Re: ***LIVE*** Discussion and comments thread BBC Panorama tonight 25th April 7.30pm

[Guest]

I have just finished reading this thread. It is evident that there are several extremely knowledgeable individuals making their points of view, but one clearly notices that the signal to noise ratio is out of kilter. Clearly knowledgeable individuals are putting themselves on the line vis a vis their own experiences and research, yet I find the valuable and believable messages drowned out by people that blatantly state that they are "plebs" and do not understand anything. I would put to Mr Bennet that he has a forum that has clearly been infiltrated by malefactors. As an astute observer said yesterday, be careful of these constantly questioning "ingenues" as they are simply here to act as agent provacateurs and consequently provide ammunition for later attack. There are also one or two contributors that are clearly ex or current police, commenting favourably on the Scotland Yard enquiry. From my experience, once a spy, always a spy. With a few honorable exceptions. I am perturbed by candyfloss, who has apparently only now had an epiphany ref: Scotland Yard. Monkey Mind clearly knows what he is talking about, but all these dolls after dolls after dolls keep on dragging the debate back to zero. And tomatoes. The whole world is watching this thread, and people like Juliet, NoFuleMe, are being ignored and drowned out by either stupidity, or malice.

You are entitled to your opinions, however you are insulting to candyfloss and I gather from the dolls within dolls you refer to me and the tomatoes is a ref to friedtomatoes. I am neither stupid nor malicious, I beleive in debate and as am trained to begin any research by giving the benefit of the doubt. And to be skeptical.

Just because a few of us refrain at this early stage from TOTAL cynicism does not mean we are naive or stupid, there would be almost zero debate on this thread if there we all thought along the same lines, just numerous posts denigrating our police force. Fancy one so intelligent as you to not allow a difference of opinion. It is a discussion forum for reasoned debate.
Whoever you are, you appear to think you ahve a total handle on what is going on, are in possession of superior intellect. You come across as arrogant in the extreme and I think you have added nothing to this thread. Some herE have researched this case for years and recent events have been discouraging, perhaps it is not such a bad thing that some here are trying to retain a positive outlook.
btw I am neither stupid nor naive. I am not ex police either, but a highly- trained analyst and linguist.
over and out ! [You would have been better to insult me with the Russian part of my user name btw, as I am more Russian than doll-like.]
Do svidaniya!

Best to ignore russiandoll, I did, they are not worth answering. Nothing but troublemakers. Anyway admin has now banned them.

[friedtomatoes]

David Kelly and the MI6 agent might have had to be silenced, for political reasons, how does the disappearance of a three yr old figure into stuff like that?

It became political very quickly.


Somebody could end up with egg on their face. If TM are truthful then it will be the PJ, if it is proved otherwise then SY.

Isn't the safest just to find nothing?

Well, the question is why it became political very quickly. IIRC the then ambassador to Portugal, forget his name, went on tv and stated there was no evidence of an abduction. It was an older guy.

[Spaniel]

I have just finished reading this thread. It is evident that there are several extremely knowledgeable individuals making their points of view, but one clearly notices that the signal to noise ratio is out of kilter. Clearly knowledgeable individuals are putting themselves on the line vis a vis their own experiences and research, yet I find the valuable and believable messages drowned out by people that blatantly state that they are "plebs" and do not understand anything. I would put to Mr Bennet that he has a forum that has clearly been infiltrated by malefactors. As an astute observer said yesterday, be careful of these constantly questioning "ingenues" as they are simply here to act as agent provacateurs and consequently provide ammunition for later attack. There are also one or two contributors that are clearly ex or current police, commenting favourably on the Scotland Yard enquiry. From my experience, once a spy, always a spy. With a few honorable exceptions. I am perturbed by candyfloss, who has apparently only now had an epiphany ref: Scotland Yard. Monkey Mind clearly knows what he is talking about, but all these dolls after dolls after dolls keep on dragging the debate back to zero. And tomatoes. The whole world is watching this thread, and people like Juliet, NoFuleMe, are being ignored and drowned out by either stupidity, or malice.

