Wed25Jun08 - 7/7 meeting in London

[Prole]

Mark, I posted the article as it was pertinent to the thread. J7 refused to have anything to do with the BBC's CF and yet NK 'grasped the nettle' that Gosling beseached him to do.

It now appears that with no discussion or indication to J7, NK now masquerades as a J7 researcher(s):



Quintessentially disgusting? You bet.

BTW Mark and Gosling, it was NK who chose to speak to these right-wing rags.

[Mark Gobell]

Thanks Prole.

We are divided here, quite obviously.

Tony Gosling dissassociated himself from NK because of his views on gas chamber chemistry.

I'm quite sure Nick isn't masquerading as anyone.

I'm doubly sure he would not and is not masquerading as J7.

Are you sure he spoke to these right wing rags?

Are you sure your position on this does you justice?

I know you were against Nick contacting the families.

How that has been represented by these two abhorrent articles, I'm also quite sure is not lost on you.

I'm also quite sure you must be aware of NK's take on Nafeez Ahmed.

[Prole]

Perhaps someone who has organised this meeting could explain to J7 how we are speaking at a meeting we know nothing about. I understand that NK is speaking, and as he is not a J7 researcher, he is therefore masquerading as J7.

Why?

[Mark Gobell]

Prole.

I didn't understand your graphic.

Neither do I understand your insistence that NK is masquerading as J7.

I also, do not understand your assertion that NK is not a J7 researcher.

Nick is probably the foremost J7 researcher on the planet.

The fact that he does not post on the J7 forum is neither here nor there.

Please explain.

[chrisc]

I understand that NK is speaking

You are kidding?!

Is Nafeez Ahmed aware of this?

Some other concerns about this leaflet: http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewt ... 612#119612

[Prole]

Prole.

I didn't understand your graphic.

Neither do I understand your insistence that NK is masquerading as J7.

Please explain.

Mark, I came across the leaflet on this thread.

J7 haven't been asked to provide a speaker for the meeting and when I inquired on the J7 forum if anyone had a clue who the J7 researchers were, I was informed by Numeral that NK was speaking alongside Nafeez, he told Numeral "I got 20 mins on the 25th and I want to acknowledge the J7 work."

NK is not a J7 researcher and this leaflet is not the first underhand attempt at passing himself off as J7, Gosling and NK produced a leaflet with the J7 logo on without our knowledge.

Are these the tactics of people who claim to be fighting for truth and justice?

[Mark Gobell]

So, all this is about Nick Kollerstrom's opinion about the gas chambers is it ?

EDIT: Posted before Prole's reply above.

I'm stuck here.

Nick said he wanted to acknowledge the J7 researcher's work.

Good.

What the **** is the problem?

[Prole]

Prole.

I didn't understand your graphic.

Neither do I understand your insistence that NK is masquerading as J7.

I also, do not understand your assertion that NK is not a J7 researcher.

Nick is probably the foremost J7 researcher on the planet.

The fact that he does not post on the J7 forum is neither here nor there.

Please explain.

NK is a 7/7 researcher and contributes to the 9/11 forum. The implication of including him on a 9/11 leaflet as a J7 researcher is that he is part of the July 7th Truth Campaign, which he is not, and he represents our campaign, which he does not. Neither would I consider him the foremost 7/7 researcher on the planet.

[Mark Gobell]

Well, Prole, I do consider Nick K the foremost researcher of the London Bombing's of 7th July 2005. On the planet.

We are divided.

Why are you so uptight about him speaking at a meeting acknowledging J7 research?

Just say if it's the gas chambers.

Get it out and be done with it.

No more false flag pretension eh?

[chrisc]

Why are you so uptight about him speaking at a meeting acknowledging J7 research?

If he is on the same platform as Nafeez Ahmed his appearance will be used to ensure that almost nobody takes any notice of what Nafeez Ahmed says, this is so stupid that it's very hard to believe that it's accidental

[Prole]

So, all this is about Nick Kollerstrom's opinion about the gas chambers is it ?

EDIT: Posted before Prole's reply above.

I'm stuck here.

Nick said he wanted to acknowledge the J7 researcher's work.

Good.

What the **** is the problem?

There is a deal of difference between aknowledging our work and claiming to be a J7 researcher. You obviously have no problem with him doing this, whereas imo, he is attempting to link himself at this particular time with the J7TC without even the basic courtesy of discussing this with us.

[Mark Gobell]

Does anyone believe anything Nafeez Ahmed says any more?

His presentations, I have seen, first hand, twice in one day, to two different audiences, both different.

I spoke to him to him afterwards and that was different again.

I'm stunned you are so precious about him.

