A correction: one of our contributors stated that Lindsay had to be in the "middle of the train". He meant "middle of the carriage." We believe that suicide bomber Lindsay obviously had to be in the middle there because this is where the major damage is reported to have been done and the driver's cab was not badly affected by the blast. We have corrected our contributor and provide the link here to the post in the comments box that we corrected. Probably nobody mistook our meaning. This point is important because Rachel North states that she was at the top of the long train carriage near the driver and also that she was two metres away from Lindsay. These blatant inaccuracies in her continuing story as well as other serious faults in her scam lead us to conclude that Rachel North was never in the carriage bombed on July 7.
Here's what Rachel wrote on
Monday, September 12, 2005
Two months on. Drinks, a party and the odd jitter
I started to get the jitters the day before the 7th of September. I got on the tube at Finsbury Park, late again, and it was crowded again. More and more people crushed on. Like they did before. And I looked about me in carriage one as we neared Kings Cross and I realised that I was in the 'wrong' part of the carriage. Not near the front of carriage one, where I'd survived, and where I'd travelled ever since, but in the middle. Where the bomb had been. And then young men got on. With rucksacks. And my heartbeat sped up and I swayed, and I began to run with sweat. I could smell my own fear. And as more and more people pushed on at Kings Cross, I looked at my watch. 8.49am. I forced my way off the carriage and stumbled up to the mainline station. Lit a cigarette with shaky hands, got in the queue for a cab, mouth dry.The next day, and the next, I took taxis. On the 7th I was tearful, but work was so busy there was simply no time to worry about it. And on the 8th, Kings Cross United met up for a drink, and the shared camaraderie of fellow train-passengers - and too much wine again - meant that the fear receded to manageable proportions and by the Friday, I was back on track.More or less.
By the end of the week, I was tired out but okay. Saturday I had a massage, got my nails done, went shopping for birthday presents for my friends. Saturday night we went ot a bar and danced and anced, then went back to Jane's house to continue celebrating her 40th. The party went on until ten in the morning. Friends I have known for almost a decade were there. My sister was there. We were wild. Sometimes you need to celebrate life very loudly, with music and dancing and wine.
Even if you have to spend Sunday in bed recovering all day. "
She says on Monday September the 12th 2005 that she had been right near the driver on July 7 2005 and that Germaine had been in the centre of the carriage: talking to Richard and Judy mid 2007 she says that Germaine Lindsay was just two metres behind her when he bombed the carriage. If she was right near the driver on the 7th July 2005 then she was around at the very least,12.5 metres from Germaine Lindsay who was obviously at the centre of the very long carriage. How could she just forget about a 'little thing like that', the bomber's situation in the carriage?
We believe that she was not on the bombed carriage on July 7 2005.
Not posted on July 7 2008 either:
Here we provide a link to a film provided by the United States army of a suicide bomber's bomb which he blew up at gates which soldiers were about to " roll right into." The bomb is a suicide bomber's chemical bomb and one which he will have been carrying. The open air video gives a display of how powerful the bombs can be on people nearby when there is no wall or sealed metal screen to contain the blast. It is a great deal for the troops to cope with and they stay two hundred metres away in armoured tanks. But it is not too much for Rachel North, who continues to state that she was two metres away from Germaine Lindsay when he blew up the Piccadilly carriage on the 7th July 2005.
The amount of smoke in the film resulted from petrol ignited in tanks inside the car that the bomber hit with his bomb and it will depend on the composition of the bomb. Bombs are often intended to start a chain destruction reaction and this suicide bomber seems to have been set off before the appointed time, which saved the troops. Fallujah is making continuous developments in respect of weapon content.
From our submitter: "We were about to roll out the gate of Abu Ghraib prison at the front end of a convoy when a suicide car bomber blew up his car right outside the gate on 4 April 2005. We drove through the wreckage a couple of hours later. Crew was SSG Scott Swindle, US Army; SPC Jonathan Flores, US Army; and Senior Airman Don Griffin, USAF."
Submitted By: SG Scott Swindle, US Army; SPC Jonathan Flores, US Army; and Senior Airman Don Griffin, USAF.
Either Lindsay detonated a bottle of pop soda, as one commenter suggests, or Rachel North was never in that carriage on 7/7 2005.
We believe that Rachel's conduct is an atrocious insult to British and US troops and the Iraq war victims.