You are entitled to your opinions, however you are insulting to candyfloss and I gather from the dolls within dolls you refer to me and the tomatoes is a ref to friedtomatoes. I am neither stupid nor malicious, I beleive in debate and as am trained to begin any research by giving the benefit of the doubt. And to be skeptical.

Just because a few of us refrain at this early stage from TOTAL cynicism does not mean we are naive or stupid, there would be almost zero debate on this thread if there we all thought along the same lines, just numerous posts denigrating our police force. Fancy one so intelligent as you to not allow a difference of opinion. It is a discussion forum for reasoned debate.
Whoever you are, you appear to think you ahve a total handle on what is going on, are in possession of superior intellect. You come across as arrogant in the extreme and I think you have added nothing to this thread. Some herE have researched this case for years and recent events have been discouraging, perhaps it is not such a bad thing that some here are trying to retain a positive outlook.
btw I am neither stupid nor naive. I am not ex police either, but a highly- trained analyst and linguist.
over and out ! [You would have been better to insult me with the Russian part of my user name btw, as I am more Russian than doll-like.]
Do svidaniya!

Best to ignore russiandoll, I did, they are not worth answering. Nothing but troublemakers. Anyway admin has now banned them.

They seem to stumble in here when the clubs turn out thinking it's the David Icke forum. All New World Order and little green men.

[russiandoll]

Best to ignore russiandoll, I did, they are not worth answering. Nothing but troublemakers. Anyway admin has now banned them.

of course, why i edited to say not to reply.....but I was not letting an insult to forum members go without a response...

[monkey mind]

This morning by e-mail I have received this brief analysis from someone who obviously subscribes to the 'PeterMac' line on Redwood:

QUOTE

I saw your transcript of the Redwood interview on GMTV - I also saw that interview and it reinforced my opinion that Redwood does not believe what he is saying. Each time he was asked why he thought Madeleine was alive and what evidence he had, he evaded giving a direct answer!

UNQUOTE

Ah, well that's okay then, we can all sleep tight. Chuckle.

Perhaps Tony, that was a little disingenuous, and for that I apologise, but let's face it no more so than that to which it responds. Any sane person with half a cup of common sense can see the lack of conviction in what he is having to say or take part in, and why would it be otherwise, the only reasonable conclusion is somwhere in the PJ ball park, not in entirely the opposite direction. But that obvious lack of conviction in itself doesn't mean that all is well from a justice point of view in a case that has involved 3 prime ministers and seemingly massive media manipulation.


Let me ask you one question Tony, you being a lawyer. Do you agree with my statement yesterday that should at some time in the future theree arise sufficient evidence to bring a case against the McCanns that the fact that the SIO, DCI Redwood, five years after the disappearance went on national tv, radio and newsprint and said that he believed it a stranger crime and that she may well be alive. Do you think that would assist a prosecution that any counsel worth their salt would not regard this as mana from heaven, a rotten tomato to hurl time and again at the sad and confused jury members?

If you believe it would not be detrimental, then I give up.

If however you believe it would be detrimental but he did it anyway as some sort of ruse because he really is on the case and interested in justice, then I also give up.


I'll be completely honest, I have no doubt the whisperings coming from the Portugal camp, that there really are not any valid leads that throw new light on the case, that the *cooperation* was nothing more than a means to reopen the investigation but in a direction that would exonerate the McCanns, just as our national press are singing in unison. I have no doubt that is the right and fair assessment. It shames me to say it, but I have far more faith in the PJ than SY. It really does shame me to say that.

[Guest]

It was John Reid, who announced his intention to resign as Home Secretary on 6 May 2007, the resignation to take effect when Gordon Brown succeeded Tony Blair.

I may be a fool, but I am going to remain optimistic until the end of this review. I understand why many are genuinely cynical about SY but there is nothing the Mccanns would like better than to see people giving up.

[friedtomatoes]

It was John Reid, who announced his intention to resign as Home Secretary on 6 May 2007, the resignation to take effect when Gordon Brown succeeded Tony Blair.

