Archive | October, 2012

Jimmy Savile

28 Oct

Like everyone in the country I am completely shocked and horrified by the extent of Savile’s paedophilia which was covered up by the BBC and other institutions for so many years. The police investigated at least 7 complaints against Savile during his life which were dropped. It leaves you wondering how much worse there is to come, as well as feeling so awful for the poor children who were abused by him. It also makes you think that if the BBC lied about a paedophile who was working for them since the 60s and did nothing about how many other things did they do nothing about. They all knew that he was a paedophile, and yet they didn’t do anything about it. One girl who complained of bein abused by Savile was placed in solitary confinement for a copuple of days. But for years this guy was untouchable because of his “charitable” activities which were actually simply a cover for sexual abuse.


Why did nobody do anything? i believe that in the words of savile himself, part of the reason he was untouchable for so long was that if anything was done about him was because he would take many other notable figures in public life with him including the police and other well loved British celebrities, or politicians. There are rumours that a current Tory minister may have been involved in paedophilic practices and this person was a friend of Savile. I am not going to say the person’s name because of the possibility of being sued but if you look on the internet I am sure you will find it.


If one good thing comes from this case, I hope it is reform of the libel laws in England which are the toughest in the world and even allow for “libel tourism” which allow wealthy Americans among others to sue people from the UK, knowing that they have a better chance of winning. This is partly why the accusations against Savile never went, publically, beyond the level of “rumours”, because everyone knew that Savile had a team of expensive lawyers and would use them. Of course the other reason is that many people either refused to believe that abuse was taking place, or found their own reasons to turn a blind eye. “Oh look how much money he brings in!” “Look at all the good he does!!” etc. Some of the people who tried to report abuse were threatened into silence. 


Of course everyone high up in the BBC is trying to claim that the either did not know any rumours about Savile or that they knew, and tried to do something about it. But if this was the case then why was nothing done about it?The phrase a “tsunami of filth” does seem accurate.


Some people in the media are now trying to say that we should not examine the role of the BBC or that it somehow does not matter and we should just focus on the victims and trying to rehabilitate them. But I think that if Savile cannot be brought to justice then it is important that people who helped to cover up for him are punished, even if they are rich and famous. I think that is the only way that justice can be done and such a thing can be prevented from happening again.

There is also a concern, that right wing opponents of the BBC could use this scandal as opportunity to attack it further, the arguement goes that the BBC is being attacked by the Murdoch press who are trying to rehabilitate themselves from their own damaging scandal. Although I have some sympathy with this view I don’t agree that because of this we should just leave the BBC alone. The BBC has been a cheerleader for the cuts and the government agenda against benefit claimants and its news programmes are an absolute disgrace in the amount of bias they show towards government policies. A long time ago the BBC did show some independence but this has long gone and it is just another state broadcaster.

There is no reason why we should not have a state broadcaster and I would rather not have to watch adverts and so on but let’s not kid ourselves that it is independent, that is what it is. And let’s face it the Murdoch press and others wont go too far in attacking the BBC because they as we know, do have some skeletons in their closets as well. Since when should concern about right wingers using this for the wrong reasons stop people from trying to punish those responsible for covering up paedophilia?

There must be a few rich people worrying about that knock at the door at the moment. To which i say, good. The more of this corrupt and filthy crowd at the heart of the british establishment can be exposed , the better

7/7 “Ripple Effect” review

28 Oct

I said that I would be doing a series on debunking conspiracy theories. I want to explain why I am doing this, and also what the first conspiracy I will be taking apart will be.

I think it is important to challenge conspiracy theories for several reasons.
1) On the anti capitalist movement and on the left they have been gaining increasing currency over the last few years especially groups like Zeitgeist. Many people are not aware of those who are behind them and the reasons why they are being pushed. While they may appear like a valid critique of the hidden forces in society they are usually extremely racist and do not really challenge capitalism, only a small part of it (usually banking).

2) They give a false image, that the reason why society is like it is because of “bloodlines” and sinister secret societies rather than examining the structure. At its worst they can, and usually do, preach hate. It is no coincidence that the critiques of capital that they present are extremely similar (at best) to fascist critiques of capital, in that they barely mention productive capitalism at all and prefer to focus all their attention on finance and the banking sector. Fascist movements traditionally oppose this sector while barely mentioning the idea of productive capitalism.

