Qutb, don't duck this one (London Bombing)

by **Byrne** » Thu May 18, 2006 9:21 am

Sepka, <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Why? What possible advantage could accrue to the government from killing this man?<hr></blockquote> To deflect attention away from the events of 7th & 21st July 2005.

by **antiaristo** » Thu May 18, 2006 9:54 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>What possible advantage could accrue to the government from killing this man? -Sepka the Space Weasel<hr></blockquote> I'll repeat myself if I must. Operation Kratos. Added on edit <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Reporting for tonight's Panorama, Peter Taylor gives the most definitive account to date of the hugely controversial alleged 'shoot to kill' policy, Operation Kratos. Jean Charles de Menezes was an innocent victim, shot seven times in the head by two undercover officers from the Metropolitan Police's elite CO19 firearms team. The programme (Panorama: Stockwell - Countdown to Killing, BBC ONE, 9.00pm) asks how Kratos evolved and how the operation went wrong. Barbara Wilding was the senior officer charged with devising the Kratos policy. She is now Chief Constable of South Wales. She headed the Suicide Bomber Working Party tasked with reviewing strategy to deal with the threat of suicide terrorism after 9/11. Says Wilding: "I was asked exactly what it says on the tin which is to look at our current counter terrorism strategy and identify any gaps in that strategy to deal with this new threat. "We had gaps, and we had to fill those gaps as soon as possible." 'Kratos' was formally signed off operationally and legally at a meeting on 22 January 2003 at MI5 headquarters in London. But according to Barbara Wilding the scenario which occurred on 22 July 2005 was not one the Metropolitan Police had anticipated and planned for. The policy was worked on for 15 months with input from senior police officers, the Home Office, M15, the SAS and Government law officers. Kratos dealt specifically with a spontaneous suicide attack when there was no intelligence about it. The other scenario, in which there was detailed intelligence about an attack on a fixed event, was called Operation Clydesdale. Says Wilding: "The planning that we did, did we look at a mobile intelligence gathering operation going live? The answer is no we didn't." Panorama reveals that there was no specific plan to cover such a rapidly escalating scenario - so officers had to adapt their procedures accordingly. Also in the programme, Lord John Stevens, Commissioner, Metropolitan Police from 2000 to 2005, says that since 9/11 the Metropolitan Police had repeatedly asked the Home Office to provide radios that would work deep underground. Says Stevens: "It was raised with the Home Secretary at the time and the Home Office, it was a major issue. "Communications are essential, and the reasons for that is in a fast moving situation, you have to inform the officers involved what is taking place. Equally importantly they have to get back in touch with you." "All I can say is that we continued to ask for this kind of thing to be addressed. You can take it from me, that we pressurised as far as possible, and I personally pressurised for the communication systems to be working." Panorama endeavours to explain what really happened that day. And with exclusive interviews with senior Metropolitan Police officers involved in the evolution and implementation of Kratos and filming of CO 19's training, the programme explores the wider issues raised by Stockwell as Panorama follows the de Menezes family from Brazil to London in their quest for answers.<hr></blockquote> <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2006/03_march/08/panorama.shtml">www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice...rama.shtml</a> Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=antiaristo>antiaristo</A> at: 5/18/06 9:09 am