I may be a fool, but I am going to remain optimistic until the end of this review. I understand why many are genuinely cynical about SY but there is nothing the Mccanns would like better than to see people giving up.

Thanks! It was him. Nice bloke too! I do not subscribe to any theory he was in pdl and abusing maddie if that was the insinuation or that he covered anything up.. I also tend to agree with you that sy will not be screwed over.

[friedtomatoes]

monkeymind i hardly think some throw away comments on daybreak at only a quarter of the investigation in and with no basis in fact but only opinion will have any grave substance in any trial in the future, there has been a huge plethora of police and other commentators on sofas for 5 years spouting rubbish and opinions, none of it matters, especially if any trial happens in portugal, its three judges, how can this ever become a trial in the uk? could it?

[tigger]

monkeymind i hardly think some throw away comments on daybreak at only a quarter of the investigation in and with no basis in fact but only opinion will have any grave substance in any trial in the future, there has been a huge plethora of police and other commentators on sofas for 5 years spouting rubbish and opinions, none of it matters, especially if any trial happens in portugal, its three judges, how can this ever become a trial in the uk? could it?

I think, theoretically, it could be a trial in the UK. At the very least for child neglect.

[nomendelta]

I've said it before but I think it bears repitition as to why I think a whitewash is on the way.

It's quite simple - Redwood didn't have to say ANYTHING. At the most a general "We cannot comment whilst a review is ongoing" would have been more than enough of a statement to make. The fact that he HAS spoken out and with SO MUCH that helps Team McCann leads me to suspect he, and by extension the SY review, is siding with TM. Given it's the 5th anniversary of Maddie's disappearance and given her birthday and the paperback of Kate's bewk are forthcoming there was always going to be a flurry of publicity. SY chipping in I see as being in no way indicative of gameplaying, strategy, being clever and playing cat and mouse simply because they didn't need to talk.

[Enigma]

All I can see at the moment is that good diplomatic relations between UK and Portugal are in danger of breaking down, hatred between 2 countries being initiated when once they were friends, a great chasm is appearing. SY or our government must be taking one hell of a risk to put the McCanns very dubious story in precedence over good relations with Portugal.

Extremely odd.

Woofer, I agree.
Uk are not risking relations FOR the McCanns.
This has always been my opinion, but the more I read, the more garbage articles appearing I am more sure than ever;
This goes right to the top. Government, MP's, ex PM's - maybe even 'higher' than that.
I firmly, totally 100% believe that Katerina Gaspar's observations are the reason at the black cancerous heart at the middle of all this.
Very nasty, corrupt, perverted movers and shakers in this country.
If you google the words 'Gordon Brown, p*******le', Dunblane' - you'll see what I mean.
I've seen nothing yet to sway me another way. I believe a 'prominent' was in PdL at the time - the fabled 'T10', possibly - hot-footed it away. Likely as not, they and their filthy cronies are the ones being protected, imho.

Poor, poor Madeleine.

Yes, it`s what I`ve thought in recent years (and have seen all the stuff about ex PMs, Dunblane, Operation Ore, Holly Grieg etc.. including one nicknamed M*****a who KM boasts about being a friend who supposedly phoned them soon after the event, one can just imagine why. Not sure about a `T10` as the whole OC would probably know about him and would have to be silenced. Perhaps its worth looking who left government around the time Maddie went missing.

For those that don't know, Tony Blair, who by the way shared an office deleted with Gordon Brown, was nicknamed "Antonia" and "Miranda" at college, and at chambers.

As an aside, the man who reversed his ruling as to the legality of the Iraq war, was Falconer. He became a flatmate of Tony Blair when they were both young barristers in London in the late 1970s in Wandsworth. They had first met as pupils at rival schools in the 1960s. At school, he dated Amanda Mackenzie Stuart, an ex-girlfriend of Blair's, immediately after that relationship. While Blair went into politics, Falconer concentrated on his legal career. They met again in 1976 when working as barristers in the same chambers. He practised from Fountain Court Chambers in London, and became a Queen's Counsel in 1991.