3) The people who make these theories up, are making millions of pounds from them. Not only do these people spread utter untruths about the political system which end up being very damaging, they also promote the idea of alternative forms of medicine which are very damaging to people’s health, and people end up spending a lot of money to listen to them speak, and being exploited and thinking they are doing something about the world when they aren’t. I could go on but I will go into more detail about these reasons as the series goes on.

The first conspiracy film I am going to investigate is the film about 7/7, the “Ripple Effect”. This film aims to show that 7/7 was not done by terrorists as usually accepted but was actually a result of a conspiracy. It is 56 minutes long and in the interests of transparency you can watch it here.

The film says that it wants people to draw their conclusions based on “Occam’s razor and common sense”. Let’s see how true these claims are.

Chapter 1: Mock Exercises and Bomb Hoaxes in the Run-Up to 7/7/2005.

The film opens describing how on May 16, 2004, a Panorama programme was broadcast showing how the emergency services would respond to London under attack and explosions on three tube trains and one road vehicle – like what happened on 7/7. Clips from the Panorama investigation show a chemical weapon detonated as well with a chlorine cloud spreading over London. We are then told that an excerpt from the programme shows us “why” the programme was made.

An anti terrorism expert says that the potential for mass panic would be very great after a terrorist attack in the UK – and that there is the potential for emergency powers to be used, ie the government could take over the BBC and tell them to broadcast whatever they wanted. (Er don’t they do that anyway?) He goes on to say that they shouldn’t use the powers but the prime minister should be on the air soon and that. Another person agrees with him and says they should talk to the bbc about the way it is covered.

The narrator then says “please note – the way the coverage is GOING TO BE organised. In other words they were going to edit and control the coverage of an event in which there were three explosions on tube trains and one on a road vehicle.”

Well first of all he might have meant “going to be” when he should have said “would be.” Secondly, these training exercises for the emergency services and responses to terrorist attacks happen all the time. I would in fact be worried if there was nothing like this because it would show that whoever was in charge was completely unprepared (which could be took to be evidence of another conspiracy!) Thirdly what makes them think that when he talked about the coverage it would definitely be about three trains being attacked and then a road vehicle – ie, about that specific scenario, and not about the scenario of a terrorist attack in general?

He then says – “the question that begs to be asked is this. Was that what they were actually in the process of planning and precisely the reason for that programme?”

No. Just – no. If they were planning a terrorist attack why would they advertise the fact they were planning it a year before? The whole idea is so stupid.

The film goes on to talk about how 7/7 is the kind of terrorist attack the government says “is going to happen”. Wow, it sounds sinister doesn’t it? Well not really if consider that similar attacks had been carried out in 2002, 2003 and 2004, in Spain, in Bali and elsewhere, attacks which were coordinated extremely closely. Of course it was likely that the methods used in the previous attacks would be used in the UK, especially because radical Islamists had a reason to be pissed off at the UK. It would be extremely irresponsible not to try to prepare for such a possibility at all, and if they had not I am sure a video would have come out saying that the lack of preparation was also deliberate. As it was the emergency services responded extremely quickly on the day, perhaps because of their training.

We are then told that the BBC panorama programme was used “by those behind the scenes” as a way of gauging the media response to 7/7. Mr Price, the anti terrorist expert previously mentioned, played the “bad cop” and talked about taking control of the BBC.

No he didn’t!!!! – because 1) he specifically cautioned against using those powers
and 2) the BBC is already a state broadcaster anyway!

Apparently the “good cop/bad cop scenario” is just theatre to deceive the viewer. All this is asserted with no evidence at all.

The BBC is, according to the makers of this film, a government propaganda machine and is and always has been controlled and used by the government. Well if that is the case then why did the start of the film talk about how the government is going to take over the BBC to get them to broadcast its propaganda? Surely they would have just have done it anyway?

We are then shown BBC articles showing bomb hoaxes and how these may have been used to spread panic and confusion, but then also to give a false sense of security that the 7/7 bombs were also a hoax. Right yeah because that’s logical. The last article is about a man who made false bomb calls to a port in Portsmouth, he was jailed right before 7/7 occurred, but the offence had obviously occurred some time before (as it would have took ages to process his case) but for some reason this is linked in with the other two articles.

Bomb hoaxes are not proof of a conspiracy, and neither are suspect packages, which frequently turn out to be completely innocuous.

Chapter 2: Peter Power – Dupe or accomplice?