by **Dreams End** » Thu May 18, 2006 9:58 am

I don't know if this still stands up at all, but I had fun writing it. From my sadly orphaned blog last July: <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Saturday, July 16, 2005 Famous Detective Aids Scotland Yard in Bombing Investigation! Reader's of Dream's End are the first to be informed that Scotland Yard is leaving no stone unturned in order to solve the recent case of "Terror in the Tube"! As part of this effort, they've turned for help to a famous detective, who, unfortunately, must remain anonymous for purposes of this sensitive work. All we can tell you is that he is Belgian, somewhat portly and extremely well dressed. We got a chance to speak with him right after he was briefed on the case. We met at a restaurant in an undisclosed (but very posh) hotel. DE: It is an honor to meet you. Famous Detective (FD): Mais non, the pleasure is mine. DE: Tell us, why were you brought in on this case? It's obvious that Al Qaeda was behind this attack. FD: Yes, mon ami, I think maybe a bit too obvious. DE: Well, what do you mean by that? FD: Tell me. What would the motivation for these bombings be? DE: Clearly, Al Qaeda wants to intimidate Great Britain into pulling their troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan. FD: Vraiment, and tell me, how do the British people feel about this war? DE: Well, it's quite unpopular actually. FD: And this bombing, it increases or decreases the public support for the so-called "War on Terror"? DE: Well, it seems for now to be increasing support. Many of the Prime Minister's critics are backing off, at least for now. FD: And would this not be the expected result of such an atrocity? DE: I suppose so. FD: I, as well, mon ami. A country pulls together in times tragiques. Which is why I must begin this investigation by wondering: who benefits from this atrocity? Par exemple, there are many rather extreme measures being proposed in order to combat Les Terroristes in London, non? And some of these measures were rather unpopular? And now, voila, everyone wants these harsher measures? DE: I suppose so. Actually, a recent poll I read says exactly that, so I suppose you must be correct. FD: And in America, likewise support for this war is fading and likewise concerns are growing about security measures domestique? DE: Yes, but surely you don't suppose that the British or American governments are behind this attack? FD: Quel horreur, mon ami! I never "suppose"! To suppose is to guess, and (Famous Detective) never guesses! Garçon! (At this point, our detective began motioning for the waiter and I had to implore him to remain a few moments longer.) DE: I'm sorry, I didn't mean to offend you...it's just such an outrageous possiblity. FD: It is my job to follow the facts, whether "inrageous" or "outrageous"! Now, let's look at this crime. The background of the men whose bodies were found and who are being blamed for this attack, it was filled with hate-filled politics and angry denunciations of their country? DE: Well, actually, no. They seemed to be quite ordinary folks, as far as that goes. (Note: for some background info on the bombers, try here.) FD: I see. And were notes found explaining their actions? Were there letters to their loved ones and children? DE: No, again, I'm afraid. FD: In fact, two of these young men had wives who were pregnant, non? DE: Correct again. FD: (He smiled at this point as he looked at his reflection on a silver cream dispenser and adjusted one stray hair oin his otherwise immaculate coiffure.) Oui, you see, (Famous Detective) deals in facts, not "supposes". Now, these bombs, three of them went off precisely at the same time, which led Scotland Yard to suggest they were detonated by some kind of timing device. DE: Yes, I believe so. FD: These men, they purchased return train tickets for their suicide journey, did they not? DE: Yes, the Yard now suggests maybe they were not expecting the bombs to go off as soon as the timers started and never intended to commit suicide in the explosions. FD: Well, they have to say something, as their initial "supposes" were clearly ridiculous. Men who make the journey to their suicides do not purchase the return tickets! So now they suppose that the men started the timers, expecting the explosion to be delayed. DE: That's the current idea, yes. FD: I see. And I "suppose" they thought that after the explosions, the trains would still be running so their return tickets would be of help. (At this point he muttered something under his breath I couldn't catch...it sounded like "...not even Inspector Japp..." but I can't be sure. He then sighed rather dramatically.) All right, nevermind that. Let us get back to this matter of the timing of the bombs. It is a matter most curious. You have said that the police "supposed" that the bombs must have been detonated by the timing devices because the explosions were simultaneous, oui? DE: Yes, we've established that. FD: But they also suggest that the men started the timers while on the trains, and were expecting the explosions to be delayed? DE: Yes...I'm sorry, Poi...I mean monsieur...but we've covered this. FD: What does this mean, "covered this"? Nevermind. Try to follow along, mon ami. So this means that the men must have started their timers at the same moment exactement. In other words, you now have the bombers doing that very thing that the police said could not be done with such precision. (He smiled again, and nodded at the waiter who was bringing more tea.) Merci. DE: AHA! But you are overlooking one crucial fact! The timers could have been set to go off at a particular time of day rather than a specific amount of time after the bombers started them. FD: Bon, mon ami, tres bon! Now you are thinking like the detective. But tell me, the fourth bomb, did it go off at the same time as the other three? DE: (sheepishly) Well, no. FD: So it could not be the case that the timers were set for a particular time of day. Let me make it plain for you. These men showed no signs of being les terroristes. They left no plans or communications for the families they left behind and they purchased return tickets. Clearly, they expected to return from this journey. And then we have the timing most curious, so precise that it could not have been, according to the police, carried out manually, but had to have been a result of some sort of mechanical timing device. And yet, these men started the timing devices at exactly the same moment. Are we to suppose they had a timing device to begin the timing device? Ridiculous! DE: Perhaps they started them while they were still all together... FD: Then all of the devices would have exploded at the same time. This also assumes timers that actually functioned as opposed to blowing up immédiatement. If the timers functioned, the bombers would have known when to leave the scene. DE: Well they had to set them off somehow! FD: Non, mon ami, they did not. It is my contention that the men could not have known they were carrying explosives. Otherwise their actions and the timings of the explosions simply make no sense! DE: Well, then, who do you think committed this crime? FD: Bien. You expect the solution très rapidement, n'est-ce pas? DE: I realize you only just arrived... FD: Well, I cannot tell you exactly who comitted this criminal act most insidious, but I can tell you who knows the answer! DE: Really? So soon? FD: Oui! Ask, s'il vous plait, Monsieur Peter Power, and he will tell you! DE: Who is he? FD: He is the gentleman who works for the security company that was conducting the exercises to practice for just such an attack. The exercise was planned for exactly the same time as the actual attacks and the bombs exploded in the very stations targeted by the exercise! (Note, you can read an interview with Mr. Power here.) DE: But he says it was a coincidence. And why would he have announced this "coincidence" if he had been part of a criminal plot. FD: Mais non, mon ami, I did not say Mr. Power was to blame. I said he could tell you who was the planner of this crime most diabolique! Ask Mr. Power who employed his company to carry out this so-called drill, and you will be well on your way to solving this case! And now, you will excuse me, I hope. (Our Famous Detective rose to his feet as I rose along with him. He carefully brushed a crumb or two from his lapel and, satisfied that all was tidy, gave me a polite bow. He left me with these parting words<img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/smile.gif ALT=":)"> FD: Never forget, mon ami, that you must follow the evidence wherever it leads. You cannot let your little grey cells be distracted with preconceptions and prejudice. There is evil in this world, mon ami, but it does not always conform so conveniently to your expectations. Evil is not so accomodating, I'm afraid. Now, if you will excuse me, I've been called to America by a young Congresswoman to look into those events most tragic of eleven September. Adieu.<hr></blockquote>