[AskTheDogsSandra]

It seems to be a stalemate situation. The SY wants the case reopened on the basis that they think Madeleine is alive, the McCanns say they want the case reopened and the PJ want the case reopened. But the Portuguese AG say there's no new evidence. There is nothing to stop the McCanns asking for the case to be reopened and providing the new evidence in the form of a reconstruction. This would have saved £2million of taxpayers money and saved a year of searching time. Yet the McCanns won't ask for the process to be reopened.

The ball is in the McCanns court and they are wasting valuable search time by not cooperating. They could have done this nearly five years ago and found Madeleine by now. What kind of parents would waste such valuable time when it was in their power to do something? Instead of searching properly for Madeleine their priority was to instruct libel lawyers!

[happychick]

Now that DCI Redwood has said he believes Madeleine is still alive there is no reason why the McCanns shouldn't request the process is reopened. Unless they know differently of course and the dogs are right.

[friedtomatoes]

monkeymind i hardly think some throw away comments on daybreak at only a quarter of the investigation in and with no basis in fact but only opinion will have any grave substance in any trial in the future, there has been a huge plethora of police and other commentators on sofas for 5 years spouting rubbish and opinions, none of it matters, especially if any trial happens in portugal, its three judges, how can this ever become a trial in the uk? could it?

I think, theoretically, it could be a trial in the UK. At the very least for child neglect.

You are joking arent you?

[uppatoffee]

monkeymind i hardly think some throw away comments on daybreak at only a quarter of the investigation in and with no basis in fact but only opinion will have any grave substance in any trial in the future, there has been a huge plethora of police and other commentators on sofas for 5 years spouting rubbish and opinions, none of it matters, especially if any trial happens in portugal, its three judges, how can this ever become a trial in the uk? could it?

I think, theoretically, it could be a trial in the UK. At the very least for child neglect.

I think that they would have needed to have the trial in Portugal, but remember reading that because the Portuguese Police did not believe that the children were left alone they would not charge the McCanns with neglect.

And there is certainly no way that the British Police would charge the McCanns with neglect!

[friedtomatoes]

It seems to be a stalemate situation. The SY wants the case reopened on the basis that they think Madeleine is alive, the McCanns say they want the case reopened and the PJ want the case reopened. But the Portuguese AG say there's no new evidence. There is nothing to stop the McCanns asking for the case to be reopened and providing the new evidence in the form of a reconstruction. This would have saved £2million of taxpayers money and saved a year of searching time. Yet the McCanns won't ask for the process to be reopened.

The ball is in the McCanns court and they are wasting valuable search time by not cooperating. They could have done this nearly five years ago and found Madeleine by now. What kind of parents would waste such valuable time when it was in their power to do something? Instead of searching properly for Madeleine their priority was to instruct libel lawyers!

It does seem like they did everything to impede the search right from the get go. That can only mean one thing. It seems their strategy was to destroy the police investigation. Very wierd people IMO.

[Enigma]

I have just finished reading this thread. It is evident that there are several extremely knowledgeable individuals making their points of view, but one clearly notices that the signal to noise ratio is out of kilter. Clearly knowledgeable individuals are putting themselves on the line vis a vis their own experiences and research, yet I find the valuable and believable messages drowned out by people that blatantly state that they are "plebs" and do not understand anything. I would put to Mr Bennet that he has a forum that has clearly been infiltrated by malefactors. As an astute observer said yesterday, be careful of these constantly questioning "ingenues" as they are simply here to act as agent provacateurs and consequently provide ammunition for later attack. There are also one or two contributors that are clearly ex or current police, commenting favourably on the Scotland Yard enquiry. From my experience, once a spy, always a spy. With a few honorable exceptions. I am perturbed by candyfloss, who has apparently only now had an epiphany ref: Scotland Yard. Monkey Mind clearly knows what he is talking about, but all these dolls after dolls after dolls keep on dragging the debate back to zero. And tomatoes. The whole world is watching this thread, and people like Juliet, NoFuleMe, are being ignored and drowned out by either stupidity, or malice.