Peter Power is a director of a crisis management firm which helps organisations to conduct drills for terrorist attacks. The film asks – “Peter Power – Dupe or accomplice?” and it’s obvious that the producers have already made up their minds. They were running a mock terror drill based on the scenario of the Panorama programme, showing exactly what had happened on 7/7. Except it wasn’t exactly because where was the chlorine tanker response which they had rehearsed? A detail which this film conveniently overlooks.

In fact, Peter Power’s training exercise took place only in an office, rather than the full scale rehearsal which had took place some years previously. The video tries to make the training exercise, and the client which they were carrying it out for, look sinister. In fact, he had conducted a similar exercise some years earlier and nothing happened. In the year leading up to 7/7 the police and emergency services had, according to the documentary The Conspiracy Files, performed two practice exercises in the event of what to do in a terrorist attack.

“To this day Peter Power refuses to reveal the customer which helped to choose the exact scenario. WHY?” As if there is only one possible reason. It’s all a conspiracy!!! Why should he have to reveal the name of that customer? There is no legal requirement telling him to, and given that the 7/7 truth movement have been accusing him, and other innocent people, of being complicit in a bombing that resulted in the death of 52 people, who can blame him? Everything in this film is so biased and so obviously trying to point you in the direction of thinking it’s a conspiracy rather than trying to “simply ask questions” as the film claims.

Chapter 3 – Foreign security firms, can they be trusted?

Well what is the answer to this question gonna be? Wanna bet?

Verint Systems is responsible for the CCTV systems in the London Underground, and it is an Israeli company – as if this proves something. According to the Ripple Effect, the company refused to release footage of the four suicide bombers as they claimed that their cameras weren’t working on that day. This is obvious bollocks as since then footage has actually been released!

The fact that the company is Israeli does not prove anything. There are Israeli companies in the UK and UK firms that do business in Israel. The guy talks about the company being Israeli owned, as though this is somehow relevant to the plot of the film. But while about half of the company’s workers are based in Israel the headquarters are actually in the USA! And in any case they don’t actually operate the software themselves they just supply the products, including to the London Underground.

Chapter 4: The four Muslims – actors or patsies?

“The four Muslims were not on the tube trains that blew up!”

“We were told that the training exercise would involve 1000 people” – oh yeah, by who?

“And of course, amongst those 1000 people would have to be the four people who were recruited to play the parts of the mock terrorists”

– I love the way that he is just saying all of this as though it is fact, and has been definitively proved. Who exactly said that the training exercise involved 1000 people (in fact it didn’t, an earlier one in 2004 did) and who exactly said that it would have to involve the “mock terrorists”? Nobody, he just made it up!

I love the way he says “Muslims” all of the time rather than “suspects” or “young men” or another word, it is almost like he is trying to get us to believe subliminally that these people could not of done it because they are religious, it reminds me of Israeli settler propaganda when they talk about how “the Jews” are being made to leave “the holy land” of the West Bank, trying to stir up people’s sympathies by planting an idea of how good and religious they are.

As evidence that these people did not do 7/7 they state the fact that they did not buy single tickets. What this guy has not thought of, is that you’re going to London, you can buy a travelcard, which allows you to travel to any destination and use buses and the tube, or you can go to “London terminals” which involves travel to one place only without going to the Underground. As far as I know there was not a specific destination where they had to blow themselves up by, they wanted to travel by train to cause the maximum amount of damage. They weren’t specifically going anywhere, but they needed to go to the Underground or to a bus. This is so stupid, plainly this guy has never bought a ticket from outside London into London.

While he is talking about his ticket theory an article comes up on the screen saying that one of the bombers used to work for the government. Erm so what, so do millions of people in the UK, the state is an enormous employer. He then says that as part of the training exercise they would have been asked to make a video about martyrdom! That is such bollocks, because these training exercises are about the response by emergency services and companies, they’re not concerned with replicating the attacks exactly and if they were where were the chemical weapons that were talked about in the Panorama show?

The narrator talks about the fact that nobody has ever claimed responsibility for the 7/7 bombings except for a message on a fake website. The fact is that it is likely that these people didn’t have direct assistance from al-Qaeda, as British investigators later stated. And terrorist groups frequently claim responsibility for things that they haven’t done, the fact that there was no claim of responsibility doesn’t actually prove anything because nothing they say is particularly reliable anyway!

The programme goes on to make claims about how the widow of one of the bombers is being harassed by police. While I have no problem in believing this might be true there is no statement from her to back up what he’s saying and it is all conjecture. There is nothing from her telling him this is so, it’s just something he’s saying, so why should anyone believe it?

