4 More blasts in London

[Dj Franco]

"They pushed him onto the floor and unloaded five shots into him. He's dead," witness Mark Whitby told the British Broadcasting Corp. "He looked like a cornered fox. He looked petrified."

Britain is home to many immigrants from the South Asian countries of Pakistan, India, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh, among others.
Whitby said the man did not appear to have been carrying anything but said he was wearing a thick coat that looked padded.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20050722/D8BGECE01.html

I better not go to London and wear a thick coat cause I'll get shot killed. This guy had no weapons and was not a threat from what it sounds from this article by Associated Press and it says nothing about him being guilty of anything, yet this man is dead. Whos the terrorists now

[automatic]

Originally Posted by Dj Franco

WASHINGTON -- The House voted Thursday to extend the USA Patriot Act, the nation's main anti-terrorism tool, just hours after televisions in the Capitol beamed images of a new attack in London


http://www.suntimes.com/output/elect...patriot22.html

I guess i am a nut if i think thats suspicious

the republicans control the house don't they, so they could pass the bill regardless of what happened in london right?

the majority of people in the states support bush's anti-terrorism crusade right?

so ask yourself this: why the hell would they need set off bombs in london to do this? i mean, it wouldn't really make a difference either way. in fact it would make more sense if the nwo/us is behind it to do the attacks a couple of weeks later to help defuse any protests that arose from the legislation with an "i told you so".

why risk something like the london bombings when you could pass the bill anyways. does that make any sense? doesn't to me...

[automatic]

Originally Posted by Dj Franco

"They pushed him onto the floor and unloaded five shots into him. He's dead," witness Mark Whitby told the British Broadcasting Corp. "He looked like a cornered fox. He looked petrified."

Britain is home to many immigrants from the South Asian countries of Pakistan, India, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh, among others.
Whitby said the man did not appear to have been carrying anything but said he was wearing a thick coat that looked padded.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20050722/D8BGECE01.html

I better not go to London and wear a thick coat cause I'll get shot killed. This guy had no weapons and was not a threat from what it sounds from this article by Associated Press and it says nothing about him being guilty of anything, yet this man is dead. Whos the terrorists now

trigger-happy keyed up freaked out cops, let's hope they get tried for this, but what this has to do with terrorism is beyond me, sounds like more of an accident than anything...

[Dj Franco]

This is the video clip from ITN news and features an interview with Peter Power, managing director of Visor Consultants, who were running an exercise for an unnamed company that revolved around the London Underground being bombed at the exact same times and locations as happened in real life on the morning of July 7th.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/video/london_terror_games.wmv

[Dj Franco]

Originally Posted by automatic

the republicans control the house don't they, so they could pass the bill regardless of what happened in london right?

the majority of people in the states support bush's anti-terrorism crusade right?

so ask yourself this: why the hell would they need set off bombs in london to do this? i mean, it wouldn't really make a difference either way. in fact it would make more sense if the nwo/us is behind it to do the attacks a couple of weeks later to help defuse any protests that arose from the legislation with an "i told you so".

why risk something like the london bombings when you could pass the bill anyways. does that make any sense? doesn't to me...

I guess i gotta repeat myself again..........Problem, reaction, solution. If theres no problem like Sept 11, and July 7......Would the attempt of attack on July 21 have scared anyone. It would have been brushed off if a problem wouldn't have been created.

[automatic]

i'm a sheep huh? if i'm a sheep then you're a rabid wolverine that had 8 hits of acid slipped in to its last deer carcass...

you DON'T know the answers, and you can't admit that ignorance to yourself, buddy.

[stephen_c]

we desparately need a conspiracy section.

[automatic]

Originally Posted by Dj Franco

I guess i gotta repeat myself again..........Problem, reaction, solution. If theres no problem like Sept 11, and July 7......Would the attempt of attack on July 21 have scared anyone...........

you missed my point. they could have easily passed that bill without planning a risky operation like bombing the london underground, so using that as the reason is bogus, n'est c'est pas?

[wum]

Originally Posted by automatic

the republicans control the house don't they, so they could pass the bill regardless of what happened in london right?

the majority of people in the states support bush's anti-terrorism crusade right?

so ask yourself this: why the hell would they need set off bombs in london to do this? i mean, it wouldn't really make a difference either way. in fact it would make more sense if the nwo/us is behind it to do the attacks a couple of weeks later to help defuse any protests that arose from the legislation with an "i told you so".

why risk something like the london bombings when you could pass the bill anyways. does that make any sense? doesn't to me...