You are entitled to your opinions, however you are insulting to candyfloss and I gather from the dolls and dolls you refer to me and the tomatoes is a ref to friedtomatoes. I am neither stupid nor malicious, I believe in debate and as am trained to begin any research by giving the benefit of the doubt. And to be skeptical. How do you know some of us are not taking a role of devil's advocate in this discussion in order to further debate?

Just because a few of us refrain at this early stage from TOTAL cynicism does not mean we are naive or stupid, there would be almost zero debate on this thread if we all thought along the same lines, just numerous posts denigrating our police force. Fancy one so intelligent as you to disallow a difference of opinion. It is a discussion forum for reasoned debate.
Whoever you are, you appear to think you have a total handle on events and are in possession of a superior intellect. You come across as arrogant in the extreme and I think you have added nothing to this thread. Some here have researched this case for years and recent events have been discouraging, perhaps it is not such a bad thing that some here are trying to retain a positive outlook.
btw I am neither stupid nor naive. I am not ex police either, but a highly- trained analyst and linguist.
over and out ! [You would have been better to insult me with the Russian part of my user name btw, as I am more Russian than doll-like.]
correction of your post. "agent "is a singular and as you were ref to more than one person on the forum, it needs an "s" at the end.
provacateurs is mis-spelt, although you got the plural ending for the adjective here...spelling is provocateurs. so you should have written AGENTS PROVOCATEURS. Nothing more annoying than people trying to show how clever they are by using foreign phrases.....incorrectly. No reply needed as I will not be communicating with you further.
B - decent effort but could do better
Do svidaniya!

A riddle wrapped up in an enigma

Meaning

A puzzle - difficult to solve.

Origin

A form of Winston Churchill's quotation, made in a radio broadcast in October 1939:

"I cannot forecast to you the action of Russia. It is a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma; but perhaps there is a key. That key is Russian national interest."


Enigma

In the following, substitute Team McCann for the German military command.

The question is, does Detective Redwood have the key?

I propose that THAT key is British national interest.

The German military used the Enigma cipher machine during WW2 to keep their communications secret. The machine was available commercially during the 1920s, but the military potential of the device was quickly realised and the German army, navy and air force all used a more developed model of the machine to encipher their messages believing that it would make these communications impenetrable to the enemy.
The Enigma machine is an electro-mechanical device that relies on a series of rotating 'wheels' or ‘rotors’ to scramble plaintext messages into incoherent ciphertext. The machine's variable elements can be set in many billions of combinations, and each one will generate a completely different ciphertext message. If you know how the machine has been set up, you can type the ciphertext back in and it will unscramble the message. If you don't know the Enigma setting, the message remains indecipherable.
The German authorities believed in the absolute security of the Enigma. However, with the help of Polish mathematicians who had managed to acquire a machine prior to the outbreak of WW2, British code breakers stationed at Bletchley Park managed to exploit weaknesses in the machine and how it was used and were able to crack the Enigma code.
Breaking the Enigma ciphers gave the Allies a key advantage, which, according to historians, shortened the war by two years thus saving many lives.

[rainbow-fairy]

I'm sure I was probably included in the 'dig'.I'm trying very hard to give the two outcomes;
1) PT are close to reopening and this is all pre-emptive desperation

2) We are being prepped for the mother of all cover ups.

Personally, I think no 1 is highly possible HOWEVER there is a cover-up of some description going on, whatever.

As for people dissing 'conspiracy theories/theorists' here seems an opportune time to re-post the following:

Conspiracy Theorists
By Jolly Roger
slicingthroats@yahoo.com
1-8-5

 

Everyone has heard, and has probably used the term "conspiracy theorist," and the fact of the term being in common use, also indicates that we generally agree on what it means. I saw a movie by that name, and the title character was a raving lunatic who kept his food in thermoses with combination locks to reduce his chances of being poisoned by imaginary enemies.

 

Regardless of how the stupid movie turned out, what's important here is the common perception people have of someone to whom that label is applied, and just as important, is who it is that applies the label. The common perception is that someone who is labeled a "conspiracy theorist" is suffering from some type of psychological disorder, and that label is usually applied to people by our government, and our news media. The next thing to consider, is that the label is applied to anyone who questions our government's version of events in any matter. Doesn't it logically follow that the media are teaching us to assume that anyone who questions the government is insane? When that label is applied to a person, doesn't it become easy to dismiss everything they say without even hearing it? How convenient for them.