He asks why these documents have taken two years to be shown to her, because they’re “her rightful property”. Er no, they are evidence in an investigation, perhaps the police needed to examine them for fingerprints etc? If they was given back to her straight away the questions in the video would be on the lines of “why did the police just give them back straight away rather than keeping them! Aha it’s a conspiracy” etc.

Then we have a picture of Tony Blair looking evil, and talking about the may 2005 general election where he had suffered a serious defeat. The implication is of course that the conspiracy was put in place because Labour was suffering a defeat in the polls. If that was the case then why didn’t we see terrorist attacks after Labour lost in 2010?

Then again we have him reading from something that he made up. The idea is that the government carried out 7/7 to win support for the war on Iraq. if this is true, it didn’t exactly work did it???

He then tries to show that the four suspects were patriotic (one of them even went to the house of commons!) and actually wanted to protect Britain from terrorism, ignoring the fact that they were known to anti-terrorist police before the bombings took place.

We then hear about another Israeli company, ICTS, which “is believed” (by who?) to be where the “Muslim actors” recieved their final instructions. What is ICTS? They are actually pretty incompetent, having allowed a security breach to take place in Schiphol airport and allow somebody on board with explosives. They were also the subject of lawsuits due to negligence following 9/11, and have had requests refused by the Supreme Court.

If you were in charge of a conspiracy to fake a terrorist attack, would you choose such a shambolic company to help you carry it out? Of course not.

We then get a list of famous people who were all in and around London when the explosions took place, including Netanyahu and Rudy Giuliani. You would have thought that if they knew this conspiracy was going to happen they would all want to be as far away from the bombs as possible to avoid any possibility of a mistake from happening and them being caught up in the blast. But it would seem not! Also let’s say that Benjamin Netanyahu was involved in this plot. Would such an important guy have risked meeting the 7/7 bombers or having anything to do with it? I DON’T THINK SO.

Apparently the photo of the terrorists getting on in Luton was faked. If it really is faked then when did they get hold of this photo and the footage – and why were they able to get hold of it?

Chapter 5 – the ghost trains

The 7.40 train from Luton to London was cancelled that day, so they couldn’t have made it according to the video. (In which case how did they get to London?) (Actually they took an earlier train). We are shown a hand that looks like it has plasma going around it and he goes on about “the hand of god interfering!”

He goes on about how the authorities keep on lying about the mistake about the train. Fair enough there was a mistake, but then John Reid asked why a mistake had been made. If they were that determined to keep lying then why did it eventually get changed in the next report issued, and why did he question them on it? Was John Reid not part of the government and not complicit in its other crimes?

“When the tube trains they were supposed to catch are blown up the other three smell a rat and realise they have been duped and are Muslim patsies who will be blamed for the attacks, and everyone knows what happened to Lee Harvey Oswald.”

Er … wtf ???
That doesnt even make sense

He then talks about a rumour that the terrorist suspects were shot in Canary Wharf. There were all sorts of reports going on that morning, there were reports of five or six bombs at one point, and in the confusion nobody knew what was going on. During incidents like that all sorts of gossip gets repeated and people get told things that aren’t actually true (like the old story of a woman filling up her car and being warned by a mysterious stranger not to go to a certain place).

If the police did shoot somebody that day, then that of course that needs to be investigated, but if there is any truth to this allegation it is sadly lost under this tsunami of bullshit. The theory goes that perhaps they were trying to find the offices of a newspaper to tell them of this plot. It is all just guesswork with no real evidence. The narrator goes on to say that at least two people saw the men being shot but has he made any attempt to contact the witnesses and ask them what they saw in order to corroborate the story, or for that matter their employers, the newspaper that they worked for? No he has not, I wonder why, perhaps because what they saw would conflict with what he’s saying?

Chapter 6 – The No.30 Bus

Hasib Hussain, the bus bomber, tried to call the other suspects at 8.55 am but he couldn’t get hold of them because their phones were “first of all jammed then shut down by the authorities” – er not blown up in a bomb then!

They’re going on about the bus having an advert for a play on one side “outright terror – bold and brilliant!” Erm yeah and? There were 890 buses with that message that day and he just happened to get on one of them!

