Monday, January 02, 2006

If you are a conspiracy theorist....

Do us all a favour and read this Channel 4 News debunking of one of your more popular theories, which is that the London bombings were an 'exercise' run by Peter Power of Visor consultants, possibly involving the bombers conscripted as dupes, and there were no bombs on the Underground, but instead a 'power surge'. Just read it.

Then take a deep breath.

and then consider how vile it is that you post crap like this.

' certainly don't inform members of the general public either and, as no-one would tolerate the random exploding of innocent civilians as part of routine crisis management exercises that take place all the time, these exercises employ clever pyrotechnics, stuntmen, and actors to portray the parts of the 'civilians' and 'victims' involved in the crisis to be managed - just like in the movies where lots of things go bang all the time leaving lots of apparently horrific walking wounded, dead people and body parts in the aftermath.

This is precisely how you blow the roof clean off a diverted double-decker bus and leave a bundle of people standing on the top deck looking otherwise unharmed because, being hired hands, they knew the roof was going to be lifted off...

'...that the bus was part of a rehearsal operation explains why the bus doesn't appear to be charred, and the plastic seats are un-burnt, completely unlike any other pictures of 'real' bus bombs....It also explains how a number of people can be seen to be walking around on the top deck of the bus immediately after the 'explosion', none of whom are on fire, or showing any signs of visible distress that might arise from being caught up in a 'real' bomb blast.'

So there you go. We're all liars and fools. I'm an actor. Or possibly a stuntwoman. Or an undercover Government propagandist.

And these people think that they know the truth.

What do you think?


Anonymous Anonymous said...

Weelll....the thing is, if you were an actor/stuntwoman/undercover government propagandist thats exactly what you would say.

I'm kidding, of course. Anyone even remotely sensible knows that its all rubbish. These idiots are no different than those people you see with sandwich boards and bells claiming the world is going to end tomorrow.

I'm not at all opposed to people having their own opinions, but I think its absolutely vital that you're careful with them and that you don't trot around spouting them in front of people who have been through something very difficult and refusing to acknowledge that.

Happy New Year by the way...I hope 2006 is a great one for you. You really do deserve it.


January 02, 2006 11:30 am  
Blogger Rachel said...

Happy New Year to you too. I know these people are bonkers, but they have been linking to my blog and talking to me on normal discussion boards that I frequent and when I found out how my account of the bomb had been twisted to make it out to be a power surge I just saw red! And the conspiracy theories doing the rounds have been winding me up for months and months. Time to put a stop to it. So this recent having a go at them was like squeezing a nasty, pus-filled spot. A bit angry, a bit painful, but strangely satisfying.SPLAT! Aaaaah.


January 02, 2006 11:53 am  
Blogger The Antagonist said...

Thanks for deleting my original response to your post, Rachel. Very telling. Please feel free to continue to delete any other of my comments with questions that you don't like as the mood takes you. You know you've done it. I know you've done it and so do many, many other people.

Your actions continue to speak far louder than your words.

The facts about the train times, however, speak for themselves.

January 02, 2006 1:01 pm  
Blogger Rachel said...

Okay, what do my actions say?

Out with your accusations about me please.
I deleted your post since it was directing people to the offensive rubbish written on your blog where you continue to maintain there were no bombs - and I have given you enough publicity as it is. But actually, feel free to repost it. I think what you write says a great deal, and I am not going to protect readers - which includes survivors - from your drivel, they can read it for themselves. However painful and however irritating it is to read your lies and fantasies.

And this time, let's also have what you are inferring about me put in the open as well. Out with it. Now.

What do my actions say? What do my words say? What is the accusation you make?

Who am I? Who are you? Who 'power-surged the trains'? With what agenda? Who is lying? Why?

Why do you consider yourself to be a more reliable source than the police, dozens of proper journalists and hundreds of survivors?

And I am STILL WAITING FOR your response to the Channel 4 News rebuttal of the Peter Powers/Visor exercise conspiracy.

I won't delete you anymore, however objectionable you are, even if other survivors read your lies and are as insulted as me.

Let's hear you. Answer the questions.

January 02, 2006 1:15 pm  
Blogger lethalbuzzle said...

'The Antagonist'. Right. Do you have the remotest concept how bloody pompous you are, all else aside?

I'd happily just overlook people like him as cranks but the sad thing is that they do more damage than they think - to the people they presume to protect the interests of. Since they are the ones who shout the loudest about incessantly questioning the official version of events, they are easy for governments to designate as the leaders or archetypes of a group, as the representatives of anyone who reasonably asks for government disclosure and frankness. They can wave them off as ranting lunatics and conveniently with them all the more moderate, sensible seekers of truth. Anyone else who seeks quite rightly to demand the whole truth and government accountability finds themselves tarred with same crackpot brush, and dismissed also. Baby, bathwater, etc.

But that doesn't matter to the likes of this guy - the more people are 'against' him, the more chuffed with himself he is, the more self-righteous, the more deluded, the more fuelled to continue on what he thinks is the path of righteousness but is actually just a little alleyway of jumped-up, offensive shite that helps no one but himself.

Nice one. 'Pyrotechnics'? You berk.

January 02, 2006 1:34 pm  
Blogger Rachel said...

The Antagonist believes that there was a 1000 man exercise being run by Visor Consultants. That there were no suicide bombers.

For debunking of this crap, see Channel 4 link in post above.

He believes the bombs really were power surges as initially reported before the carnage was seen and before the investigation took place - and now, months on, despite the maimings and deaths, the smoke and the explosions - he STILL thinks it was power surges and that LU are covering it up by blaming terrorists.

He believes nobody was killed on the bus, instead that the bus was full of 'actors and stuntmen'.

He believes that I should not be offended by this. And nor should you.

He beleives that he and others who think like him are the best people to have an independent enquiry.

He refuses to answer my questions, instead he and another conspracist obsessively focus on some confusion over the train times and the bombers movements as reported in the media before they boarded the trains. Bridget Dunne refuses to state whether she believes that the bombers did in fact get onto public transport and blow themselves up, and what she thinks happened if they did not.

I ask these people for the last time:

Why do you deny there were bombs? In the face of all the evidence?
Why do you call us liars and actors?
Why do you not answer me when I point out C4 News have shown your Visor exercise theory to be rubbish? What is your answer to the C4 rebuttal?