The London Bombing seals the deal, especially when support is waning.

Here's a Terrorism Alert Timeline you might find interesting:

-----------------------

January 10, 2002 - George W. Bush, answering reporters' questions in the Oval Office regarding his close relationship with Ken Lay, head of the controversial Enron, claims that he barely knew him: "I got to know Ken Lay when he was the head of the—what they call the Governor's Business Council in Texas. He was a supporter of Ann Richards in my run in 1994 [italics Chatterbox's]. And she had named him the head of the Governor's Business Council. And I decided to leave him in place, just for the sake of continuity. And that's when I first got to know Ken. …" Source

Many see Bush's answer as less than sincere. Source - Source

February 5, 2002 - Angry lawmakers to subpoena Ken Lay over Enron scandal. Journalists inquire about Lay's close connections to the Bush administration Source

February 12, 2002 - Attorney General John Ashcroft on Tuesday called on "all Americans to be on the highest state of alert" after an FBI warning of a possible imminent terrorist attack. Source



May 22, 2002 -- Bush goes on the record as opposing the formation of an independent commission to look into why 9/11 happened.

Mr. Bush's comments come after a two-day hearing on Capitol Hill with FBI director Robert Mueller and the agent who wrote the so-called "Phoenix memo" last summer warning about that Arab students training at U.S. aviation schools were linked to a militant Muslim group. Source - Source

Same day:

The Senate Governmental Affairs Committee votes to issue subpoenas to the Bush administration for information on its contacts with bankrupt energy trader Enron Corp. Source

May 24, 2002 - Railroad and other transit systems across the country received a Transportation Department warning based on "an unconfirmed, uncorroborated report", and were told to "remain in a heightened state of alert". Earlier this week, the government issued warnings about the Statue of Liberty and the Brooklyn Bridge, leading to tightened security at an around those New York City locations. Source



June 9, 2002 -- FBI Whistleblower Talks To Congress
Coleen Rowley testifies she had tried to notify her superiors about the suspicious flight students before 9/11. She compared the agency's bureaucracy to the "Little Shop Of Horrors," telling Congress the FBI could have done more to prevent the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. Source

June 10, 2002 - Attorney General John Ashcroft conducts an unusual and urgent press conference from Russia. He announces that they had arrested Jose Padilla, the "dirty bomb" suspect had been captured, and transferred to the custody of the DOD from the Justice Department. Source

In the same press conference Ashcroft revealed that the "dirty bomb" suspect had been captured on May 8th and held incognito before the announcement on June 10.

[wum]

Originally Posted by automatic

you missed my point. they could have easily passed that bill without planning a risky operation like bombing the london underground, so using that as the reason is bogus, n'est c'est pas?

Your point is pure conjecture and doesn't make sense. You only give up your rights and liberty if there is a clear and present danger. The London Bombing is a refresher.

[Dj Franco]

Originally Posted by automatic

you missed my point. they could have easily passed that bill without planning a risky operation like bombing the london underground, so using that as the reason is bogus, n'est c'est pas?

Your right they may have passed the bill without the bombings on July7, or the attempt 2 days ago. But doesn't it create a lot less backlash from the public. We know we will accept the patriot act fully because now we feel that we need it to be safe. When really the patriot act is more targeted to me and you, then it is the terrorists. Thats a whole different discussion which i could go on forever for which i dont have time for right now. This London bombing is such a small piece of the pie of a much bigger conspiracy then you people are thinking.

[wum]

^ we should try to predict what elements the next terrorist attack, to make our case :)

Here's my list:

-Import said terrorists into your country, months prior to the incident, inspite of common sense.

-Drop the terror alert prior to attack.

-Have the "terrorist attack" occur on the eve of controversial legislation that inevitably curtails civil rights; or when Bush or Blair's popularity rating is dipping.

-Important people inexplicably getting warnings to stay away from said terrorist event (Mayor Willy Brown, Rumsfeld, Netanyahu, etc.)

-Have concurrent "drills" of the terrorist attack going on at the exact same time and place.

-Give out a phony cover story to control the release of information.

-Immediately blame Al-CIAeda on the flimsiest of evidence, i.e. planted passports, messages on internet forums from groups that people have never heard of, etc.


Okay your turn

[Dj Franco]

Originally Posted by wum

^ we should try to predict what elements the next terrorist attack, to make our case :)

Here's my list:

-Import said terrorists into your country, months prior to the incident, inspite of common sense.

-Drop the terror alert prior to attack.