Is this Prole speaking or on behalf of J7?

Why are you making such a fuss?

[Prole]

Well, Prole, I do consider Nick K the foremost researcher of the London Bombing's of 7th July 2005. On the planet.

We are divided.

Why are you so uptight about him speaking at a meeting acknowledging J7 research?

Just say if it's the gas chambers.

Get it out and be done with it.

No more false flag pretension eh?

Reasons: NK cooperated with the BBC CF, despite being aware of J7's position on this.

NK contacts bereaved families, despite being aware of J7's position on this.

NK thinks Ripple Effect is the best 7/7 documentary, despite being aware of J7's position on this.

NK does the bidding of Muad'Dib, despite being aware of J7's position on this.

Yet NK wants to include himself on a leaflet as a J7 researcher rather than a 7/7 researcher. Well he can know our position on that too, which no doubt he'll just choose to ignore.

[Mark Gobell]

I'm sorry.

I looked again at the leaflet.

I missed the J7 researchers bit on the leaflet.

That is what you're miffed about.

Right?

[Prole]

I'm sorry.

I looked again at the leaflet.

I missed the J7 researchers bit on the leaflet.

That is what you're miffed about.

Right?

Yes, and including the link to our website, the appearance is that we at J7 are involved in a meeting that we knew absolutely nothing about. Strange?

[Mark Gobell]

Well, Prole, I do consider Nick K the foremost researcher of the London Bombing's of 7th July 2005. On the planet.

We are divided.

Why are you so uptight about him speaking at a meeting acknowledging J7 research?

Just say if it's the gas chambers.

Get it out and be done with it.

No more false flag pretension eh?

Reasons: NK cooperated with the BBC CF, despite being aware of J7's position on this.

NK contacts bereaved families, despite being aware of J7's position on this.

Good. I'm glad he did. We all should make an effort to reach out to the families imo.

NK gleaned some valuable testimony from one parent, before he changed his mind iirc. . . .

NK thinks Ripple Effect is the best 7/7 documentary, despite being aware of J7's position on this.

Notwithstanding J7's stance on this dire production. NK is free to speak.

NK does the bidding of Muad'Dib, despite being aware of J7's position on this.

Not sure NK is doing anyone's bidding Prole. J7's position or not.

Yet NK wants to include himself on a leaflet as a J7 researcher rather than a 7/7 researcher. Well he can know our position on that to, which no doubt he'll just choose to ignore.

Nomenclature disruption or something else?

I honestly do no understand why you, or is it J7, have such a problem with Nick Kollerstrom.

I was not aware of this issue until Nick's article on the gas chambers was publicised by Ms North or whatever her name is.

[TonyGosling]

If Nick hadn't been - as Mark G quite rightly says:

The foremost researcher of the London Bombing's of 7th July 2005. On the planet.

Nobody would have bothered to go through everything he has ever written, done or said and smear him in the papers, to conduct a character assassination. They know unless he sues the papers for libel, which is very costly, he has absolutely no right of reply.

I am scratching my head to try and understand why Prole, or anyone else, feels they need to put aggressive clear blue water between J7 etc. and Nick. Why is she, like the Daily Mail stooge guy, doing the spooks' job for them?

Nick is entitled to his views about Cyclon B deposits or whatever they are but he must understand that may taint people's view of his research on 7/7.

Logically Nick's stuff is extremely powerful, he has written a book on 7/7 that he will now find almost impossible to publish. That doesn't help the wider 7/7 cause one jot. Maybe he should just publish his book on the web and forgo his intellectual property?? Difficult call.

I don't think Nick is the right person to put forward as an official campaign spokesperson
Full respect though to anyone who shares a platform with him, who is prepared to brave the 'guilt by association'.

[Prole]

Not sure NK is doing anyone's bidding Prole. J7's position or not.

He said as much himself:

Dr Kollerstrom denied he was harassing the bombers' victims but admitted he was wrong to phone the father of one victim who died at Tavi-stock Square, to explore his theory that the victim may not have been on the No 30 bus at all.

The ex-academic said: "It was wrong to do that but somebody urged me to do it because they said it was vital information. I raised the question 'was she on the bus?' and the family were very upset because they are convinced she was on the bus... I just don't know.

[paul wright]

Nick, from personal experience, is completely irritant. He ambushed me with the BBC while I was only offering him hospitality
I was drawn in to pestering relations of the 7/7 accused captured by the Beeb on camera. I'm not proud of that or how it might play out
Nick's ok but so away in his ivory tower he might be dangerous
Tony and Adrian did the research much more efficiently beforehand
And aren't offering holocaust material online

[Prole]

I am scratching my head to try and understand why Prole, or anyone else, feels they need to put aggressive clear blue water between J7 etc. and Nick. Why is she, like the Daily Mail stooge guy, doing the spooks' job for them?