What do you think has been achieved by such a cover up? 'Who benefits', to use a phrase you often throw at me? There's no more support for Blair, or Iraq, or ID cards, there's less. Draconian legislation has been rejected. Nowhere has been invaded. We have not bombed Bradford.

Survivors & other Londoners use the tube, go to work, go to the pub, they don't cower at home. Many of them have less love for the Government than they did before. No mosques have been stormed, Muslims seek greater integration & dialogue, not less,the bombers have been roundly condemened as criminals, everyone has condemend this as the acts of terrorists, not Muslims.

Never mind whether it is possible, it hasn't even achieved anything you might expect it to achieve, this so called black ops plan. Why can't you consider that?

Hree's another thought.

Investigative journalists are a bit like you - keen to know truth, willing to plough through detail. diligent and determined. The difference is, they are independent and don't have an agenda that they twist the facts to fit. They are not paranoid and they don't start with the theory that all is a lie and everyone is out to get them. They are hard to fool. They'll chase up leads for a story. Many of them are no fans fo the government. Why do you think that they are not following up your stories and allegations, but instead meekly swallowing whatever they are told in a highly unusual non-journo like way?

In fact C4 News DID even investigate your theory - and found it to be bunk.

Onto your personal insults....
What are you inferring about me? Who do you think I am?
PLease can you say what you think instead of these half-baked slurs and poisonsous hints and veiled threats.

And finally....

Do you understand how incredibly offensive you are to survivors and bereaved when you call us liars and spread lies and claim that there were no bombs?

Probably not. But hey, I'll leave it to others to draw their own conclusions. I've successfully drawn you out into the open, out from under your stone - and I am pleased to see that you are getting laughed at, as you deserve to be, for your arrogance, your paraniod fantasies and most of all your bloody cheek in coming over here and telling me you are right and we are wrong.


January 02, 2006 1:53 pm  
Blogger Rachel said...

Bzzz, thanks. That is the point of all this.


See, I can't afford our demands for a public enquiry to be tarred with the conspiracy theorist brush. That's why I am drawing them out and onto the blog and letting them rant and clearly distancing myself from them. It strengthens my case and protects me from being seen as one of them.

Mwah hahaha.

January 02, 2006 1:56 pm  
Blogger R said...

Happy New Year, Rachel. All credit to you for even bothering to engage with these people. I can't believe they're throwing this crap at you on your own website.

Let's get this out into the open, conspiracy guys. Are you saying that Rachel is a secret government agent, or aren't you? Are you saying that YOUR opinion of the appalling horrors she saw with her own eyes on July 7th trumps hers, or aren't you?

January 02, 2006 3:55 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

i hope you have a good 2006 don't let these people get you down. from what you have written in your blog it is a good thing that you all have each other at kings cross united for support

January 02, 2006 4:05 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It never ceases to amaze me how armchair experts and paranoid fantasists can sink to such depths and be so offensive (above all to you and other survivors, but also to the rest of us with a few brain cells and a sense of humanity). As they sometimes shout their crackpot theories out so loud that it's not possible to ignore them, I suggest pointing at them and laughing might relieve the anger they provoke.

Next, he'll probably come up with 'proof' that you were the marksman standing on the grassy knoll in Dallas, 1963.

January 02, 2006 4:10 pm  
Blogger Holly Finch said...

just a small say the government are tyryng to cover up the power surges by pretending they were bombs........i, like rachel, have absolutely no idea what they would gain from this, but you seem to please share.

So if this is the the flippin 'eck was there a 'power surge' on a bus? Oh you say, it wasn't a power surge. So what was it? I'm mightily impressed that they managed to get a bus load of actors, willing to die for whatever the government's cause was to get on a bus and blow up the bus (with what?) only an hour later.

'that which we seek to exclude returns to haunt us'' - hanif kureishi

January 02, 2006 4:53 pm  
Blogger Zhoen said...

I've seen sites taken over by mixers like the antagonist. Not terribly stable, they thrive on the abuse, the sound of their own ranting. I recommend just deleting him, silencing him, altogether, as beneath your bother to answer. He's a bully, controlling, mean and impervious to reason.
Your choice, of course, but he is, as you indicate, a believer- what he believes is set in stone.

January 02, 2006 5:08 pm  
Blogger Rachel said...

Well, he's got his platform with these last 2 posts, (I'm chasing him off if he wanders anyhwere else and off topic) - however he did fall rather neatly into my trap.

Which is that I was fully aware that conspiraloons were reading this blog, picking through the testimony of survivors and looking for 'evidence' to fit their bonkers theories. They have been doing so for months.One of them, Bridget, aka 'Prole' made it onto urban 75 where I post about life and relax and started being a pest there.

Whatever, but then they started jumping on the bandwagon and asking for an enquiry and joining their voices with ours. I'm campaigning for an enquiry into July 7th, I and some of the other survivors have indicated that we think there are learnings that need to be looked at. See Sunday Times piece in blogroll for reasons why, and numerous posts on this blog.

I thus needed to make it crystal clear that I am nothing to do with these conspiracy people. And that the sane and reasonable desire of myself and many others for some sort of independent enquiry into July 7th was not born out of a paranoid and delusional belief in lizards, psy-ops, whatever crap they spout, but rather to get something positive from this horror and to help people.

So, I lifted the stone, and I get them out into the open. On my blog, not their loony sites surrounded by clapping paranoid nutters, but here on a normal site, used by survivors and read by lots of ordinary peeople without wierdo agendas.

Because the alternative is, and this is a serious point, (fun and exasperating though this has all been) it's not appropriate, nor is it fair, that anyone who calls for an enquiry into 7th July to be denounced as a conspiracy theorist and bundled in with these highly vocal but tiny minority of people.

Especially hwen you look at what they are saying: that the bombs never happened, that the deaths & injuries were staged.

There are REAL questions we want answering, real learnings to take on board, and these paranoid lunatics do not help us in the search for answers. In fact, they make it easier for anyone who asks for clarity and answers and truth-telling to be seen as 'delusional' and 'wierd'. Which is bitter.

(Now of course,if I were a conspiracy theorist, I'd say that sounds like a PROPER conspiracy to me. Perhaps if these people didn't exist, the Illuminati Lizard Global Elite would have to invent them...)