Is this what Rachel wore on July 7 2005?
51 comments:
Thats cool. I didnt mistake your meaning I think its clear as day.
What a mother and father of a scam.
Picture of Jermaine Lindsay?
It is 'Germaine.' His conversion name was Abdullah Shaheed Jamal. It is never mentioned. He is thought to have lead the other three into the bombings.
A lot of reports call him Jermaine.
That seems to be another, smaller myth! The correct spelling is Germaine. Either suits us, use what you like.
Jermaine Dye of the Chicago White Sox
Jermaine Lindsay DC Chicago Metro area!
http://www.linkedin.com/pub/1/915/518
http://news.bbc.co.uk/
1/hi/uk/4762591.stm
His family call him Germaine.
http://www.jamaicaobserver.com/news/html/
20050717T170000-0500_84340_OBS_
GERMAINE_LINDSAY_S_FAMILY_STILL_
IN_SHOCK_.asp
http://www.examiner.co.uk/news/
local-west-yorkshire-news/tm_objectid
=15750917&method=full&siteid=50060&headline=
friends-of-germaine-linday-remember-him
-as-normal-caring-person--name_page.html
Credit to Northy she's done her ground work for once.
http://rachelnorthlondon.blogspot.com/
search?q=germaine+lindsay
Shame about the soda pop bomb story.
Please don't trivialise July 7th today.
telling us to behave, but that one is funny...
who would think such a thing?...
For a long time, Rachel has been the white than white elephant who's not as white as she paints herself. Her speeches make no sense whatever, her campaign is founded on press bedlam about her white Pollyanna petticoats and nothing else and she 'Shermans' anyone who doesn't applaud. She never gets checked over because people think she's a waste of time that they have to treat like a china saucer.
Rumbled Rachel rumbles louder than tanks in Fallujah and she is still avoiding blogs she used to bomb on a daily basis.
She was be back with a story about why she's been avoiding bloggers.
Is that little flag her surrender sign, 'I've been a scammer all this while'.
Here's another piece of Rachel North deomstrating her self appointed right to condemn everyone else in the political sphere.
'We’ve all been half-bullied by these half-people at some time (or maybe I just think we all have and it’s actually just me…) and the drip-drip narrative goes something like this: You disagree with me, ergo everything you do is worthy of ridicule, all your motives are untrustworthy and you are to be treated with contempt.
It’s a narrative that twists facts to fit its own picture of how the world should be - Davis obviously must be a lying snake in the grass, therefore any impassioned discussions he may have with senior civil liberties figures can only be a “joke” that reflects badly on both of them.'
Isn't that exactly what she does all the way through her awesome blog? Could it be that she's been telling so many lies for so long she can no longer realise how much of a baseless hypocrite she appears?
Please would people stick with the subject in our post in the comments boxes. If people have omething to say then look for the right comments box.
Last night there was a c4 documentary about the Picadilly line carriage that was bombed. It featured a man in his 60s called George who was a few feet away from the bomb.
He was uninjured but psychologically very badly affected.
If what he is saying is true - and there is no reason to doubt him atall - then Rachel could equally well have been there, and uninjured.
I am interested as to whether you saw the documentary? It was an investigation into cariage one so I would expect you to have noticed it.
http://www.channel4.com/health/microsites/0-9/7-7/profiles/george-roskilly.html
7/7: The Miracle of Carriage 346
Channel 4 Monday 7 July 9pm
The 7/7 terrorist attack cost 52 lives as well as the 4 bombers, and injured several hundred more. Carriage 346, the front carriage on the Piccadilly Line bombed between Kings Cross and Russell Square was the most devastating attack of all. 26 died in this deep level tube disaster, where the effects of the bomb blast were most deadly and where the emergency services found it most difficult to rescue survivors deep underground. It was a miracle that the loss of life was not far greater.
This documentary tells the miraculous story of the passengers who narrowly escaped death and survived against all the odds. The blast killed most of the people around them, but remarkably they were spared death because of their positioning in the packed train. A few walked out virtually unscathed, while others were seriously injured, some losing their limbs. Whilst waiting for the emergency services to arrive injured passengers improvised remarkable lifesaving methods on themselves and others.
