Inquiry.

Should you not be sitting back and quietly applauding their efforts for promoting your cause more effectively than you have done yourself?

What are you so angry about?

Why do you attack any 'anti-government' narrative that is not your own?

Making themselves available for public vilification, which I avoided by a mere shave, yes Id agree with this
Probably a complete stimulus for many for a re-investigation
Probably the 4 who have done the most, whatever the viability

Post by **TonyGosling** » Tue Jul 07, 2009 3:54 am

Stefan, please stop rising.
Daniel has potentially key witness testimony and was most likely within a hair's breadth of death.
Let the guy be.

Stefan · Post by **Stefan** » Tue Jul 07, 2009 8:53 am

TonyGosling wrote:Stefan, please stop rising.
Daniel has potentially key witness testimony and was most likely within a hair's breadth of death.
Let the guy be.

Are you actually blind to the fact that he is waging a campaign of disinformation and lies against me and my friends?

"Let him be"?

And no, he is not even remotely useful to the cause of finding 7/7 truth - have you even read his book? There are two different versions of his story in that one volume and almost nothing he says makes any sense. His testimony in a 7/7 inquiry would give the government a complete victory and make a laughing stock of 7/7 truthers.

You don't seem to get the fact that there is nothing this guy has said, about other activists or about 7/7 which is anything but damaging and disruptive.

EDIT:

There is of course one way this could be resolved in a civil fashion:

Daniel could stop ignoring my request for a civil, sit down interview with me where he can expose all his evidence.

Both sides could video it so no claims of manipulation could be made later.

Daniel was offered this a long time ago and has been repeatedly offered it. He has not even responded explaining why he would be against this.

He would not explain either why he would not allow his talk to be filmed.

Perhaps he would like to explain why he is only happy to make accusations on his blog, and delete all corrections to factual innacuracies, rather than actually sit down like a man and explain his concerns in detail.

ian neal · Post by **ian neal** » Tue Jul 07, 2009 10:10 am

I agree with Stefan.

Firstly I personally have had no reason to doubt Simon or any of the other WAC campaigners of working for the intelligence services and the fact that Daniel, an alleged 7/7 survivor, says that a relative of Simon's works for MI6 but is unwilling and/or unable to support his claims gives me no reason to change my mind.

I keep an open mind as to who is and is not what they say they are and that includes Daniel. Someone put up hard evidence rather than hearsay and uncorroborated rumour then they can be taken seriously otherwise they are merely causing deliberate division and animosity.

I wonder if you would have the same relaxed attitude Tony if he has claiming you were MOD but was unwilling to provide any proper evidence.
Shameful behaviour on Daniel's part that should be condemned.

And that is not even starting on the ethics of charging people £5 for an event that ends up being held in a pub at no cost to Daniel and Nick

xmasdale · Post by **xmasdale** » Tue Jul 07, 2009 3:00 pm

Neither have I seen any evidence that the We Are Change London group are a front for anybody else.

Accusations require evidence, otherwise they are mere slander.

Noel

Stefan · Post by **Stefan** » Tue Jul 07, 2009 3:30 pm

Ironically, the central piece of "evidence" Daniel provided for his claims at his talk was the falsehood that Andy, Toseef, Gareth etc and I all turned up on the 9/11 truth scene just after he did in late 2007 - concluding with cod logic that this means that we were sent in to infilirate the organisation to keep an eye on him.

As Ian Crane confirmed on the night and I'm sure Ian and xmasdale could equally confirm, all of us had been around for well over a year before anyone had ever heard his name, since 2006.

Andy and I were even on the national council and Toseef was chairing the London group.

He doesn't have a clue what he's talking about... or he does and the truth does not have a high priority for him...

Prole · Post by **Prole** » Tue Jul 07, 2009 4:23 pm

Stefan wrote:
TonyGosling wrote:Stefan, please stop rising.
Daniel has potentially key witness testimony and was most likely within a hair's breadth of death.
Let the guy be.
Are you actually blind to the fact that he is waging a campaign of disinformation and lies against me and my friends?