But no. There are important questions to ask and improvements to crisis management and victim support to be made, and I and others really do want them answered. And so I felt I needed to tackle the frothing minority head-on. See what they say, and then point out what really matters.

Expose them: a hearty belly laugh is a powerful thing. And they are magnificently self-satirising.

My questions, my demands for clarity remain. And I don't want tin foil hattery to provide a convenient smokescreen for dismissing what we are asking.

January 02, 2006 5:36 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

hi rachel,

happy new year to you and j...btw..i watched london's celebrations on tv..i really liked the fireworks;i hope the tube "strike" didnt put a damper on things.

my suggestion to you is to ignore these conspiracy theorists and their crap,as beth says any sensible person knows its garbage..dont let it get to u.


January 02, 2006 7:01 pm  
Blogger Rachel said...

Happy New Year Seth!

And John, RW, Jez, Holly, Bzzz and Zhoen

J is shooting aliens on his new X box, and I am shooting down conspiracy loons! *wink* Splat! Ker-pow!

I think I will get bored faster though. Enough of this foolery, and time for a new post on something more interesting, I think! I'll keep these posts up and answer the conspracists here, but this blog is going back to more interesting subjects as of tomorrow x

January 02, 2006 7:45 pm  
Blogger Dr. Deb said...

Been late getting back on the blog thing...wanted to wish you and yours a Happy New Year.


January 02, 2006 11:46 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You know the "We are not afraid!" web site, well, how about "We believe"?

I agree, a public inquiry is needed

But, I guess we won't get it

(And in 50 years time, when the records get released... will we remember to look?)

Happy New Year Rachel

Thank you again


January 03, 2006 3:11 am  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


When I said "We beleive!" I meant in the reality, not the .... conspiracy theorist view

January 03, 2006 3:13 am  
Blogger Graeme said...

Power surge. That is crazy talk

January 03, 2006 6:55 am  
Blogger me said...

I too am a "conspiraloon". I believe that the 7/7 bombings were allowed to happen.

Why do I think this?

Reason 1: the alleged bombers were all under surveillance but that surveillance was removed, and the terror threat downgraded.

Reason 2: Benjamin Netanyahu was stopped from attending a conference close to Liverpool Street Station a few minutes before the bombs there went off. Amy Teibel of AP soon posted an article about this that indicated Israel had foreknowledge of the bombs. I personally asked the Israeli Embassy about this on the day and they denied this. However a few days later in Bild am Sontag Israel did confess that it received advance warning. British Intelligence knew too.

I personally believe now, despite the hype, that the Power/Visor Consulting coincidence may well be just that; a coincidence. It was a paper op, not involving people walking down tube lines planting suspicious devices. It is a disturbing coincidence to us conspiraloons because Dick Cheney was running several live operational simulations on 9/11.

But to add to this Israeli foreknowledge is the fact that shortly after 7/7 Israeli politicians were writing in mainstream media that the Muslim world needing teaching a lesson for 7/7 blah, blah, blah.

So why isn't Blair having an inquiry into 7/7? He pointed to the victims of 7/7 and their families when he wanted 90 day detention, but he won't give them/you your inquiry into the biggest terrorist attack on mainland Britain. WHY?

It will divert resources etc from the war on (t)error, he says. This is the same reason given by Cheney for not investigating 9/11. Yes the Kean Commission did "investigate" 9/11, and the word investigate is used in the loosest definition of the word. That was a bigger whitewash than the multitude of inquiries we had into Iraq/WMD/Kelly.

There is an inquiry into the shooting dead of Jean Charles de Menezes. That's one man's death.

There is an inquiry into the release of a mentally ill man who on his release committed murder. That's one man's death.

But no inquiry into 7/7. WHY?


One word: cover-up.

They knew. They knew it was coming. Just like US military top brass and politicians stopped flying commercial planes shortly before 9/11 and received warnings not to fly on the day. They knew. That's why Benjamin Netanyahu was saved, the recipient of "The Clean Break" document calling for war on Iraq, Syria etc.

That's why there is no public inquiry. They will publish a timetable of events and tell us what allegedly happened. But when?

But will we believe it? After all the Iraq/WMD BS?

In case you still have some unswerving allegiance to this government here are a few more facts they don't want you to know (which "conspiraloons" do know):
1. the banks do not have the money they loan you for your mortgages etc. The word "loan" is in fact false. They simply type the money into a computer and then transfer that number (not gold, silver etc) into your account. Look up "fractional reserve banking". T

2. Both world wars 1 and 2 were deliberately created for the UK and USA to gain ascendency.
See on World War 1.

There are events which are engineered to create a reaction in the mass psyche. They are called false flag operations. They are operations that create terror and pin the blame on others. The Gunpowder Plot was perhaps one of the first, designed to provoke hatred of Spain.

The classic though was 9/11.

7/7 is, I am sorry to say, just another one. There will probably be another one, and probably bigger, designed to provoke hatred of Muslims so we go charging into Syria, Iran and steal the natural resources, and relinquish are civil liberties.

I guess what I am saying is, the "conspiraloons" are focusing too much on the Power/Visor Consulting simulation, and they need to focus on the Israeli foreknowledge which is there in print in the Bild am Sontag 10th or 11th July 2005 edition.


January 03, 2006 8:55 am  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

My contribution to this …

1. Hardly a conspiracy - this is basic economics as taught to 15 year old economic students in the UK.

2. Again not a conspiracy theory but a valid historical analyses - albeit massively simplistic and one sided one. An Irish Republican Friend used to put the blame on both world wars on the British Empire. Truth is, the world is really so simple.

3. False flag operations might well exist but that does not prove that any thing that creates fear and panic is a false flag operation. Particularly as the objective of terrorist attacks is to spread fear and panic.

4. Intelligence on terrorist operations is such that there are many false alarms. Agencies have to judge between disturbance / dislocation / fear / panic caused by false alarms and risks associated with not calling real alarms. It is entirely likely that different agencies may call these things differently. Hence the likelihood of discrepancies. Over reacting can be as dangerous as not reacting.

In the end people will believe what they want to believe....

But I would not trust the Government as far as I could throw them.