-Have the "terrorist attack" occur on the eve of controversial legislation that inevitably curtails civil rights; or when Bush or Blair's popularity rating is dipping.

-Important people inexplicably getting warnings to stay away from said terrorist event (Mayor Willy Brown, Rumsfeld, Netanyahu, etc.)

-Have concurrent "drills" of the terrorist attack going on at the exact same time and place.

-Give out a phony cover story to control the release of information.

-Immediately blame Al-CIAeda on the flimsiest of evidence, i.e. planted passports, messages on internet forums from groups that people have never heard of, etc.


Okay your turn

1. Warnings of attacks
2. Planning drills of terrorist attacks
3. Drop the terror alert down a level......

Iunno about you guys, but #3 doesn't go with 1 and 2

[wum]

^ number 3 doesn't fit?

[Dj Franco]

ya. They preform drills for terror attacks, they send out warnings of attacks, yet they drop the terror alert. Doesn't make sense

[The_acidhouse]

Originally Posted by automatic

franco and wum must be right about all these "facts" they have, after all

THEY READ IT ON THE INTERNET!!!!

Automatic, i'm really glad you mentioned this.. Infowars is pretty much on crack.

Let's see why:
Taken from: http://www.infowars.com/articles/Lon...be_patsies.htm

Originally Posted by infowars

Thirdly, it has gone virtually unreported that the Pound fell 6% in 10 days before London terror attacks, a clear indication of prior knowledge on the part of London's financial establishment.

This writer is a crackhead. This journalism stinks.

Here's why:



The first thing to note is that this chart deals with GBP/USD. I'm assuming that this is what the writer is referring to since there is no widely used currency index that the pound is compared against that i'm aware of. Also the fact that there is a rougly 6% decline (5.94% to be exact) is evidence of this.

So, this GBP/USD deals with the British Pound in comparison to the US dollar. If you compare the two you have noise from factors affecting the GBP and from factors affecting the USD. If these factors are working together, a 6% deviation in 10 days is actualy quite common.

Again if you see the chart above, there are many declines/inclines on the chart that occur due to random events in both economies.

If we were to do some kind of statistical test on this, I know that this 6% decline/incline in 10 days would probably be within the range of 1.25 standard deviations of the mean (is basically very likely to happen).

The only way to seperate out the noise would be to build a basket of currencies and compare the pound to it. And, even if we did this, i'm sure there would be no way to prove widespread selling that exceeds anything other than a normal deviation.

Moreover, suppose that there was widespread selling specifically because "London's financial establishment" knew about these attacks. How would it be possible to silence thousands of investors to this fact? The selling pressure necessary to generate a 6% fluctuation isn't something 4 people in an office can do. It takes a hell of alot of investors selling.

Lastly, suppose there was really selling of the GBP because of a terrorist conspiracy why wouldn't there also be massive selling in the FTSE during this same period?

Do you see big declines in this chart surrounding July 7th?

What is more, forex markets typically are played by international investors whereas local exchanges (like the FTSE) has a much larger local component.

Recall once again the writer says

a clear indication of prior knowledge

.

There is nothing clear about this at all. What is clear is that this writer is a crackhead. If the writer's supposed 'undeniable evidence' is so easily unwound, what does this say about the rest of his research? I say it's speculative drivel.

Once again, this sounds like the real issue here is that the writer is trying to prove a point that is simply unproveable.

[The_acidhouse]

Originally Posted by wum

Monopoly Men - Online Video
The Money Masters - How international Bankers gained Control of America The Money Masters - Video Online
Money, Banking and the Federal Reserve - Ludwig von Mises Institute
Weapons of Mass Deception - Danny Schechter - The Film That Takes You Inside The Iraq Media War You Never Saw
BEYOND TREASON - Joyce Riley - Government Experimentation On Military & Civilian Populations

Main page

Wum, I love how you are into austrian school/chicago school economics. It's so totally refreshing.

[wum]

Originally Posted by Dj Franco

ya. They preform drills for terror attacks, they send out warnings of attacks, yet they drop the terror alert. Doesn't make sense

I remember reading an article that the UK dropped the terror alert two months before the attack. By that i think they mean they didn't monitor incoming islamic assets as closely as they should have.

[wum]

Originally Posted by The_acidhouse

Wum, I love how you are into austrian school/chicago school economics. It's so totally refreshing.

I'm a libertarian too :)

[thechix0r]

This world is seriously whacked... if it's not bombings its some other shit... seriously where is the love?

[Special-K]

Originally Posted by The_acidhouse

Automatic, i'm really glad you mentioned this.. Infowars is pretty much on crack.