The film focuses on several extraordinary characters and the dramatic and often surprising effect the disaster had on their lives. Gill Hicks had just had a terrible argument with her boyfriend and they were about to call off their wedding plans. This made her late for work, so she ended up travelling through Kings Cross at a time when she would never normally have been there.
Standing only feet away from the bomber Germaine Lindsay, she suffered serious blast damage to her legs. She lost six pints of blood. She gives an extraordinary account of staring death in the face but was saved by an inner voice encouraging her to fight for her life. She used her scarves to tourniquet both her legs. She has an inspirational recovery story, learning to walk on prosthetic legs, marrying her boyfriend five months later and becoming a hugely influential peace campaigner. We also hear from her husband Joe who stood by her throughout.
Even closer to the bomber on the Kings Cross train was George Roskilly, a sixty two year old property inspector. The train was so packed that the bodies around him cushioned the blast and he was not injured. However, he was deeply shocked and traumatised as the dead and the dying lay around him. He is still haunted by the screams and suffered from survivor's guilt; he cannot understand how so many young lives should have been taken (the average age of death was 28) whilst his was spared.
Susan Harrison
The Kings Cross blast shattered one of Susan Harrison's legs and she suffered massive blood loss. She saved her own life by applying a tourniquet to her left leg and then she began trying to calm other injured passengers even though she was trapped on the floor in the twisted carriage.
When she was finally rescued she was shouting instructions to the emergency workers, some of whom she knew from her job as a theatre nurse, as to how best deal with her injury. She knew by this stage that her left leg would have to be amputated. Susan is now an ambassador for Disability Snowsport UK and has become an avid skier herself.
More on George Roskilly
George Roskilly was a 62-year-old property inspector on his way to work in Holborn. He got on the tube at Turnpike Lane. He moved into the doorway opposite and stood in the corner next to the partition. Little did George know that this move had saved his life. Just three feet away Germaine Lindsay stood ready to detonate his bomb.
George Roskilly
As the bomb went off George was showered in glass, large shards of which pierced the skin of his head and the back of his neck. He found himself standing in exactly the same position, shocked and disorientated. Yet where he had been, surrounded by commuters, was now an empty space. George attempted to get his bearings remembering where he was in relation to the driver’s end of the carriage and slowly made his way toward the front of the carriage to the driver who was comforting the passengers.
George joined the single-file line of passengers walking along the tracks towards Russell Square. Behind him a man shuffled along screaming in agony supported by another passenger. Unknown to George the man had a large shard of debris embedded in his foot and was so unsteady that George insisted the man hold onto the back of his jacket as he guided him to safety.
On reaching Russell Square, George took a moment to lean against a wall and catch his breath. Still reeling from the shock of the blast, he witnessed the seriously wounded being carried from the train and laid out in a line on the station floor by his feet. This was the moment that he realised the seriousness of the situation, the cold light of day revealing the horrors that the darkness of the tunnel had masked. He asked a nearby driver if the initial reports of a power surge were true; the driver confirmed they were not.
The injuries he witnessed at Russell Square caused George to refuse serious medical attention as his physical wounds were only superficial. After a brief examination by a first aider, George left the scene and headed for home. He continued to refuse medical help despite his wife’s insistence and returned to work, travelling by tube, on the Tuesday following the bombings.
It was only later that the sound of his grandson crying caused the memories of the 7th July return. He broke down and sought counselling which he attended for six months. He still suffers from anxiety and survivor’s guilt brought on by triggers.
The mystery of the strange old man who Rachel's got tied up, oh dear.
George's story about being beside the bomber is simply not credible. You are never three feet away from a bomber and able to survive like that. He is ageing and suffers from nervous disorders and he did not present as credible.
Gill Hicks is credible.
Second, George is not changing his story all the time in the way that Rachel is.
We do not disrespect George who was obviously on the train, we respect and feel very sad for him, but we believe that it is more credible that he suffered trauma which confused his mind than that he escaped the train bomber of carriage 1. intact from three feet away. That is not humanly possible and one poor old man will not change our minds in that respect.
Is he saying that he was at the centre or the top of the train carriage?
We do not know what pressure George was being put under when he told his story.
Everyone else near the bomber who survived was severely wounded obviously and this is what you would expect.
George might have been another one who made his way up the train, or he might have been in carriage 2.