January 03, 2006 11:57 am  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Conspiracy theorists come up with the most amazing twaddle, they really do. Having been involved on the periphery of "London Resilience" and having been heavily involved in the rail industry response to emergencies over the years (all types, not just attacks) I can assure you that emergency exercises involve nothing like that in the quote. The people playing the parts of injured passengers are provided for the parts and everyone knows what is happening and who they are. Health and Safety legislation doesn't allow the industry to kill off people in the name of an exercise, it would have a detrimental effect on recruitment, oddly enough ;-)

One thing we can be sure of, despite the blatant opportunism of politicians in the aftermath of such incidents, the preparation and planning that goes on does not involve the deliberate and cynical killing of innocent people for political ends. You have to be really dense to even come close to believing that. You can read into a photograph whatever fits your warped agenda if you so wish...

Frankly, people that claim this was a political stunt are beneath contempt. The incident last July was no more a political stunt than was the Twin Towers attack in September 2001. And there are plenty of numpties ready to believe Bush was behind that. Ye Gods!

January 03, 2006 12:25 pm  
Blogger Spirit of 1976 said...

I won't make any attempt to argue with the conspiracy theory loons, as I generally find such people are as impervious to counter-argument as any religious fundamentalist, which in a sense is what they are. They have a fixed worldview about what controls events, and trying to point out ambiguities or just plain errors in their arguments only marks us out as goons in the great deception.

All I can say is, the conspiracy theory nuts have done an impressive job of making themselves look utterly ridiculous. By attempting to hector and lecture a July 7th survivor, they show themselves up to be the pompous fools that they are.

January 03, 2006 6:28 pm  
Blogger R said...

These 7/7-deniers seem to fall into the same mindset as the historical negationists who pretend that the holocaust never happened.

January 03, 2006 6:34 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Happy New Year Rachel,
Like Longrider, I've had a (very) small link with London Resilience and you don't involve 1000 in a crisis management team - far too many people to make decisions, 10 tops. When London had a real practice, Bank tube was closed on a Sunday and arouind 300ish people were involved as victims and rescuers.
One of my friends in London Fire Brigade is a senior officer and knows it wasn't a practice or a fake.
As for the cover-up for a power surge - why cover up a power surge with a series of terrorist attacks, it's totally rediculous!
So that idea is out the window.

News Papers are in business to sell papers, so if they can find someone "who knew beforehand" then they'll print it & everyone who wants fame knew beforehand and will tell everyone they can - so no hard facts there either.

Finally, Mr. Powers didn't say his plan was exactly the same as the real events, he said it was similar, one less "fact".

If I was planning a simulation I'd choose Kings Cross, Euston, Bank and Paddington.
The busiest time on the tube is 8:45 - 9:00, hmm lets choose a time hey what about 8:55, sounds good to me. Seems like the last fact in the conspiracy theory has been disprove - sorry guys.

Try living in the real world, yes I know governments are bad, some worse than others, but I cannot believe Mr Blair (lying, ineffectual, uncharasmatic, waste-of-space, worse leader the UK has had since Chamberlain that he is) did not do this.

All the best


January 04, 2006 9:37 am  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The twin towers didn't collapse because of fire, they collapsed because the upper storeys of the structures were weakened by the impact. That caused a cascading effect.

It is reasonable to suppose that not all information is in the public domain - to draw from that a conclusion of a false flag operation is not justified.

January 04, 2006 11:27 am  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Print a picture of the supposed Leeds bombers in London on 7/7 - with a time stamp - OTHERWISE you're the tin foil hat bullshitter.

Those guys were framed.

January 04, 2006 12:05 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I don't deny the bombs but they were under the trains not in rucksacks.

January 04, 2006 12:16 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I know I said I was not going to get drawn into this but...

For arguments as to why the Twin Towers came down see

I think if there was any credible evidence that the US government had been actively involved in 9/11 then the queue to of people queuing up to litigate would include just about every one in the USA.

January 04, 2006 12:19 pm  
Blogger Rachel said...

Right. When I have a sec I will put as much as I can - facts - verifiable ones - up about 7/7 - so everyone can see what I know - though stuff that I have been told in confidence I won't put up.

I'm not being drawn into 9/11 as this blog is nothing to do with that.

People with wild theories can come here onto this post and the last one and argue but please don't run amok over the rest of the blog.

I do think it is quite funny, as well as irritating - seeing all the different theories - some of which are quite mad.And easy to discredit, fortunately.

Right now I am in the midst of having a huge clear out of junk gtom my flat before I go back to work tomorrow, so time is limited, but I'll stick something up over the next week or so.

This has generated a lot of interest and now I have had the opportunity to vent my huge irriatation at conspiracy theorists in general and people who call me and other survivors liars in particular, I have calmed down and want to put my account up in order to draw a line under things, because this is getting a bit tiresome.

Will be back later with more stuff before moving onto more positive things, right now my priority is getting back to the three new Kings Cross passengers who have got in touch and organising what we as a group are doing to mark the 6th month anniversary, after which I hope we will be able to take another step away from the events of July 7th which will be most welcome.

And I hope that people can now see that askign for an enquiry does not make me a conspiracy theorist, rather the opposite in fact.

January 04, 2006 12:47 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"I think if there was any credible evidence that the US government had been actively involved in 9/11 then the queue to of people queuing up to litigate would include just about every one in the USA. "

January 04, 2006 12:48 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Make sure you weighed Rachel's facts against all the stuff being supressed by the lying whore media.

January 04, 2006 12:50 pm  
Blogger Rachel said...

Look. I am just not going into a ping pong battle with 'facts' about 9/11 - as a survivor and eye witness my expertise is on July 7th, inside carriage one not inside the WTC.


I will say that whatever happened on September 11th, the subsequent invasion of Afghanistan, & Iraq and the belief of certain Muslims that the Crusader West has an agenda to destroy them - is very likely one of the reasons that 4 young British men put bombs in their rucksacks and justified this as being a holy thing. Khan said as much in his 27 minute video.

What I am interested in refuting on this blog on these two last posts ONLY is the idea that 7th July was a false flag operation, with fake bombs, bombs under trains, 1000 man exercises, faked deaths, tipped-off Israelis, power surges and the like.

However the twin towers happened to crumble, discussion of that is just not the point of my blog - the blog is about my life after July 7th . And part of my life after July 7th is my anger at people saying there were no bombs. As there was a bomb on my train, ( not under it, not a power surge) as I know people bombed on other trains, and the bus, that is something I am keen to refute.