Let's see why:
Taken from: http://www.infowars.com/articles/Lon...be_patsies.htm



This writer is a crackhead. This journalism stinks.

Here's why:



The first thing to note is that this chart deals with GBP/USD. I'm assuming that this is what the writer is referring to since there is no widely used currency index that the pound is compared against that i'm aware of. Also the fact that there is a rougly 6% decline (5.94% to be exact) is evidence of this.

So, this GBP/USD deals with the British Pound in comparison to the US dollar. If you compare the two you have noise from factors affecting the GBP and from factors affecting the USD. If these factors are working together, a 6% deviation in 10 days is actualy quite common.

Again if you see the chart above, there are many declines/inclines on the chart that occur due to random events in both economies.

If we were to do some kind of statistical test on this, I know that this 6% decline/incline in 10 days would probably be within the range of 1.25 standard deviations of the mean (is basically very likely to happen).

The only way to seperate out the noise would be to build a basket of currencies and compare the pound to it. And, even if we did this, i'm sure there would be no way to prove widespread selling that exceeds anything other than a normal deviation.

Moreover, suppose that there was widespread selling specifically because "London's financial establishment" knew about these attacks. How would it be possible to silence thousands of investors to this fact? The selling pressure necessary to generate a 6% fluctuation isn't something 4 people in an office can do. It takes a hell of alot of investors selling.

Lastly, suppose there was really selling of the GBP because of a terrorist conspiracy why wouldn't there also be massive selling in the FTSE during this same period?

Do you see big declines in this chart surrounding July 7th?

What is more, forex markets typically are played by international investors whereas local exchanges (like the FTSE) has a much larger local component.

Recall once again the writer says .

There is nothing clear about this at all. What is clear is that this writer is a crackhead. If the writer's supposed 'undeniable evidence' is so easily unwound, what does this say about the rest of his research? I say it's speculative drivel.

Once again, this sounds like the real issue here is that the writer is trying to prove a point that is simply unproveable.

infowars just got owned

[b0ld]

Ya now apparently the rev. jesse jackson is a suspect in the bombing.....

Subject on top right hand corner
<=====P. Diddy????

[Dj Franco]

Its too bad every article that alex jones writes on infowars has a link attached as a source. Makes you guys look even stupider for not even looking on his site eh. You guys are hilarious.

[Dj Franco]

99.9 % of whats on infowars is stuff thats on Mainsteam media thats shown once and once only cause they are forced not to repeat it more then once ( ie Building 7 collapse, Only SHOWN once) He takes that and exposes it to us on his site.

[wum]

Franco, just keep something in mind.

We know that imperialism and consolidation and building a kingdom on earth have always been the goal of ambitious men, but this cannot be achieved through outright military aggression. No. A truly enslaved world needs a government that has a moral mandate.

The globalists fund both sides of the war, pitting equally powerful forces against eachother until they destroy eachother. America is on the warpath with half a dozen countries, and it's no accident that Clinton sold China ICBM's and other weapons technologies. This is no different in the way that Harriman Brown, or Ford was building munitions for the Nazis.

9-11 was a pathetically carried out scam that has been EASILY exposed. So to the war in Iraq has been exposed for the complete SHAM it was.

The fat man Moore made a cut and paste collection of news reports and made 180 million dollars from Farhenight 9-11.

Abu Ghareb was a controlled release. What else could it be, when ‘imbedded’ reporters must have they work vetted by the military first?

Bush is MEANT to be caught lying!

He is a patsy!

A lot of people are beginning to accept that the Neo-Cons are acting out the plans of PNAC, and think that if there must be a world government, better to be the hammer than the nail, right???

But history is repeating itself. America is Nazi Germany, and in the final act it is exposed as the evil empire and menace to the world and is destroyed.

Bush WORKS for the bosses in the U.K and Europe.

The Neo-Con movement (actually, Stalinist/Leninist/Trotskyites, even Chomsky laughs at "conservative" being in their lexicon) have done their business.

Powel, Armitage, Wolfowitz...they've done their bit and have now taken up plumb positions in the Internationalist arm of the NWO movement.

Bush has been left to take the heat of the people.

Only a STRONG U.N supported by the PEOPLE will allow the final act of ENDING the recent experiment in Liberal Democracy to come to fruition.

The people MUST support the U.N or they will fail. That’s the point of WARS.

By exposing 9/11, we give pretext for the UN to take down evil America to come in as saviors to impose their socialist NWO. We have to get to the ROOT of the matter, and show who is pulling all the strings.