PLEASE THINK ABOUT THAT SIGN ON THAT SIDE OF THE BUS, SHEEPLE! THE SIGN IS TALKING ABOUT  OUTRIGHT TERROR AND WHAT HAPPENED IS OUTRIGHT TERROR! IT MUST BE A CONSPIRACY! BOLD! BRILLIANT! IT MUST HAVE BEEN THE J – ER THE ELITE! WAKE UP SHEEPLE WAKE UP! Whoever did this is clearly clutching at straws because this is too stupid for words and it would even be funny if it were not the fact they are using the deaths of innocent people for such a ridiculous cause.

Hasib Hussain got on a 91 bus and then took a 30 bus which blew up back along the same route. Why did he do that when he was carrying a heavy backpack? 1)

As if nobody who had a heavy backpack ever went the wrong way on a bus before

2) They’re assuming that this person was thinking rationally, if you’re carrying a bomb and about to blow yourself up to get 72 virgins or whatever it is they might not be in the most logical frame of mind, especially if you can’t get hold of anyone and are possibly having second thoughts about your “mission”.

“Why would you get off the bus if you wanted to go to tavistock square” – er maybe he didn’t know, not everyone knows london buses like the back of their hand, and he was probably doing all sorts of illogical stuff (the whole reason why he was there was completely insane anyway!)

Apparently the fact that this guy madea superfluous bus journey is “conclusive proof” that it was part of Peter Power’s sinister anti-terrorist drill and was “pre-planned to be diverted into Tavistock Square”. No. NO!

And we’re back to the BBC Panorama mock terrorist programme again, they’re still going on about that! Mental. Completely mental.

But its not finished.

A white van from a demolition company called Kingstar was found near the scene of the bus explosion. Conspiracy loons love the whole “controlled demolition” idea, they are convinced that 9/11 happened as a result of it.
Kingstar is indeed a controlled demolition company, but they don’t use explosives. If they did use explosives and were somehow keeping this fact a secret, why would they do so, since they would undoubtedly get more customers?

This is what it says about their demolition services on their website:

concrete crunching and bursting
Concrete Crunching provides an efficient method for reducing concrete to rubble without vibration or water.
Concrete Bursting is a quiet and very effective method of controlled demolition. Holes are drilled in pre-determined positions. Burster heads are then inserted and expanded under high pressure to induce cracking. robotic demolition
Manufactured by Brokk, our fleet of remote controlled machinery provides the ideal solution for most controlled demolition projects.
With a small footprint the machines can be operated in confined spaces and provide massive productivity gains compared with traditional methods. The operator controls the machine remotely from a safe distance. From the Brokk 40 to the Brokk 330 we have the solution for you.

How would this be possible with a bus, a moving target which has no concrete in it?

In the programme “the conspiracy files” the manager goes on to explain how the company has no licence to work with explosives and no experience with their use. If you were the owner of a small business seeking more clients why would you say that nobody in the company had experience in something that they did in fact have experience in? Surely they would be more likely to lie the other way round? These people and their workers have actually received death threats and accusations of them being murderers.

Next we come to Richard Jones, who committed the heinous crime of SERVING AN APPRENTICESHIP IN AN EXPLOSIVES FACTORY IN AYRSHIRE. Richard Jones also got off the No.30 bus shortly before the bomb exploded. Obviously this means that he must have done it. He gives an account of what happened to the bus on camera, which supposedly would not have been allowed by the police. I remember watching news coverage of 7/7 and loads of witnesses were interviewed and gave their stories. Apparently his account was different because his account had loads of flaws. He says that he saw the bombing suspect – “the bombing suspect was right in my face” etc. Apparently what he saw was “very suspicious” because the bomber was nearby and he couldnt see his face. That was because he was facing him FROM THE BACK.

“Criminals usually choose soemone else to divert attention away from themselves” – from this sentence we could conclude that whoever made this video was in on 7/7 then, with similarly low standards of evidence.

He says that 11 other people  got off the bus shortly before it exploded. Were the 12 a team to cover up what Richard Jones was doing?

Apparently he couldnt; have reached his destination on a bus that had been diverted from its usual route. Maybe he usually had to walk some distance to get to his normal destination anyway? Have these guys heard of walking? Apparently not!

Was Kingstar there as part of Peter Power and his customers’ mock terrorism drill to supervise the mock explosion that became real?

The only way that hHasib Hussain, the bus bomber, could know to go to Tavistock Square is if he had been recruited to play the part of a “mock terrorist”. No actually, perhaps he wasn’t trying to go anywhere and was just getting on any old bus? It wasn’t as if he was going to go anywhere else that day!