 

I think the label first became widely used to slander people who questioned the details surrounding the JFK assassination, and forty years later, there aren't too many thinking people who still believe the Warren Commission's "lone gunman" explanation. That explanation is doubted by everyone who has taken the time to look into the details, and believed only by people who refuse to.

 

Which is "theory" and which is fact? In the absence of a full confession, this can only be decided by a preponderance of evidence, and it would be silly to come to a conclusion on any matter without looking at all the evidence available. This is only common sense, just as it is safe to assume some degree of guilt or complicity on the part of anyone who lies about an event, or tries to hide, plant, or destroy any type of evidence.

 

Conspiracy theories arise from evidence. After the government releases an explanation of a particular event, a conspiracy theory is only born because evidence exists to disprove their explanation, or at least call it into question. There's nothing insane about it, unless you define sanity as believing whatever the government tells you. In light of the fact that our government lies to us regularly, I would define believing everything they tell you as utter stupidity.

 

In July of 1996, flight 800 exploded over Long Island. Shortly after their terrorist explanation failed scrutiny, our government then explained the event by claiming that a faulty electrical system caused a spark that ignited a fuel tank, and the people who doubted this explanation were quickly labeled "conspiracy theorists." More than a hundred witnesses saw a missile travel from the ground up to the plane just prior to its explosion, but rather than being treated as eyewitnesses to an event, they were labeled "conspiracy theorists," which label allowed all subsequent investigation to ignore the strongest evidence in the matter.

 

Our "investigative" news agencies decided to accept and disseminate the official story, and they helped us forget the U.S. naval station nearby, the fact that missiles were regularly test fired there, and naturally, they paid no heed to more than a hundred "conspiracy theorists" who saw the plane get blown out of the sky by a missile. I believe that the U.S. Navy accidentally shot down flight 800, and that's my belief because it's the most sensible explanation that can be drawn from the available evidence. I'm not theorizing about conspiracies, but there are conflicting explanations of the event, and if the Navy did accidentally blow a passenger plane out of the sky, who would have a motive to lie about it? The U.S. government, or a hundred witnesses?

 

Then of course, there were the "crazy conspiracy theories" arising from the bombing of the Alfred Murrah federal building in Oklahoma City. In that matter, audio tapes and witnesses agree that there were two explosions, the first of which occurred inside the building between eight and ten seconds before the truck bomb exploded. Explosive experts agree that Timothy McVeigh's fertilizer bomb could not have destroyed the building, and the FBI's counter terrorism chief, and members of BATF lied about their whereabouts during and prior to the catastrophe. The evening news decided not to tell you any of this, and they will label anyone who tries to a "paranoid conspiracy theorist." In light of the evidence, we would be complete fools if a conspiracy theory didn't exist.

 

There were no conspiracy theories arising from the explosion of flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, and there were no conspiracy theories arising from the work of the uni-bomber, so the newly invented psycho-babble that tries to explain the malady of conspiracy theorists, also needs to explain why millions of conspiracy theorists all decided not to theorize about those events. There is no psychological malady. There was simply no evidence to indicate a conspiracy.

 

The real question is not why people theorize about conspiracies, but why people choose to believe the government's version of events when it's obvious that they're lying. One reason is that most people never see the evidence because our "news" industry hides it, and another reason is that the same news industry will quickly associate anyone who questions the government with the people who see Elvis, Bigfoot, and UFO's.

 

But sadly, I think the main reason people choose to believe the government's version of events despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, is because it's easier, and safer. If you ignore most of the evidence, and accept as plausible whatever ridiculous explanation the T.V. provides, your life remains simple, and you get to sit on your ass and watch more T.V. If on the other hand, you pluck your head from that same ass and realize you've been lied to, as a citizen in a democratic society, you're instantly burdened with being responsible for doing something about it. Every citizen of the United States has a civic duty to participate in their government, and keep themselves informed of its actions, or government "of the people, by the people, and for the people" isn't possible. You were warned that "eternal vigilance is the price of freedom, " but you chose to ignore your government, and believe whatever they told you, and because of this, Americans have lost their freedom. Although presidents and senators are public servants, unlike the dog catcher and mailman, they wield a lot of power over people's lives, and that's why they have to be watched, and scrutinized.