You have loads of places to talk about 9/11 and exactly how and why the buildings fell down so PLEASE don't do it here. Please.

Let me have this place to talk about July 7th, and life afterwards, and let me answer the people who post ill-informed bullshit about what happened on my carriage (when they weren't even there) , and let my words not be twisted nor my message misinterpreted.

And after I've posted one last account, to answer those who have twisted what i say, and to satisfy the genuine curisity of others, and for me to get it all out in the open to draw a line under it, then, I am going back to what I started the blog about.

Life, my life, our lives after the bomb exploded, life after trauma, love and compassion and hope in darkness. My life and my personal journey after tragedy and near-death and hatefilled young men struck me, twice. Making sense of it all, that is enough to be going on with, without 9/11 conspiracy theories getting in the way.
Thank you.

January 04, 2006 2:10 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Rachel "What I am interested in refuting on this blog on these two last posts ONLY is the idea that 7th July was a false flag operation, with fake bombs, bombs under trains, 1000 man exercises, faked deaths, tipped-off Israelis, power surges and the like. "

Unfortunately you refuted nothing, show us a picture of the Leeds 'bombers'in London with a timestamp otherwise stop LYING.

January 04, 2006 2:52 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Rachel, did you see an Asian geezer blow up on your carriage?

January 04, 2006 2:54 pm  
Blogger Rachel said...

'Rachel, did you see an Asian geezer blow up on your carriage? '

Germaine Lindsay was Jamaican, keep up.

'Anonymous said...

Unfortunately you refuted nothing, show us a picture of the Leeds 'bombers'in London with a timestamp otherwise stop LYING. '

See why I get so angry with these people? How unpleasant. Shall I delete this, or shall I leave it up to show how nasty some of these people are? I think I will leave it up, just to prove why I get so angry.

January 04, 2006 3:26 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Bloody hell. They really are simply loons. As has been stated by others, I really don't see that engaging them in argument or debate will be any good whatsoever. Why the fuck should you have to prove what happened to you? (sorry about the language - but people like them really piss me off - I can't imagine how angry you must be at them).

You don't have to prove anything - nobody takes the paranoid fantasies of these sad wankers seriously, except for other sad wankers.

Chin up! All us normal human beings are 100% behind you.

January 04, 2006 3:38 pm  
Blogger Rachel said...

Mark Barrett and Prasanth V

Hi, thanks for the message, if you let me know what you are doing I'll post details. We 're meeting privately as a survivor group on the 7th and we want to avoid the media completely, so I won't say what we are doing , or where we are going, but I can pass on the details via here of your ceremony.

January 04, 2006 3:45 pm  
Blogger JonnyB said...

Delurking for a second to say 'what Jez said'. The internet does, unfortunately, give the barking mad a veneer of respectibility and professionalism. All you can do is take a deep breath and move on.

All the best

January 04, 2006 4:13 pm  
Blogger me said...

AntiWar focused on the Bild Am Sonntag article from 10th July. It is available at

This is not just anyone claiming foreknowledge, this is Mossad chief Meir Dagan.

As I said, when I read the Amy Teibel story published on the day 7/7 I asked the Israeli Embassy about this. This was six hours after the bombs. They denied they had received advance warning.

But then the Mossad chief states that yes, they did. Now any warning, if not received at the London Embassy directly would have been relayed to the London Embassy immediately, not more than six hours after receipt.

But there is also a discrepancy about if it was British Intelligence who warned Israel, or was it Israel who warned the British. Was it the British who stopped Netanyahu in his hotel foyer, or was it the Israelis who stopped him in his hotel room. The reports never agree.

And then try to find any mention of this foreknowledge in the British press (which I can't find) and you've got yourself something very, very fishy.

And Blair will not investigate this! It will be interesting what is said about this, if anything, in Blair's fairytale version of events.

Something else to consider: the Israelis were also writing on the 9th July that the bombs were detonated simultaneously. The British police were still telling us on the 9th that the bombs were staggered.

So the Israelis say they got six minutes advance warning but could not do anything because it was "only six minutes".

What was the exact time they got the warning?
Who gave them the warning?
Who received it?
What did they do with the warning
Who did they warn?
What was the exact content of the warning?
Did it warn of simultaneous explosions? If not, why were the Israelis writing on the 9th of simultaneous explosions while 4 days later the British story still claimed the bombs were staggered?

I'm really, really sorry you can't see the importance of this.

These questions were not in the list of questions supplied by The Independent after Blair announced there would be no inquiry.

Best of luck with trying to get your public inquiry.

January 04, 2006 4:42 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I almost don't want to post here as some of the company posting in is horrible.

To the conspiracy theorists who want to deny the bombings ever happened please show some compassion. A friend of mine was hurt seriously. He is going to recover physically thank God but its still changed him. He isn't the same person he used to be - someone who never met him blew themself up in his carriage. Can you not understand why I find it insulting that you say people such as my friend and Rachel here are liars?

Sometimes it is hard for me just as an ordinary Londoner getting back on the tube despite being lucky enough not to be on one of the trains it still has a lasting affect so please show compassion for people who were hurt or killed and don't insult our intelligence.

I beleive there should be a public enquiry of course. If nothing else to prove there is a link between the Iraq war which I and none of my friends wanted and this terrible event. However as someone who worked albeit briefly as a journalist WE DO NOT cover up major stories. if this was truth a journalist would be busting their ass to break the story. The only times facts are supressed is when it contains details of death that would be too upsetting for the public to hear and other such instances

Rachel I am sorry for ranting a bit here - I meant to stay calm. I hope this new year brings all the happiness in the world

S x

January 04, 2006 6:51 pm  
Blogger Rachel said...


I am an anti war campaigner and have been for 12 years,

I am a vocal campainger for civil liberties

this blog is dedicated to the victims of ALL bombings and has been since it was set up,

I am NOT I repeat NOT talking about 9/11 conspiracy theories on this blog.

Because you have enough places to talk about such things an dthis is not an appropriate place for reasons I have already stated. I do not want my personal blog over run with theoroes about the Twin Towers. Please respect my wishes on this and go elsewhere.




January 04, 2006 9:20 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


January 04, 2006 9:28 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Rachel - you are a remarkable woman, for coming both experiences. You go girl. As for the conspiracy theorists - GET A LIFE.