Another “unbelievable” coincidence is that all of the CCTV cameras at the blast sites were not working that day. When you consider how many CCTV cameras don’t work during the course of a normal day it’s not so unbelievable at all. Many CCTV cameras are simply there as a deterrent rather than actually working. In any case, footage of the bombers did later emerge. And police examined footage from 2000 cameras around London that day – why would they have done this otherwise if they were in on it?

The film distorts what is actually said in news and police reports, for example about the men’s passports. In some cases even pausing the video is enough to prove that what they are saying is wrong.

Much is made about how the passports survived the suicide bomb blast, but the guy goes on to say that if he was really on the bus it wouldn’t have proved that he blew it up! surely if he was standing close enough to be killed there’s just as much likelihood that the passport would have been shredded as well, particularly if the bus was that crowded?

It is said that the “most likely” outcome is that the bus was rigged with explosives during its previous service, when the CCTV cameras were disabled. Is this really true? How could they have rigged a bus full of people with explosives without anyone noticing anything suspicious? How is this the “most likely” outcome at all – are we really to believe that sixty people on a bus wouldn’t have noticed anything??? And given that the CCTV company was Israeli (and therefore in on the plot) then why was there a need to disable the CCTV cameras anyway, given that those dastardly israelis would tamper with it, assuming they’re in on the conspiracy?

Would nobody have had words – “hold on son” – etc?

Chapter 7 – Pre-planted explosives

The narrator says that the witnesses on the tube said that there were “no Muslims with backpacks”, we are then shown a BBC article which purports to back up his case. But the witness says: “The policeman said “mind that hole – that’s where the bomb was. The metal was pushed upwards as if the bomb was underneath the train. They seem to think the bomb was left in a bag, but I don’t remember anyone being near where the bomb was, or any bag.” If it was left in a bag then that’s different to somebody in a backpack, which he might not have noticed. In any case the bomb was not “left in a bag” anyway, it wasn’t left, it was carried by the suicide bomber until he died!

Apparently if explosives were planted under the train then this would lift the carriages off the rails and derail them, “as did happen”. So could any other bomb – the force of the blast was powerful enough to wreck the train and kill people wasn’t it? Only military grade explosives would be powerful enough to do this, rather than home-made explosives. You can make a pretty powerful bomb with fertiliser and other equipment you can commonly buy, and a tube train isn’t the most powerful structure in the world. Agricultural firms have also been told to be alert to people buying large amounts of fertiliser and similar materialfollowing the 7/7 attacks. If homemade explosives were so shit, then why is this seen as such a threat?

The video keeps on going on about how everything “has been proven to be a lie”. He says that there are reliable witnesses who can say that there were no Muslim bombers on board the trains at that time. During the bomb blast, the lights of the train went off, and there was complete chaos as it all happened so quickly. Nobody was expecting the bomb so how would they know whether they were “Muslim bombers” when they probably weren’t thinking about bombs or terrorism, they were just innocent commuters on their way to work. None ofr the witnesses say there was nobody with a backpack on the tube simply that the bomb wasn’t left in a bag, which didn’t happen anyway!

In addition, if the bombs were from military grade explosives, this doesn’t mean that the terrorists didn’t do it, simply that they were able to gain access to this material. If they were, then obviously this is a serious security failure, but it doesn’t prove anything the video is saying.

If the bombs were fastened under the floor then where were they fastened? Which company was in charge of the maintenance of the train – and would none of the workers on the London Underground have got suspicious? It’s not like anyone can go into one of the London tube depots and do whatever they want to it.
Somebody would have noticed something and been like “hold on a minute…” unless, of course, they were part of the conspiracy themselves. Does he really think that these guys can sneak into a tube depot in the middle of the night and fasten a bomb underneath the tube?

Benjamin Netanyahu said he was warned by Scotland Yard npt to leave his hotel room before the first explosion was reported. Isn’t he meant to be in on the conspiracy? So why would he have gone round telling anyone that he was warned not to leave his hotel room? Surely if he had had some involvement in the whole thing he would have wanted to keep that extremely quiet? In any case, he was in London for a symposium of Israeli businessmen. He was warned not to leave AFTER the first bomb had gone off, not before. If the Israelis had known, then the conference would never have started in the first place and he probably wouldn’t have even been in the country!