"Let him be"?

And no, he is not even remotely useful to the cause of finding 7/7 truth -

This isn't about truth though is it Gosling? It's purely about opportunism:

* a political style of aiming to increase one's political influence at almost any price, or a political style which involves seizing every and any opportunity to extend one's political influence, whenever such opportunities arise.

* the practice of abandoning in reality some important political principles that were previously held, in the process of trying to increase one's political power and influence.

* a trend of thought, or a political tendency, seeking to make political capital out of situations with the main aim being that of gaining more influence or support, instead of truly winning people over to a principled position or improving their political understanding.

Opportunists spare little thought for the trail of destruction left in their wake and soon discard any morals or principles they may have previously held or that may stand in their way. All in the name of a higher truth no doubt!

See here and you'll realise what the Gosling/Kollerstrom/Obachike agenda is and why all appeals to Gosling's better judgement fall on deaf ears.

A simple whois that shows Daniel's real name: http://whois.domaintools.com/terroronthetube.com

Don't say you weren't warned.

Stefan · Post by **Stefan** » Tue Jul 07, 2009 4:32 pm

Yup Prole,
We found his real facebook account a while back -

Daniel Adigwe

We were holding that back along with quite a hefty dossier on his disruptive behaviour.

I noted on the indymedia page you linked to a comment from someone claiming to be a 7/7 survivor saying he has never been to a 7/7 survivors group meeting and almost all survivors consider him to be a con man.

The only reason no one can be bothered to deal with him is he has shown himself to harrass people who challenge him in the past... as I think you are seeing now with We Are Change London.

Oh dear, it all seems to be falling apart for Daniel Adigwe...

Prole · Post by **Prole** » Tue Jul 07, 2009 5:11 pm

Stefan wrote:Yup Prole,
We found his real facebook account a while back -

Daniel Adigwe

We were holding that back along with quite a hefty dossier on his disruptive behaviour.

Sorry Stefan I didn't know so I hope that preempting this won't cause any problems.

Post by **TonyGosling** » Tue Jul 07, 2009 11:48 pm

I never have understood why any 7/7 Truth campaigner would want to take a pop at a survivor.

eogz · Post by **eogz** » Tue Jul 07, 2009 11:53 pm

What a strange statement Tony.

Stefan is questioning the attacker of his friends and group is all.

It appears he has some evidence to support his feelings on the matter.

Where as Daniel has speculation and guilt by association.

I'm reasonably impartial in all of this, but I can see whose argument is making sense.

Post by **TonyGosling** » Wed Jul 08, 2009 1:07 am

Daniel certainly appears to be a victim of the 7/7 attacks.
I can't conceive why anyone would want to add to that.
If he is going over the top he is to be treated sympathetically in my book.
As all 7/7 victim's families and survivors without exception.

eogz · Post by **eogz** » Wed Jul 08, 2009 6:50 am

Hang on a minute...

Why should a person who has been through a particulary traumatic event be deemed 'special'?

Daniel to some degree is in the public eye, albeit in a small way, he espouses opinions, some controversial and so because of such he is open to being challenged.

I don't agree that just because a person is a victim of 7/7 they are somehow due defferrential treatment.

A person regardless of what they have been through deserves the respect and accord of anyone else, that is equality.

Especially here on this site, I woul think the everyone is equal but some are more equal than others thing wouldn't really apply.

Correct me if I have got the gist of what you are saying wrong here Tony.

andyb · Post by **andyb** » Wed Jul 08, 2009 10:59 am

Tony, as usual you back the wrong horse. Daniel was not on the bus and is not a survivor. He is a fraud and a charlatan. The only evidence that he was on the bus comes from himself and I don't belive a word the guy says.

