J7 disregarding Peter Power statement?

[Andrew.]

You failed the Turing Test again, Andrew.

No, some cannot see the difference between "Probability theory" and Occam's Razor. Or are pretending they can't.

When we should be helping each other.

Um, did you mean: Why are you here if you think the truth is as the newspapers or government official story says it is?

You see, you can do Occam's Razor when it suits your objective.

So why can't we help each other?

Vinciguerra, of course, thinks nothing of the sort. Your random noise generator seems to have gone haywire. Ask your SysAdmin for a re-boot.

Well help him out then because you have the ability to use Occam's Razor.

When you are back up consider the possibility the "suicide bombers shot in Canary Wharf" rumour was deliberating started in order to introduce the suicide bomber meme.

It was a pulled story that very few took notice of, rather that the ovewhelming msn media reports on different issues with regards to the suicide bomber meme. Lots of evidence here that could be followed up http://mtrial.org/inthemedia/201009-wha ... -july-2005 Even if it turns out wrong, it's still a line of enquiry that should be sought.

(Which should be obvious as to why it was pulled if suicide bombers had supposedly blown themselves up on the trains and bus.) Hence: a very important line of enquiry.

A person looking out of an office window in Canary Wharf could see an incident and reasonably report that some-one had been shot. But how on earth could they know it was a suicide bomber?

I hope this thought does not crash you operating system.

Please see above, and it would not matter who they thought it was, other than what was reported and witnessed, for the line of enquiry to then gather hard evidence.

[Andrew.]

.

If that link did not work:

"Theorising Truth
What Happened at Canary Wharf on 7
th
July 2005?

Dr Rory Ridley-Duff, Sheffield Hallam University"


http://www.scribd.com/doc/20833633/What ... -July-2005

http://mtrial.org/sites/mtrial.org/file ... 2005-1.pdf

http://mtrial.org/?page=1[/quote]

[scubadiver]

After some thought, Im not entirely sure whether Mr Power should be treated as a direct suspect given the surprise in his voice. To me it does sound genuine. Some persons though would have known that exercise was taking place for those bombings to have taken place at the same time.

[Andrew.]

After some thought, Im not entirely sure whether Mr Power should be treated as a direct suspect given the surprise in his voice. To me it does sound genuine. Some persons though would have known that exercise was taking place for those bombings to have taken place at the same time.

To withhold evidence is Treason; he could resign from his job if he feels he could be blackmailed. He has offered no reprove / admonishment.

[Disco_Destroyer]

After some thought, Im not entirely sure whether Mr Power should be treated as a direct suspect given the surprise in his voice. To me it does sound genuine. Some persons though would have known that exercise was taking place for those bombings to have taken place at the same time.

To withhold evidence is Treason; he could resign from his job if he feels he could be blackmailed. He has offered no reprove / admonishment.

1st he has to come to terms with the truth, pretty hard when those around him may have a vested interest in spouting the Government line and belittling activists

[Andrew.]

After some thought, Im not entirely sure whether Mr Power should be treated as a direct suspect given the surprise in his voice. To me it does sound genuine. Some persons though would have known that exercise was taking place for those bombings to have taken place at the same time.

To withhold evidence is Treason; he could resign from his job if he feels he could be blackmailed. He has offered no reprove / admonishment.

1st he has to come to terms with the truth, pretty hard when those around him may have a vested interest in spouting the Government line and belittling activists

After or during a full investigation he could/should be given a new identity (*or a place of safety.) But who would know that new identity or place of safety. So whom would he fear, “terrorists” that would not know that, or the establishment who would know?

* Like the Law on manslaughter (not to be confused with, kill or murder.) Another Law that is not observed / seen to be done.

[Disco_Destroyer]

if that being so Andrew then he really is trapped in a cruel world with sleepless nights? He doesn't come across like that in interview.

Taking your meaning as his views may differ but he is part of the picture?

[Andrew.]

if that being so Andrew then he really is trapped in a cruel world with sleepless nights? He doesn't come across like that in interview.

Taking your meaning as his views may differ but he is part of the picture?

Then he should be for the real Laws (place of safety,) unless he has some guilt (or he may just be ignorant of some of those Laws.)


We are all trapped between a "ROCK" (place of assured safety) and a hard place, and there is no sitting on the fence, in the largest of the "big picture."

[TonyGosling]

It has become apparent over the past few years that J7 are either wittingly or unwittingly 'Corralling' information. The behaviour and attitude of Bridget Dunne is becoming increasingly similar to that of Rachel North, in the anger and vitriol dished out to anyone who has the audacity to take any initiative which might serve to raise the profile of events and/or issues relating to the fateful day of 7th July 2005.

Bridget's attack on Nick Kollestrom following the publication of his excellent book, 'Terror on the Tube' and her outrageous verbal assault on Tony Farrell at the weekend, are illustrative of the fact that something is 'not quite right' about the ongoing motivation of the J7 cabal.

Let's not forget that the seminal information of the train times between Luton & London on the morning of 7th July was due directly to the investigative work of Nick Kollestrom & James Stewart.

There is absolutely no doubt that the J7 website is a fantastic repository of research and information but after six and a half years, no one outside of the 'Truth' Community is aware of it!

J7 (Bridget in particular) give the impression that they think they 'OWN' all research and information related to anything associated with the London Bombings. Although I was the first person in the UK to give a public presentation ('The 9/11 - 7/7 Connection' recorded on the 22nd July 2005) highlighting some of the immediate anomolies surrounding the London Bombings, I have had very limited contact with the J7 movement as I have always found them to be rather insular and extremely protective of 'their information'.

So in summary, Bridget Dunne is providing an excellent example of 'Limited Hangout' at work ... the big question is whether or not this is deliberate or just an unfortunate Ego-attachment to what is undoubtedly a superb repository of information?


Ian R Crane