We are asked why Benjamin Netanyahu was warned “but not the British people who pay their wages and who they are paid to protect”. Would it have “spoiled their evil plan?” The fact is that Netanyahu quickly told the media about his warning. Warning ANYONE meant, that if Scotland Yard actually had planted these bombs, that they would have taken a massive risk, because Netanyahu could have told the media, the people working in the hotel where he was staying would have heard something, his driver would have heard something, as would all the Israelis working in the conference (and why weren’t they warned either?) As it happened Netanyahu did tell the media that he’d been told to stay indoors.

The head of Mossad gets dragged into this tale, saying that he warned Netanyahu about the bombings. If he’d had any involvement then why would he have advertised it to the public like that? And why would Netanyahu need to be in London to carry out the plan? Surely it would have been better that he had stayed in Israel? And the idea that he was warned a few minutes before the bombs went off also implies that he didn’t know. If he knew there were gonna be bombs then why would he go to London in the first place? Is there any evidence at all? How long before I lose the will to live?

Was this a MI5 or a Mossad operation?

Then on to Tony Blair’s speech. He said that we know this was done in the name of Islam. As it happened he turned out to be right, but the police were deeply unhappy about him using those words when the reason for the bombs had not been established yet. He was hardly the first person to have made a guess about a terrorist attack before it was confirmed, and he would not be the last. During the far-right terrorist attack by Anders Breivik, many people assumed that it was Islamic terrorists which had carried the attack out – and one group even claimed responsibility when news was still unclear. In any case it was not an unreasonable assumption to make, given that the terrorist attacks which had caused the biggest loss of life and were done in a professional , coordinated manner were done by Islamic groups.

The BBC reported Blair’s words as going on to say that the majority of Muslims were law abiding, giving further proof that it is a “government propaganda machine”. If the intention had been for Tony Blair to cover up a terrorist attack and blame Muslims on it then why would they say that he thought Muslims were law abiding? Surely he would have gone into an anti Muslim rant?

Ephraim Halevy, who was a former director of Mossad, wrote in the Jerusalem Post that these attacks were planned and carried out with “near perfect execution”. The question is “how did he know they had only been near-perfect? How could he know what the perfect results should have been?” What the – OK, this is so stupid. I can’t even think of a reply to this. Perhaps because he is an intelligence operative for one of the world’s most sophisticated intelligence services?

The Jerusalem Post article was removed from their website after people began to ask similar questions, so we are told. But articles disappear from news websites for all sorts of reasons. In any case here is who is supposed to be in on the plot so far:

The Jerusalem Post

Workers on the London Underground

Richard Jones and 12 bus passengers

Everyone who was on the bus during its previous journey when the explosves were planted



Kingstar Demolition

Workers for the CCTV system

Scotland Yard

Benjamin Netanyahu


Police Commissioner Ian Blair

People working in Netanyahu’s hotel

Israeli businessmen at a conference

(and presumably the staff at that conference)

Would all of these people really not have said anything to anyone else about the plot? Would nobody have noticed anything? would nobody have said anything?

Next Ian Blair is supposed to have made a slip-up. He said, “if London can survive the Blitz it can survive four miserable bombers like this. I’m not saying there are four bombers – I’m saying four miserable events like this.” This doesn’t mean he was part of a conspiracy, it means he was talking based on the evidence based on what was available at the time, before all the details had been confirmed. During the day of 7/7 as many as 6 different explosions were reported at one point because people gave information about the bombs based on where they were and where they were trying to get to at the time. The information simply had not been confirmed yet and he didn’t want to give the impression what he was saying was definitely true.

The first reports were of an “electrical power surge” that occurred. This is true – because people didn’t know what was happening in the tube trains at the time, there were no mobile phone signals in the tube, and so the people who would have known what was going on would have been maintaining the system and not on the trube itself. The tubes would have gone dark, all symptoms of an electrical fault. In those few minutes nobody knew anything and the bomb survivors would have been in the middle of a tunnel, unsure of what was happening themselves. If it had been immediately known it was a bomb then people like this guy would be asking “why did they know so soon?”

The narrator then tries to bring JC de menezes into it, the Brazilian electrician who was shot. He asks “who had he been working for, and what had he been working on?” Based on the fact that the bombs were first said to be power surges. No. Just no. Was he hired to wire up devices as part of a power surge?

It should be fairly easy to find out who was working for, if they were actually serious about doing their research. Why not talk to his family and his employers and try to find out? No. Just … no.

“Did THEY, the HIERARCHY ENSLAVING YOU, publicly execute him to shut him up and as a warning to others to keep their mouths shut?” No. Just … wtf ??