January 04, 2006 9:37 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anonymous, leave your name you coward, and don't you dare tell Rachel she doesn't know what the hell is going on Iraq, and that herhead is in the sand, after everything she has said and done.
Her friend Gareth is a doctor there. I don't think she has even mentioned that, but I know what she has told me about what he sees on a daily basis and it is terrible. How dare you?
This is her personal blog, and it is not about 9/11 theories it is about her life after a bomb went off feet away, killing 26 people, and I'll thank you to have some respect for what she asks. You have dozens of places to swap 9/11 theories AND her SURVIVIOR DIARY IS NOT ONE OF THEM, can you respect that and not act like an utter c*nt? I wonder, I really do. Sorry Rach, you don't seserve these wankers.

janie xx

January 04, 2006 9:54 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

All i'll add to this is, Rachel, sorry, but you do not know the truth any more than anyone else.

You've had a bad experience with this particular writer who has used your words to support his own theory, however, you don't do yourself any favours by claiming that your version of events is the truth and that anyone who disagrees is a moron.

If you don't want to talk about 911, you can talk about Pearl Harbour, Oklahoma, Operation Northwoods, Vietnam, Gulf War 1&2, Waco.. take your pick. It's always the same answer.

Governments Lie, People Die.

January 04, 2006 10:23 pm  
Blogger Rachel said...


It is not 'my version'.

It is the accepted version - for a reaon - the accepted version is built up from many, many witness statements.

Just you tell me why I should accept your version and the version of people who WERE NEVER THERE - who claim it is a) power surges b) bombs under trains c) simulations d) psy ops ?

Really, why? Why on earth should I?

You try and make out it is me against you, but no, it is US - the witnesses who were there- versus the fantasists and the conjecturers - who weren't.

The people close to it versus the people reading about it on the internet.

Should I believe you? What the hell for?

My own experience, which is part of it - but AND THIS IS THE KEY PART - the experience of many, many witnesses whom I KNOW tells me otherwise?.

Why on earth should I listen to people with a clear agenda to 'prove' a Global Conspiracy? Why? It is ludicrous.

If you saw a child run over and killed before your eyes, would you accept it if I said the child still lived and was uninjured?

If your husband beat and raped you, would you accept it if I said your injuries were self inflicted or faked?

If a bomb went off on your train, would you accept it if you were told it was electricity?

If you saw the flash, felt the blast and saw the bodies, if you were deafened by the explosion & saw the glass and metal twisted, were covered with the blood, why would you accept that it was NOT a bomb?

I'm no supporter of the Iraq war, of the Governemtn in power at the moment, I am not a supporter of Bush.

But you are mistaken when you say 7th July was a Government conspiracy, when nothing, NOTHING you have said is as convincing as the evidence of my own eyes and the testimony of the dozens of witnesses who were there too.

And as I've pointed out ad nauseam - it's made the Govt. more unpopular - lessened support for the war - and hasn't enabled ID cards or draconian terror laws to be passed either.

Deal with it, I've got a much, much stronger case than you to say what happened in my carriage - not only was I there, but I know 70 people who were there too, and I know survivors from other bombs, bereaved, have access to all the survivr /bereaved websitesand am in contact with LU staff and the police,

you have merely internet conjecture!

Give it up, you just look silly, there's no way you can win this one.

I'm too close, you're too far away. We have one story, conspiracists have dozens of them - and even more questions - but no answers.

The more frantically you people post, the more you call me LIAR, the more you damage your credibilty and claims of impartiality. You look daft, not me.

Which is sweet , really.

January 04, 2006 10:58 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Thus spake the July 7th Minister of Truth.

January 04, 2006 11:50 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


There are enough anomalies on this blog alone to blow holes through the version we are being told and I am surprised that you don't aknowledge them.

The London ambulance despatcher Ambulance Control Room account of July 7th states that the call came from Paddington for ambulances to Edgware Road at 9.20, which fits the original time line of 9.17. (before the story changed to simultaneous explosions at 8.50)

Ray Wright talks of train 311 between Kings X and Russell Square, which fits the original train number (before the story changed to train number 331). Hero of the Year now an M.B.E

You state the train you were on was the 8.56 (before the story changed to 8.50) Rachel's Story in the Sunday Times

Blue Watch enter carriage 346A: "it had just turned 10am when Roche began striding along the dark tunnel towards the stranded train. No one had a clue what had caused its sudden breakdown."
Harrowing story of Blue Watch fire service crew on 7th July
The carriage of the train was apparantly carriage 166 not 346A.


January 04, 2006 11:56 pm  
Blogger Rachel said...

I have answered EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THESE QUESTIONS ALREADY.In some cases, several times.

I am getting bored and angry repeating myself.

*The group confirms 8.50, read the blog, read the Antagonist, read urnab 75, I have covered this enough now.

Yes, it was train 311. 346A is what I understand the carriage is referred to during the investigation, that is the name for it now, as a crime scene.

*I've already explained at length about the 8.56 train, do I have to keep repeating myself? It is gone midnight, I'm bored with going over this yet again. Read the bloody blog, read the Antagonist, I have answered you people time and time again. For the last time. The 8.56 is what it was referred to at the start , so that's what we called it, I attached no mystical significance to this, for all I know that was the time it was menat to change drivers or arrive at Piccadilly Circus or something, but the bombs definitely went off at 8.50am. I sent a text from Russell Square at 9.16am. It took 15 mins approx to walk between the tracks in single file to Russell Square station, plus 10 mins of confusion when the bomb went off and we wer eon the flor/blasted/screaming/trying to work out what the hell had happened. 8.56am doesn't give me long enough to get down the trackjs. And I checked with the group, so I could report back to you people, and I asked 'when did the bomb go off' and people came back - ten to nine.

'Minister of Truth ' anonymous coward commenter/troll. Please leave your name. Please say something other than insults.

I 'm not deleting you, however. I will let people see what a nasty piece of work you are. You think I am making this up? What the bloody hell for?

January 05, 2006 12:20 am  
Blogger Dave said...


Ps - You're so brave with your anonymity. Do you want my home phone number? My address? Want to meet in the pub and chat? Cockfarmers.

January 05, 2006 12:29 am  
Blogger Numeral said...