Chi_of_life · Post by **Chi_of_life** » Wed Jul 08, 2009 11:24 am

andyb wrote:Tony, as usual you back the wrong horse. Daniel was not on the bus and is not a survivor. He is a fraud and a charlatan. The only evidence that he was on the bus comes from himself and I don't belive a word the guy says.

While Stefan still attempts to conceal We Are Change UK's MOD involvement
Andy Baker wades in with a dumb comment... saying I was not on the bus!

He flies in the face of Anti-Terrorist Branch evidence and testimony taken by Detective Gary White as part of the investigation into the London 7/7 attacks.

But of course WAC UK never gave a sod about the truth on 7/7... they support the government version.
Andy Baker's total ignorance or absolute denial on this critical issue speaks volumes.

Bring it on guys

Stefan · Post by **Stefan** » Wed Jul 08, 2009 11:51 am

Chi_of_life wrote:
andyb wrote:Tony, as usual you back the wrong horse. Daniel was not on the bus and is not a survivor. He is a fraud and a charlatan. The only evidence that he was on the bus comes from himself and I don't belive a word the guy says.
While still attempts to conceal We Are Change UK's MOD involvement
Andy Baker wades in with a dumb comment... saying I was not on the bus!

He flies in the face of Anti-Terrorist Branch evidence and testimony taken by Detective Gary White as part of the investigation into the London 7/7 attacks.

But of course WAC UK never gave a sod about the truth on 7/7... they support the government version.
Andy Baker's total ignorance or absolute denial on this critical issue speaks volumes.

Bring it on guys

Of course we don't, all we've done is:

> Given out thousands upon thousands of DVDs with Ludicrous Diversion on

> Dedicated an entire episode of our FM radio show to the issue (Episode 2)

> Confronted Peter Power

> Rung the anti terror hotline so many times to report Peter Power that they started hanging up on Gareth (Podcast #1)

> Have interviews with Nafeez Ahemd on our radio show and in video form on our website

> Continually promoted the J7 Truth Campaign website on our site and our radio show

.... What has Daniel Adigwe done?

Self published a rambling, non-sensical, self-contradictory book on the subject and taken every protest going as an opportunity to try and sell it to people at a tenner a pop...

... Oh yeah and used his blog to claim everyone in the world he doesn't like, or just people he sees on the tube or in fish and chip shops of being MOD agents.

Post by **TonyGosling** » Wed Jul 08, 2009 12:08 pm

Where's your evidence?

stefan/andyb wrote:Tony, as usual you back the wrong horse. Daniel was not on the bus and is not a survivor. He is a fraud and a charlatan. The only evidence that he was on the bus comes from himself and I don't belive a word the guy says.

Stefan · Post by **Stefan** » Wed Jul 08, 2009 12:14 pm

TonyGosling wrote:Where's your evidence?

stefan/andyb wrote:Tony, as usual you back the wrong horse. Daniel was not on the bus and is not a survivor. He is a fraud and a charlatan. The only evidence that he was on the bus comes from himself and I don't belive a word the guy says.

EDIT: Um... why Stefan/AndyB - you're well aware we are different people having met both of us...

Ah so people DO need evidence to make accusations Tony, I'm glad you agree...

I think Andy can be forgiven for being emotional considering he is essentially being stalked by a derranged individual at this point.

A better phrasing would have been -

"There is no evidence whatsoever Daniel was on the bus, and given his contradictory statements about the day, his provably false claims, his use of a fake name through which to make these claims and the general opinion of 7/7 survivors that he is a con man, it is far more logical to assume he is not until he can prove he is, especially since the man is acting in an increasingly destructive and erratic manner.

Given the extremely pressing questions surrounding the credibility of Daniel Adigwe, offering him blanket support based on his claim to have survived 7/7 would be incredibly short sighted, and I would recommend people steer clear of this unstable charecter until his credenditals can be verefied".

Is that better Tony?