We are asked why Peter Power “smirked grinned and giggled” when he talked about the training exercise. His face blurred so you can’t see his expression properly!!! We can’t tell what he’s really doing! And in any case perhaps he was nervous? People react oddly when they are shocked?

Supposedly the chance of Peter Power’s “drill” and the London bombings coinciding is one chance in 3,715,592,613,265,750,000,000,000,000,000,000,000. Is that because these drills hardly ever happen, or because terrorist attacks hardly ever happen (you probably have more chance of being struck by lightning than dying in a terrorist attack).

Chapter 8 – Conclusion

Back to the delayed tube trains and their times again. The three tube trains with the bombs on them left at 8.35am, 8.42am and 8.48am.

According to this, the photo of the bombers at Luton Station was faked (in which case how did they get to London?) Three of the suicide bombers were killed at Canary Wharf, and therefore there is overwhelming proof that it was an inside job. But if the photo was fake then how did they get to London? What were they doing there? And could they not have took an earlier train in order to get onto their tube trains (which they actually did?)

The one thing we can be sure of is that it was NOT done by four young Muslims, the film says. On the basis of this film and its “evidence”, we cannot be sure of this at all!

Chapter 9 – Epilogue

Oh no! there’s more!

“The decent people in the security services must have the courage to come forward and arrest their evil colleagues who committed treason and mass murder that day and helped to cover it up.” There is no evidence of their motive apart from them being “evil” and a bit earlier in the film about how Blair had done badly in an election. Where is the motive? Where is the fucking motive, especially at such risk that somebody would say something? Is it not far less far fetched to think that four young men, who were already radicalised into extreme Islamist views, carried out their bomb plot, telling very few or no people about it, and ensuring they would not be caught?

A sinister picture of Netanyahu on the screen doesn’t prove anything.

But maybe there is a purpose – “to plunge the world into World War 3 and Armageddon”. The directors even try to shoehorn Big Brother 8 into the movie – “why do you think THEY made a Big Brother TV programme? To programme people’s minds and get them used to the idea of living under constant surveillance, and to like it and to take part in it”. Except that Big Brother was originally made by a Spanish TV company. Maybe they’re in on the conspiracy as well? We are then treated to George Galloway behaving like a cat on Big Brother.

“Why do you think they are called programmes”?


“It is because they are used for mind control, brainwashing, programming of the public’s minds” except that I’m fairly sure that that entemology of the word developed AFTER the word “programme” was created!

“to obeying and sleepwalking into following the New World Order hidden agenda”

please god make it stop

The television is the greatest mind control and propaganda weapon ever invented. A bit like this video then? How come it hasn’t convinced me?

“does the TV, and watching it, not already control most of your life?”

No, I don’t think so. I hardly ever watch TV, yet for some reason  I still think this video is bullshit. I wonder why that is? Perhaps the Jew World Order is more pernicious than we thought.

“do you think you should be paying for all of those CCTV cameras and their operatives to follow you wherever you go, so they can enslave you and fine you, thereby stealing your money when you are doing nothing wrong”

I do actually think that more money should be put into public safety at night yes and hopefully we’ll get this under a socialist society.

“Don’t you realise that in paying fines and taxes you are actually paying for the chains they are using to enslave you with!”

LOL, just lol. No I never realised that. I never realised that paying towards the state helps fund the state, thanks for that amazing bit of knowledge Einstein.

“Wake up and see the reality that you are actually paying for them to turn you into their slave!”


“The government is continually and illegally passing more and more legislation” – who decides what is illegal and legal? the government. Moron.

“they have turned the relationship between the people and government into the opposite of what it should be.” This guy is assuming that the government was once good, and once did good things for us. Actually we have never been a democracy and if he stuck his head out of his parents’ basement and read some books on marxist economics or just on basic history he would realise it. Just – just – just read a fucking book!

The film ends with a call to make copies of the film to give to everyone you know, including the media (who are meant to be so evil). What a pack of absolute shit from beginning to end. I can’t believe I watched the whole thing ffs.

Actually yeah I think people SHOULD see this film, to see how stupid their claims are. I don’t know how anyone can believe this shit and it’s important that it’s exposed by how pernicious and just how fucking dumb it actually is.

Hello world!

27 Oct

Welcome to! This is your very first post. Click the Edit link to modify or delete it, or start a new post. If you like, use this post to tell readers why you started this blog and what you plan to do with it.

Happy blogging!