According to the official story Lindsey Germaine blew up train 331. The train Rachel was on, according to Ray Wright, was 311. What was the name of the suicide bomber who blew up 311?

Fifth suicide bomber required. Please apply within.

January 05, 2006 4:47 am  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Rachel said...
'Rachel, did you see an Asian geezer blow up on your carriage? '

Germaine Lindsay was Jamaican, keep up.


January 05, 2006 6:33 am  
Blogger Rachel said...

Germaine blew up 311, the train I was on. 331 - not bombed. Possible example of media getting things wrong SHOCKAH. Grow up.

I am not answering trolling anonymous questions any more. If you want answers you can a) be polite & show some degree of sensitivity b) leave your name.

And I am not answering anything that is sensitive; this is still a criminal investiagtion.

January 05, 2006 7:33 am  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'm really not trolling I just want some evidence to back you viewpoint which refuses to consider anything other than some guys from Leeds attacked London Underground. Obviously you didn't seen Germaine blow up and that's why you are becoming aggressive towards my posting.

January 05, 2006 8:58 am  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Tam, unless you can provide a single piece of forensic proof or a single foto of the Leeds guys in London to support your Conspiracy Theory accusing them, STFU.

January 05, 2006 9:57 am  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


January 05, 2006 10:03 am  
Blogger Rachel said...

Right, that is it. Final warning.

Any rude, objectionable, anonymous comments will be deleted.

Thanks Tam, and everyone else who has told me to walk away. STFU means ' Shut The Fuck Up', which says it all.

This is, as Tam said, a personal website survivor diary and you are here as guests. Rude guests will not be tolerated. I do not have to justify myself to you people, and please remember that. This is not 'my' version, it is THE version, comprised from witness accounts and forensic investigation by the police. My patience is wearing paper-thin. The only reason I am going to leave offensive comments up here is for posterity, so people can see what sort of company conspiracy theorists keep. And think about whether they want to be associated with this sort of bullying, aggressive, rude behaviour - irrespective of the sincerity (or otherwise) of the beliefs held, and the social skills and mental functioning abilities (or otherwise) of the theoriser.


January 05, 2006 10:26 am  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

January 05, 2006 10:50 am  
Blogger Rachel said...

Anonymous said...'Sorry if STFU offends but Tam's attitude is offensive and outrageous...'

Right. That's it. Deleted, and banned. You were warned.

January 05, 2006 10:58 am  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hi Rachel,

Have just read your post as well the nonsense from the Antagonist - words fail me.


January 05, 2006 11:28 am  
Blogger Holly Finch said... have enough battles to fight. leave this one to fight itself...they will drown in their own shit......x

January 05, 2006 12:16 pm  
Blogger Rachel said...

I know, very unedifying spectacle isn't it?

With a few courteous exceptions, those pushing an alternative reality of 7th July have hardly covered themselves in glory nor inspired confidence in their ability to behave like reasonable human beings let alone fearless truth seekers whose words we should trust to uncover the so-called 'real story' behind 7th July. They really should stick to reading comics or Enid Blyton.

Paul M, Janie, Tam, Mark & Prasanth, Sx, Longrider, Ruth, Gary, Dr Deborah, Graham and Johnny B and all those who wished me happy new year - happy new year to you too. Onwards and upwards!

Yours truthfully,

Rachel North

January 05, 2006 12:21 pm  
Blogger MatGB said...

Ye gods. Rachel, at times, I want to have lots of people comment on my blog. Then I read this sort of comments thread, and I reslove to go back to encouraging people to blog replies that I can link to.

I especially like the lunacy that by believing the bombs were bombs you accept all parts of the official version including who planted them and you need to prove it was them personally. Right...

Enquiry. Just to shut the loons up.

January 05, 2006 9:04 pm  
Blogger Rob said...


Like I said in my comment on your previous post about the tinfoil hats, stop responding to them. They don't actually pay any attention to what you say (as is shown by the way they quote you as though you were supporting them). They're True Believers, and impervious to evidence or argument, like creationists or holocaust deniers.

The truly funny thing is, these people who are supposedly so hard-headed and sceptical about evidence seem unaware of the possibility of a "time-stamped" picture being faked. Maybe there's no such thing as Photoshop in their parallel universe.

(1) ignore them all. Treat them like Nigerians offering you a share of TEN MILLION POUNDS;
(2) delete anonymous posts without exception;
(3) delete any post not primarily concerned with 7/7 (there are other places to discuss 9/11 or the Iraq war);
(4) keep calling for a public enquiry;
(5) have a happy new year.

January 06, 2006 1:17 pm  
Blogger Rachel said...


I have indeed begun ignoring them, and the traffic has stopped, I'm glad to say. Thanks for your good advice and happy new year to you too.


January 06, 2006 1:20 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I wish to remain anonymous, but have a small piece of information these weirdos (and of course all you sane people out there)may want to hear. But Rachel seems to have done a good job scaring them off already. I was in contact with Scotland Yard directly every day for the week following July 7 giving statements and the like, as I was personally injured in the Piccadily attack. Before you slate me for claiming this is concrete evidence, what I am about to say is NOT EVIDENCE nor should it be taken as anything of the like and represents information passed to me via 2 Inspectors who will remain unnamed. Therefore it represents what 2 people were told by the highest ranked officers, and in turn only what they they could tell me without tarnishing their investigation. So make of it what you will. Do not quote any of this as fact, it is not, and is in part my own partially UNINFORMED OPINION, but is an interesting slice of what Scotland Yard suspected. I am also not a historian or a journalist, just an ordinary person caught up in all this.
I was able to get a brief daily update, off the record, of their investigation and what they were piecing together. Only on the Sunday following were the 2 officers officially informed it was actually a suicide attack, although it was suspected a lot earlier. It was suspected due to typical suicide bomber remains being found, i.e. decapitation and only torso remains intact.
Previously, they beleived the explosives were left on the train in large rucksacks on the floor. This was due to the large volume of lower limb losses and injuries, aswell as injuries sustained by the deceased. Damage to the floor of the train also indicated that the explosives were left on the floor. Because of this it may have initially appeared that the explosives were under the train.
The following is my own OPINION.
From how busy I know the train was on that day the bomber may have removed his bag once on the train to make more room, or may have sat down with his bag on his lap. Although I don't see how he could have in the short time between moving from the platform and the explosion. Nor could this have been easy to do in the packed carriage. Unfortunately I suspect nobody will know these facts for sure due to the large loss of life around the bomber. I do not know why injuries were largely to lower limbs.
Therefore, can't you people just accept the fact that the damage was so horrific, due to it being an unvented explosion in a small confined tunnel, that it was hard to get definate answers straight away, even for people trained for these exact incidents. Leave it at that. Sure, there is an argument that there should be an investigation, but you should not attempt to piece this together yourself from now ancient misleading reports and your own opinions.