 

Statistical analysts from UCLA and Rutgers University believe that John Kerry won the 2004 presidential election by an estimated 1.3 million votes, and despite the fact that these learned scholars are probably the most qualified people alive to forward such an opinion, our news madia dismisses this as "conspiracy theory." George W. Bush lost the 2000 election, and he lost the 2004 election, but he's occupying the White House, shredding our constitution, and stealing our wealth and freedom in a "war on terror" that's as fraudulent as his presidency because many Americans are too stupid to see it, too lazy to do anything about it, or both.

 

I'm sorry if I sound angry, but the fact of the matter is that I am angry. While you were staring into the television like an idiot, our freedom, wealth, and constitutional protections have been stolen from us, and because you're stupid enough to believe the manure being shoveled by our government, you've allowed them to commit bigger and more heinous crimes. Because you were too lazy to research their nonsensical economic policies, and see them for the scams that they are, we'll all soon be living in poverty. And because you're so lazy, apathetic, and easily lied to, millions have died for the profits of a few. I have every right to be angry, and only a fool wouldn't be.

 

Only a small portion of my anger is reserved for the government of the United States, because they only did what can be expected of any government. They grabbed money, power and control where it was easy to do so. Most of my anger is directed toward my fellow American citizens, because they allowed it to happen by believing whatever they're told, and not doing what's expected of them. Patriotism in America does not mean waving the flag in blind loyalty to the government. As an American citizen, you have a civic duty to question your government, and hold them accountable for their actions, not use the flag as a blindfold. The American people have been duped once again, and it doesn't seem like it's a difficult thing to accomplish.

 

America's latest "conspiracy nuts" are better known as the 9-11 truth movement. The news media are doing their usual job of slandering them with their usual childish name calling, but for more than three years, they have refused to show you the documented fact, scientific data, expert testimony, photographic evidence, or the credible eyewitness accounts that prove U.S. government complicity in the events of September, 11, 2001. If this were just a "crazy conspiracy theory," I don't think people in our government would have worked so hard to destroy, hide, and lie about the evidence. The White House tried to derail every investigation into the matter. If we had an honest government, we wouldn't have conspiracy theories. We would have honest investigations, and fair trials, but these things are disappearing from America.

 

There are disturbing facts regarding the events of September 11 that every American needs to be aware of , but naturally, none of it will be on T.V. I've met a lot of people in the 9-11 truth movement, and I can assure you that none of them are crazy, paranoid, or even "conspiracy theorists." One generalization I can make about them is that they all seem to be very intelligent. Maybe the smartest thing you could do would be to start listening to them. The Arabs don't "hate your freedom." The White House hates your freedom, because it's the only thing that stands between them, and unlimited power. - Jolly Roger

 

"Eternal Vigilance is the Price of Freedom" - Thomas Jefferson

 

911truth.org 911review.org 911review.com physics911.org wtc7.net

 

 

Anything written by "Jolly Roger" is the property of the American Resistance Movement, and the author hereby grants permission to anyone who so desires to post, print, copy, or distribute this letter as they see fit, and in fact, the author encourages you to do so.

Basically, conspiracy theories only abound when the 'official line' doesn't fit the evidence, the facts or what we know.
No conspiracy with Sarah Payne, Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman, etc etc.
There is with this case through the lies, the inconsistencies and the PR spin. Simples.

[monkey mind]

monkeymind i hardly think some throw away comments on daybreak at only a quarter of the investigation in and with no basis in fact but only opinion will have any grave substance in any trial in the future, there has been a huge plethora of police and other commentators on sofas for 5 years spouting rubbish and opinions, none of it matters, especially if any trial happens in portugal, its three judges, how can this ever become a trial in the uk? could it?