I objected to a leaflet claiming J7 researchers were speaking at a 9/11 meeting. It appears that the 'J7 researcher' is NK. As you know, the J7TC have consistently refused to publish NK's articles, mainly because of the poor research.

[Mark Gobell]

So, Prole, have J7 produced an analysis of the J7 victims?

Their journeys?

Their recovery locations?

Have J7 reconciled the difficult journeys of each and every one of the J7 victims?

Have J7 even consolidated the J7 casualty count?

[Prole]

Mark, are you and Gosling happy with the leaflet that the London 9/11 Truth group have produced? Can either of you see any reason why J7 would question the motive for including us? Can either of you think of any reason why we were neither invited to speak or consulted about the meeting?

[Mark Gobell]

I have no idea about the origins of the offending leaflet Prole.

You need to ask Tony about Tony's view.

I'm struggling to see why you need to come down on NK, unless of course it's for the obvious reason.

In which case, J7 should just declare it and be done.

You've provided some of your reasons and I acknowledge them.

I don't understand the basis really. A single line of text on a leaflet does not, imo, justify your stance right now.

It might have done then.

But now it seems to be about NK's chemical stance.

That too would be understandable, only from a campaigning pov imo.

So just say so and move on if that is the case.

How on earth you can ignore NK's J7 efforts is beyond me.

[TonyGosling]

Can either of you think of any reason why we were neither invited to speak or consulted about the meeting?

First they came for the Zyclon B questioners.........

BTW - I have absolutely no problem with Nick phoning anybody connected with 7/7 up so long as he adopts a sensitive approach. That is how rersearchers and writers get their info to write about. Mine their data.

Otherwise you leave an investigative monopoly to the cops. Not clever unless you're into police states.


Check out this little story - does anyone detect a pattern here

Nail-biting wait for journalist in police 'fishing expedition'
http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/story.asp ... =41282&c=1
Shiv Malik will learn next month of the outcome of his challenge against a court order forcing him to hand over notes and source details from his research into Islamist extremism. Patrick Smith examines what is at stake in a case that will have wider ramifications for the freedom of the press

When officers from Greater Manchester Police turned up at Shiv Malik’s house at 7.50am on 19 March, it marked the beginning of an action which promises to be a defining moment for UK press freedom in the age of home-grown Islamic terrorism.

Police served him with an order under schedule five of the Terrorism Act 2000 asking for all material relating to a book he is writing with self-confessed former terrorist spokesman and trainer Hassan Butt, from Manchester, including taped interviews and written notes.

Two months on, his challenge to the order has forced a judicial review in the Administrative Division of the High Court which could – if successful – protect journalists from police “fishing expeditions” under the Terrorism Act in future.

Protecting sources

But if the panel of three senior judges decide in their ruling, expected in mid-June, that GMP was justified in its actions, a precedent could be set that would allow police to seize journalists notes’ on terrorists – severely undermining the long-held democratic principle of protecting the anonymity for journalistic sources.

If freelance journalist Malik loses his action, funded jointly by the National Union of Journalists and The Sunday Times to the tune of £80,000, he could end up behind bars...............

Can't find any real Muslim terrorists so let's go after anyone who gets anywhere near the fact that there IS NO Islamic terrorism in Britain!

[Prole]

Check out this little story - does anyone detect a pattern here

Nail-biting wait for journalist in police 'fishing expedition'
http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/story.asp ... =41282&c=1
Shiv Malik will learn next month of the outcome of his challenge against a court order forcing him to hand over notes and source details from his research into Islamist extremism. Patrick Smith examines what is at stake in a case that will have wider ramifications for the freedom of the press

When officers from Greater Manchester Police turned up at Shiv Malik’s house at 7.50am on 19 March, it marked the beginning of an action which promises to be a defining moment for UK press freedom in the age of home-grown Islamic terrorism.

Police served him with an order under schedule five of the Terrorism Act 2000 asking for all material relating to a book he is writing with self-confessed former terrorist spokesman and trainer Hassan Butt, from Manchester, including taped interviews and written notes.

Two months on, his challenge to the order has forced a judicial review in the Administrative Division of the High Court which could – if successful – protect journalists from police “fishing expeditions” under the Terrorism Act in future.

Protecting sources

But if the panel of three senior judges decide in their ruling, expected in mid-June, that GMP was justified in its actions, a precedent could be set that would allow police to seize journalists notes’ on terrorists – severely undermining the long-held democratic principle of protecting the anonymity for journalistic sources.