by **dbeach** » Thu May 18, 2006 10:57 am

Adolph buys anthrax celan-up company. COINCIDENCE???? "July 11, 2004 - Boca Raton, FL Rudolph W. Giuliani, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Giuliani Partners LLC, and John Y. Mason, Chairman of Bio·ONE™, announced today that Bio·ONE™ began fumigation of the anthrax-contaminated former American Media, Inc. (“AMI”) building with chlorine dioxide gas. They were flanked by Steven D. Oesterle, Chief Executive Officer of Bio·ONE Solutions LLC (Bio·ONE), Karen Cavanagh, Chief Operating Officer and General Counsel of Sabre Technical Services LLC (“Sabre”), and Jeffrey MacIntyre, Senior Vice President of Sabre. “We began circulating chlorine dioxide gas in the building early this afternoon using the building’s HVAC system,” said Mr. Mason. “We expect the fumigation process to take approximately 24 hours, during which time all anthrax spores will be destroyed.” The former AMI building, located at 5401 N.W. Broken Sound Boulevard, Boca Raton, Florida, was the first facility to be recognized as contaminated by anthrax during the 2001 bioterrorism attacks, and it is the final facility to be remediated. “Representatives of the EPA, OSHA and other government agencies have worked closely with the Bio·ONE/Sabre team during the last two and one-half years,” said Mr. Giuliani. “Today’s activities reflect the results of this team effort, and we are now far better prepared to manage similar challenges in the future.” Bio·ONE plans to establish its headquarters within the building once the remediation process is complete. “Not only do we welcome Bio·ONE to our community,” said Boca Raton Mayor Steven L. Abrams, “but we thank them for safely restoring the building to commercial use.” About the Technology Bio•ONE’s proprietary and patented implementation of gas-phase chlorine dioxide fumigation technology provides safe and effective decontamination with minimal disruption, negligible corrosion and no residual toxicity. Bio•ONE’s high-capacity mobile generators can produce chlorine dioxide gas, solution or foam. Gas-phase chlorine dioxide fumigation is Bio•ONE’s primary decontamination method for biological contamination and has proven effective in the remediation of anthrax. Chlorine dioxide (ClO2) is a gas at room temperature and, as such, is very mobile, easily reaching spores in hard-to-reach places. Because of chlorine dioxide’s unique physical and chemical properties, it retains its structure and properties in all phases, maintaining its ability to kill spores. Chlorine dioxide has been proven to be an effective HVAC fumigant. Gas-phase chlorine dioxide used in remedial fumigation is a microbiocide and, at proper use concentrations, is not flammable or explosive. Chlorine dioxide decays in the fumigation zone to simple salt at concentration levels that are indistinguishable from background levels. As such,there is no residual toxicity or downstream toxicity issues. About Bio•ONE Bio•ONE is a joint venture founded in January 2004 by Giuliani Partners and Sabre. Bio•ONE currently specializes in biological and chemical preparedness, response and remediation. About Giuliani Partners Giuliani Partners is a management consulting firm founded in January 2002 by former New York City Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani. The firm draws upon its senior executives' experiences and expertise in security, public safety, emergency preparedness, business continuity, leadership and commitment to accountability, integrity and performance measurement to advise and assist its clients in protecting and enhancing their physical and intangible assets and maximizing the value of their brands. The team includes former New York City Corporation Counsel, Michael Hess, former Vice Chairman of Ernst & Young, Steven D. Oesterle, New York City’s former Police Commissioner, Bernard Kerik, former Fire Commissioner, Thomas Von Essen and former Office of Emergency Management Commissioner, Richard Sheirer. About Sabre Sabre is a wholly owned subsidiary of Bio•ONE. Sabre provides treatment, sterilization and decontamination technology and services that allow its customers to reclaim and reuse their contaminated assets. The company’s numerous patents on chlorine dioxide generation and use allow it to provide unique solutions to many industries. "