January 07, 2006 6:29 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It's very sad that people who find gaps or contradiction in some official stories are called loons and conspiracy theorists. Yes - some comments are so far out they deserve to be ignored, but if a person has valid concern based on facts and evidence then they have a possibility and not just a theory.

20 years back, conspiracy theorists accused British Intelligence of planting double agents in the IRA. The nutters who looked at who performed executions and bombings on behalf of the IRA were proved right by people like Stakeknife under MI6 control.

Another thought we’d paid money to Bin Laden and wanted him to kill a foreign leader we'd fallen out with. David Shayler proved this in court and the evidence is on the net. Bin Laden took the money and ran.

Then it was said that Britain recruited Islamic terrorists to create havoc in Serbia. And after they killed a group of kids, Serbia reacted and we had a reason for war. America got a new military home to launch attacks. It helped us bomb an Afghan wedding, Belgrade TV, a Serb train and the Chinese embassy

The string of fake Iraq accusations took hundreds of hours work. All done for a war. Conspiracy fact.

Sit down for this bit. Some governments do evil and sometimes conspire with bad people. Conspiracy theorists and whistleblowers were attacked for exposing the Iran contra affair, the USS Liberty attack, the Tonkin incident, the Bay of Pigs, Watergate etc. But they were all true.

Many philosophers like Machiavelli taught that a government needs a perception of terror to unite people under their leader. If there’s only good and evil and the terrorists are evil, then government is good and have support from the people.
And Hegel stated to reform, a leader must create a negative condition that can be used to justify his reform.

I'm not suggesting any dodgy activity, but it takes a bloody good reason to be ignorant enough to say 'You are with us or with the terrorists.' An enemy could allow a leader to rule by fascism, under the cover of national security. If you disagree on policy then you are a traitor. Laws don't apply to leaders. War is peace, Give up freedom to protect our liberty. Bomb them into our democracy. Do not question.

It's common to mock conspiracy weirdo’s who question authority. Like Dr David Kelly questioning 45 minutes. Or conspiracy nuts that deny we are safer for killing 30,000 children in the war. Last year Rumsfeld said the claim America used chemical weapons on women and children is a conspiracy. Yet it was true. Finally some were called terrorist friends for stating that Saddam and Al Qaeda were enemies and that Iraq had no terrorists and never seen a suicide bomber. But Bush's sharp logic pointed out that although that's true, we got there just in time as thousands are creating terror now. Bush said it is lucky we were there.

It's not wrong for people to question leaders. Wrong of those who questioned the morality of Nagasaki and Hiroshima. Only conspiracy nutters think the children and poor farmers deserved to live.

If you hate alternative theories like the Iraq WMD hoax, that's fine. But don't group real questions alongside big foot and the Loch Ness monster claims. Perhaps they have knowledge far deeper than you see in a tabloid. History is packed with evidence to justify it.

Today's theory might be tomorrows truth. If you venture outside the cloned opinion from the TV or papers and use multiple opinions to create a view it's not bad. We shout down others because of a fear anything that might shatter our 'reality'.

Like the doubt that the blood test data for Henry Paul (Princess Diana’s crash driver) was correct. Last years conspiracy has become fact as the blood was mixed up. The sheep have permission to discuss the story within their belief comfort zone.

Evil exists because good people turn and look the other way. Yes - some conspiracy theorists are wacko. But we have a democratic duty to understand what our leaders say and if we’re unsure we voice valid concerns. Ignore the nutters. But anyone who tries to suppress that right ignores history and the price paid by our previous generations. People who aim to offend are idiots and a waste of time. But a logical alternative view free from abuse shouldn't be rejected because we are confused or scared.

I'll stop my whine now as there is a News Alert on a major global event. Brad Pitt might have called his ex wife. On the phone. They spoke on the phone. Is it back on??

But the biggest event in history gripped us for a month. Michael Jackson fell asleep on a bed..... with a boy asleep there too.

If there is a more significant event in human history, then it is only a conspiracy.

January 11, 2006 4:40 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I read my comments and should say that I'm not promoting any theory. I just have strong views on free speech and worry about loose laws. Indirect incitement to an entity that Blair labels as terrorist for example.

Final point:

Rachel - I was impressed by your excellent case for an enquiry. We need to understand how communities feel. Tony Blair has almost banned discussion on it, but that is why hatred festers.

Torture pictures and dead kids by our illegal war can cause desperate anger. It is no excuse for terror, but why are we financing a war that we didn't want. We are put at risk.

We cannot win a war against something we can't define. Terrorism is complex and is an ideology.

I know we're told they hate our freedom. That's why Blair is taking our freedom before they can. But who are 'they'? And is it possible that they aren't consumed with envy of our freedom?

We need to understand. It's possible that they are upset when we kidnap and torture them. A father that finds his child dead because we used chemical weapons might see that injustice as evil. Torture by democracy hurts just like torture by dictatorship. I have a theory that our sanctions after 1991 to punish Saddam were flawed too. Perhaps we really thought we can win the Iraqi hearts and minds by killing 1.5 million women, children and men. Watching a loved one die because the British deny your right to medicine, causes hate.

Less rights, more terror because Blair lied. And we can't even learn from July 7. What happened to the old Cool Britannia?

January 11, 2006 5:56 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

wow, this all seems a bit heated, I would like to say that the whole event was very nasty, but why is rachel saying the conspiracy theory is that their was no bombs just a large power surge I had a brief look at all the conspiracy theories and that is not the major claim. People have a right to be suspicious with the frame ups of all the ira bombers (who remembers the birmingham 6 etc.) Mi5 are pretty slow so how did everyone know the bombers were who they were so soon? I believe we should have a fully independant enquiry. clear it all up yeah, wicked

August 14, 2007 1:43 am  

Post a Comment

<< Home