If freelance journalist Malik loses his action, funded jointly by the National Union of Journalists and The Sunday Times to the tune of £80,000, he could end up behind bars...............

Can't find any real Muslim terrorists so let's go after anyone who gets anywhere near the fact that there IS NO Islamic terrorism in Britain!

The treatment of Malik is appalling and no journalist, or anyone for that matter, should have to undergo this sort of treatment by the State, but contrary to what you state and from what I've read of Shiv Malik's articles, he does believe in Islamic terrorism:

Khan may have felt indignant about western foreign policy, as many anti-war campaigners do, but that wasn’t the reason he led a cell of young men to kill themselves and 52 London commuters. At the heart of this tragedy is a conflict between the first and subsequent generations of British Pakistanis—with many young people using Islamism as a kind of liberation theology to assert their right to choose how to live. It is a conflict between tradition and individuality, culture and religion, tribalism and universalism, passivity and action.

When it is stated like this, the problem of Islamic extremism looks depressingly intractable.

I think his notes have more to do with Hassan Butt than Malik's own views.

[karlos]

This is really the problem. We have had such a sustained Labour campaign against British Muslims which has caused even the Muslims themselves to believe much of the rhetoric.
There is no evidence that there ever has been a Muslim terror event on the British mainland.

What there has been is a very limited number of thought crimes. for example the group who were discussing blowing up a nightclub. Shiv Malik has fallen into this trap of believing the propaganda.

[chrisc]

Ignoring lots of other stuff I have big problems with...

I don't think Nick is the right person to put forward as an official campaign spokesperson

Which campaign is he being "put forward as an official campaign spokesperson" for -- any campaign having him as a "official spokesperson" must intent on media suicide...

[Stefan]

WTF!

I've just found this out.

Who organised this and what are they playing at?

Apparently Nafeez had no idea he was being put on a stage with NK - do you realise how much damage this will do to the relationship between Nafeez and the Truth Movement?

This is not even to mention the description of "J7 Researcher" for NK.

Don't you think that's a bit disingenuous - it suggests NK is involved with the J7 Truth Campaign?

Do you think it's good for the TM to trick one of Britain's leading academics into appearing on a bill with someone who has recently been in a controversy over holocaust denial? Do you think it's good to COMPLETLY IRRESPONSIBLY associate both Nafeez AND the J7 TC with holocaust denial with NEITHER OF THEIR PERMISSIONS???!!!!!

I AM FURIOUS!!!

Someone has some serious explaining to do...

In the meantime - here are some options -

Remove 9/11 Truth London from the leaflet and put "Silly B*stards" instead.

- or - Consider me to no longer be a part of 9/11 Truth London.

[TonyGosling]

Ignoring lots of other stuff I have big problems with...

I don't think Nick is the right person to put forward as an official campaign spokesperson

Which campaign is he being "put forward as an official campaign spokesperson" for -- any campaign having him as a "official spokesperson" must intent on media suicide...

No he isn't being put forward - I hope.

Please don't attack anyone who shares a platform with Nick, leave that to the spooks and the Zionists.

He is, in my view, the prime 7/7 author (as yet unpublished) and speaker bar none. He IS prepared to stick his neck out. This time he's had it chopped off by the nasties.

Give the guy a break it could be you next time with a revelation about your private life!

In a way this attack on Nick is a ringing endorsement of all his work on 7/7. Otherwise why would the dark forces bother.

Unless you think Mendick and the Evening Standard have no ulterior motives that is.

[chrisc]

Please don't attack anyone who shares a platform with Nick, leave that to the spooks and the Zionists.

Eh? I wasn't attacking Nafeez Ahmed, in any case, it appears that he isn't going to appear on a platform with Nicholas Kollerstrom -- he was unaware that he was being set up

Give the guy a break it could be you next time with a revelation about your private life!

This isn't about Nicholas Kollerstrom's private life (something that I couldn't care less about) it's about statments like this:

I note you seem to object to my having defended the proposition that: no German ever put a Jew into a gas chamber. You call that Holocaust Denial, well I’m proud to be associated with it. I’m happy to defend, it any time, any place. It happens to be true!

In a way this attack on Nick is a ringing endorsement of all his work on 7/7. Otherwise why would the dark forces bother.

Unless you think Mendick and the Evening Standard have no ulterior motives that is.

Well, there are others way of looking at this whole episode, I don't know if Nick Kollerstrom is a genuine idiot or not but of course the corporate media loves to promote people like him -- he is an ideal example to be cited to link those questioning 7/7 and 9/11 with racism and Nazis and thus reinforce the taboo of doubting the corporate lies about 7/7 and 9/11, and he goes along with their agenda by participating in interviews...