by **AlicetheCurious** » Thu May 18, 2006 12:09 pm

Dream's End, that Poirot thing was nothing short of brilliant!! Thanks for reprinting it.

by **Qutb** » Thu May 18, 2006 1:04 pm

"BTW - I find it extraordinary that anyone cant see beyond a simple " coincidence" of terror drills taking place at precisely the same 3 - out of 373 - tube stations as the attacks" Not at the tube stations. The "drill" took place in an office somewhere and involved a few consultants and a handful of people involved with security type stuff in some unknown company. It wasn't a live simulation testing first responders and the like. No one has been able to clarify how this excercise could have been related to the actual attacks. It seems quite possible top me that Giuliani was in town for this same excercise, as he was an early jumper on the post-9/11 "security consultant" bandwagon. That still doesn't connect him to the real 7/7 bombings "Why? What possible advantage could accrue to the government from killing this man? To deflect attention away from the events of 7th & 21st July 2005." That's the facile conspiracist standard answer isn't it. "To deflect attention away from [insert whatever]". Usually accompanied by the equally facile argument that "it happened at a perfect time for [Blair/Bushco/whoever]". Of course, there's always something to deflect attention away from, and there's always a reason to be found why any given time is "perfect" or "so conveeenient", so these arguments work every time. With regard to 7/7, if you think that the government engineered it, then I don't see why they would want to deflect attention away from it. If you mean deflect attention away from holes in the official story, then killing an innocent man for no reason then lying about it would perhaps not be the best way to go about achieving that? These theories just seem terribly contrived to me. I also have to disagree with your maître détective, DE. An attack like the 7/7 one was the worst that could happen for the popularity of the Iraq adventure, and everyone knew it. Most Britons probably made the connection to Blair's Iraq policy immediately. There was also the precedent of the Madrid bombings, which became the bane of the Aznar government and ended the Spanish participation in the war. With that fresh in mind, would anyone in the British-US security apparatus think that engineering a terror attack would shore up support for the war? I find that hard to believe. Predictably, support for the war has only diminished since the attacks. July 7 last year, when I saw the news on CNN, it seemed quite straightforward to me what had happened. It wasn't unexpected. It had happened before. Only arrogance could have made anyone think that Britons would be spared tasting the same medicine their government administered to others overseas. What comes around goes around etc. I logged on to the internet, expecting there to be some controversy and some alternative theories, as there always are - after all, an inconsistency between press reports here, a retraction there, a coincidence here, that's all you need to construct a really sinister conspiracy. I admit I got sucked into the conspiracism for a while, too. But after a while, it struck me: the suspicion, and the questions, and the pointing out discrepancies, is all good. It's something muckrackers used to do, in a time when media ownership was less centralized (and some, bless them, still do). However, what the purveyors of "alternative analysis" provided was something else than a rational and honest weighing of the evidence (or "evidence", such as it is available through the newsmedia). It struck me that none of them at no point, even on the very day itself, even considered the possibility that the official story, by and large, might be true. Despite the fact that the official story - a suicide attack that was not "made or let happen on purpose" - was by far the simplest and most obvious explanation. That's when I realized that virtually all of the "internet conspiracy gurus", even the ones that I had previously considered rather knowledgeable and reasonable, are less than intellectually honest in what they do. In fact, most are indistinguishable from those tabloids that make up stories about humans and aliens having babies together (*cough* Mike Rivero *cough* Tom Flocco *cough* Webster Tarpley *cough* Mike Ruppert *cough* David Ray Griffin). This realization led to a reconsidering of many things that I had previously placed in the ontological categories "possibly true" and "probably true". That includes 9/11 lihop/mihop, especially the controlled demolition angle, which I had hitherto been agnostic to. I realized that I had adopted the logic of the conspiracists too uncritically in many cases. My views on many things have evolved since then, which I can imagine would be readily apparent to anyone who'd take a look at my earlier posts in the archives.