Friedtomatoes,

Well, that's quite an erudite statement from someone who has described themself as a pleb is it not?

Did I speak of a trial in the UK? Think not.

This man - Redwood - is the lead investigator, the man responsible for one of the highest profile enquiries in the UK in two decades or more, and he publicly expresses 5 years after the fact that he believes it was a crime commited by a stranger thus exonerating entirely the T9. And you, would like to portray what for about three days has been broadcast upon every major news network, radio, and national newspaper as......

...wait for it......

"some throw away comment."

You know damn well it's relevant. You ain't gonna trash the obvious that easily, but tell you what....

I'm finished with you.

[russiandoll]

I've said it before but I think it bears repitition as to why I think a whitewash is on the way.

It's quite simple - Redwood didn't have to say ANYTHING. At the most a general "We cannot comment whilst a review is ongoing" would have been more than enough of a statement to make. The fact that he HAS spoken out and with SO MUCH that helps Team McCann leads me to suspect he, and by extension the SY review, is siding with TM. Given it's the 5th anniversary of Maddie's disappearance and given her birthday and the paperback of Kate's bewk are forthcoming there was always going to be a flurry of publicity. SY chipping in I see as being in no way indicative of gameplaying, strategy, being clever and playing cat and mouse simply because they didn't need to talk.

this is how I felt initially, my immediate reaction. I am inclined not to take this at face value, however, and will wait for some more evidence of this before becoming totally cynical. I just am wondering what on earth could be a secret so desperate to keep that the Met would collude in covering it up, that is a conspiracy too far at the moment for me

[russiandoll]

thus exonerating entirely the T9.

err no he has not Monkeymind.

and don't be so rude to fellow members please. Not that friedtomatoes will be too upset at your disapproval

[tigger]

It seems to be a stalemate situation. The SY wants the case reopened on the basis that they think Madeleine is alive, the McCanns say they want the case reopened and the PJ want the case reopened. But the Portuguese AG say there's no new evidence. There is nothing to stop the McCanns asking for the case to be reopened and providing the new evidence in the form of a reconstruction. This would have saved £2million of taxpayers money and saved a year of searching time. Yet the McCanns won't ask for the process to be reopened.

The ball is in the McCanns court and they are wasting valuable search time by not cooperating. They could have done this nearly five years ago and found Madeleine by now. What kind of parents would waste such valuable time when it was in their power to do something? Instead of searching properly for Madeleine their priority was to instruct libel lawyers!

It does seem like they did everything to impede the search right from the get go. That can only mean one thing. It seems their strategy was to destroy the police investigation. Very wierd people IMO.

Perhaps we're forgetting the attitude of the McCanns:
They told their story to the police - the police should have acted ONLY on their story.
This was Portugal - they were doctors, they had important friends - they had massive publicity.
They changed their story in almost every statement. Specifically about which doors they used.
The tapas 7 backed it up and were surprised that they weren't allowed to take their (3rd !) typewritten crib sheet with them to make their statements.
None of the above struck them as important - all they needed to do is tell the police what happened, activate the protective cover and sit back to see the plaudits and money roll in.
They took to the celebrity lifestyle like ducks to water. And then some!
'Rome is preparing itself for our visit' - on visiting the Pope.
'There will be riots in the UK' - on being made arguidos.

There is a name for such a condition - quite rare to have both husband and wife suffering from the same complex.

[russiandoll]

yes narcissistic personalty disorder Tigger.

[Ribisl]

Basically, conspiracy theories only abound when the 'official line' doesn't fit the evidence, the facts or what we know.
No conspiracy with Sarah Payne, Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman, etc etc.
There is with this case through the lies, the inconsistencies and the PR spin. Simples.

[url=[/url]

[rainbow-fairy]

Basically, conspiracy theories only abound when the 'official line' doesn't fit the evidence, the facts or what we know.
No conspiracy with Sarah Payne, Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman, etc etc.
There is with this case through the lies, the inconsistencies and the PR spin. Simples.

[url=[/url]

Squeak!!!
I think I might change my profile pic to that he he