by **FourthBase** » Thu May 18, 2006 2:18 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>Not at the tube stations. The "drill" took place in an office somewhere and involved a few consultants and a handful of people involved with security type stuff in some unknown company. It wasn't a live simulation testing first responders and the like. No one has been able to clarify how this excercise could have been related to the actual attacks.<hr></blockquote> And you dare call other people "less than intellectually honest"?

by **Ike Broflovski** » Thu May 18, 2006 2:42 pm

Not at the tube stations. The "drill" took place in an office somewhere The claim was not that the drills took place in the tube stations, but that the situation simulated in the drills involved attacks at those same stations, or two of the three, or something like that. That is a remarkable coincidence, though as you say, it isn't clear how some middle managers roleplaying at a table could help facilitate real attacks.

by **Qutb** » Thu May 18, 2006 2:57 pm

What do you mean, 4th base? Have you got some evidence that it was a larger drill? I'd be very interested to see it. As far as I know, the only source of information on the existence of this drill is Peter Powers, and this is what he said it was (he had to make a clarification after his initial words had been taken completely out of context and misused by Alex Jones etc). If it was a larger, "live" drill, involving first responders etc, it's strange that we haven't heard from anyone else about this, don't you think? And even if that had been the case, I don't see why that would facilitate or enable the engineering of the attack. If there were no witting or unwitting suicide bombers, bombs would have to be planted... I don't think a terror drill would produce the environment most conducive to do that. Besides, lots of "ordinary" people would have to be involved (paramedics etc) and some of them might get suspicious if suddenly real bombs went off in the middle of the excercise. Much like sinking the Titanic to kill one man, there would have been more discreet options available.

by **FourthBase** » Thu May 18, 2006 3:08 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>The claim was not that the drills took place in the tube stations, but that the situation simulated in the drills involved attacks at those same stations, or two of the three, or something like that.<hr></blockquote> Three of three. Same day. Right? <blockquote>Quote:<hr>That is a remarkable coincidence, though as you say, it isn't clear how some middle managers roleplaying at a table could help facilitate real attacks.<hr></blockquote> But the point was merely that it was a remarkable if not impossible coincidence, not that the middle managers were directly responsible for the attack. Which is why Qutb's goalpost-moving is intellectually dishonest.

by **Qutb** » Thu May 18, 2006 3:14 pm

4th base, you completely misunderstand my point. I'm not just saying the middle managers involved in this excercise weren't directly reponsible. I'm asking how this excercise could have anything to do with the real attacks at all. That's what no one has been able to explain. Maybe you can.

by **FourthBase** » Thu May 18, 2006 3:21 pm

Do you need to know that before you determine that it was indeed a preposterous coincidence? No. Acknowledge the sheer magnitude of the coincidence, dammit.

by **antiaristo** » Thu May 18, 2006 3:30 pm

I'm intellectually honest, Qutb. That's why I've NEVER ONCE ducked a challenge or a fact on this board. And I will not allow what you say about the training drills to become accepted wisdom. Did you see what Poirot suggested? Talk to Peter Power. But nobody did. They have a way of clamping down in the UK. It's called a D(ecree)-Notice. So we don't know. But it does not take a genius to identify any number of "advantages" to such a "training exercise". How do you KNOW the four men were not part of that exercise? Now to come back to the series of attrocities. They'd been sitting on Kratos since January 2003. They were waiting for an opportunity to introduce the policy as a fait accomplit (in case you've not noticed, that's the way we are presented with decisions by our betters these days). July 7 was the very first day they were free to do so. So the threat level was REDUCED shortly beforehand. And Khan was on videotape talking about the bomb and getting away. So in your rather arrogant speech you tell us that the official story is the most likely. I have to ask you, do you know what the official story actually is? Have you actually read the security services narrative, or the ISC report? Why don't you see if you can tell us what the official story is? It should be interesting. Compared to the small holes you pick in what others say here, you are going to have to explain enormous chasms in logic and evidence. I'm going to enjoy this.

by **Sepka** » Thu May 18, 2006 4:32 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>They'd been sitting on Kratos since January 2003. They were waiting for an opportunity to introduce the policy as a fait accomplit <hr></blockquote> Why? A security measure like Kratos is more effective if the enemy isn't aware of it. Keep in mind that the purpose of Kratos isn't to deter enemy bombers, but to kill them. Letting a suicide bomber, or any determined attacker, know what countermeasures will be taken only increases his odds of success. So far as the Famous Detective's arguments, as well-written as they are, he's overlooking several points. In America, we have these little clocks that we wear on our wrists. They allow people widely separated in space to undertake actions at the same second, if need be. They're a British invention, from the First World War, and were actually designed to allow coordinated attacks when the wearers weren't in direct communication. I'm left to conclude that they never caught on in Belgium. Why would the bombers buy return tickets or fail to leave suicide notes? That's a more interesting question. My own bias would be towards the idea that they simply didn't want to take any chances, or look suspicious in any way. I'm sure the majority of people travelling on the trains buy returns. A note might be found prematurely. The assertion that the killer was a quiet neighbor, had so much to live for, gave no sign of what he was about to do, etc., is almost a cliche in murders committed for motives that would make no sense to a sane person. So far as the assertion that bombings are likely to stiffen resistance, that's undeniable. Look at the Palestinians, though. Islamic 'resistance' movements don't have a good track record for choosing rational or productive strategies. -Sepka the Space Weasel

by **Qutb** » Thu May 18, 2006 4:54 pm

"Do you need to know that before you determine that it was indeed a preposterous coincidence? No. Acknowledge the sheer magnitude of the coincidence, dammit. " I don't know the details of this excercise, what exactly the scenario was that they were "gaming". Furthermore, I don't know how often such tabletop drills take place in central London, but considering the sheer number of companies that have offices there... I would imagine quite often. Probably every week of the year, there's one or more of those excercises taking place somewhere in central London. And they probably usually envisage an attack happening in the rush hours or the middle of the day, creating maximal chaos and carnage... which would be the goals of any real bombers as well. And so the likelyhood of one taking place at the same time as any terrorist attack is probably not that marginal. I don't know where the offices of the company in question were located, but I guess those were among the closest underground stations to it? It's been a couple of years since the last time I was in London, but I think those are among the largest and busiest stations in London. So it's not as if the three stations in question would have been randomly selected from the universe of all 323 underground stations in London, neither by those planning the drill nor by the bombers. My biggest problem with the 7/7 "terror drills became real" theory is the peculiar form of circular reasoning it relies on. It hinges on the words of Peter Powers, but according to the theory Powers is one of the bad guys involved in the attacks... who wilfully incriminates himself and whom we have to believe in order to believe the theory.

Qutb, don't duck this one (London Bombing)

Re: And the Ghoul ?

Cui Bono?

Re: And the Ghoul ?

Re: And the Ghoul ?

Re: And the Ghoul ?

Re: And the Ghoul ?

Re: And the Ghoul ?

Re: And the Ghoul ?

Re: And the Ghoul ?

Re: And the Ghoul ?

Re: And the Ghoul ?

Re: And the Ghoul ?

Beams and Motes

Re: Beams and Motes

Re: Beams and Motes

Who is online