I have to say anon I agree with this blog here. George comes across as a bit of a Walter Mitty character. Refusing to go to the Doctor and stuff. I wonder what else he tells his wife.
Glad he stood up . The plot thickens!
Great.
Agreed. But George is fun.
London is not short of Walter Mittys........!
How can you say that George is presenting anything accurate?
'It was only later that the sound of his grandson crying caused the memories of the 7th July to return. He broke down and sought counselling which he attended for six months. He still suffers from anxiety and survivor’s guilt brought on by triggers.'
He lost his mind and his memory, then Rachel North filled his head by the looks of it. He lost his mind and couldn't recall anything for many months?
Sorry, not credible.
We got your message anon ranting at us for disrespecting survivors. We are not so don't throw that at us. We are trying to get some truth.
Nothing in this comment 'rants' about 'disrespecting survivors' so please read it carefully and then publish it.
It is clear that whilst many suffered terrible injuries, others escaped with little or no injury
In fact in a story you yourself link to ( Blue Watch relive the hell...' in your very first blog entry, the fire-fighter gets into the carriage and finds an elderly woman there, and unharmed but in shock.
The article you linked to very clearly states
At first, Roche deduced that everyone in 346A must be dead. Then he saw the elderly woman. She was yards from where the imposing frame of 19-year-old Lindsay had settled as he counted down the moments before detonating his explosives.
'She was staring back at me. I can remember the whites of her eyes so clearly because the rest of her was just covered in dust,' Roche said. Then from behind came a low moan. Roche turned disbelievingly. It was coming from beneath a mound of corpses.
'There was a sea of bodies and body parts at either end of the carriage. If you looked hard enough, you could see bodies shifting and twitching underneath piles of bodies.'
Roche called out to two colleagues who had followed him and together they began dragging off the corpses from those still breathing. In the minutes that followed, they remember hearing the soft accent of a Geordie man offering his gratitude as they freed his foot trapped from beneath a seat.
Blue Watch dragged six people alive from carriage 346A, some with miraculously minor injuries. The elderly woman sustained only a sore ankle.
Read that again.
Blue Watch dragged six people alive from carriage 346A, some with miraculously minor injuries. The elderly woman sustained only a sore ankle.
You linked and read that article, you know exactly what it said.
This information about people surviving without injuries - which was always there and which you yourself linked to last week - has severely damaged your campaign to attack the story of one survivor who got out with minor injuries - and you must know it.
What has his age to do with anything? He is still working it says and to call a property inspector a 'poor old man' and 'ageing' and suffering from nervous disorders - is silly. Helen Mirren is in her 60's, is she a 'poor old woman'? The Queen is in her 80's - is she a 'poor old woman'?
Alan Sugar is 61 - is he 'a poor old man?'
Getting to the truth means you must look at all the evidence not just the evidence which fits your theory.
That includes survivor evidence - such as George. You have included evidence form other survivors such as Angelo Power so you should also look at George's who was in the bombed carriage, and the fireman who went into the first carriage and pulled people out, some of whom had 'miraculously minor injuries'
YOU YOURSELF published the story about people with 'miraculously minor injuries'!!! You published the evidence yourself.You also have the evidence of George, who was a few feet away why are you ignoring it?
Why are you not publishing the comment, there is NOTHING abusive in it?
Please publish the comments, there is no reason not to if you are interested in looking at the evidence - evidence YOU CHOSE TO PUBLISH YOURSELF.
We answered your comment before it came through. Here is more.
Sir Alan Sugar is not an old fool, neither is the queen... but then they're not reporting that they lost their minds for months. If Sir Alan told us
' I am sure I sold half my shares last year. I was in such a state that I couldn't remember for months, but I'm sure it was me' we wouldn't give his story definitive credibility either.
The account you want us to believe that authenticates your idea comes from George!
Who lost his memory and refused to go to the Doctor, and then met Rachel North, heard a boy crying and remembered everything.
We're told.
She is always very domineering with some of her 'fellow passengers' and never lets enquiring people go near them
Are you seriously suggesting Rachel brainwashes and mind-controls passengers and screens their emails and phonecalls? How could she 'stop inquiring people going near them'?
What 'enquiring people'? Do you not think people have a free choice about who they choose to speak to or answer emails from or have meetings with? How could Rachel control all the passengers and 'tie up' George?
Are you also saying she controls channel 4?
Where is the evidence that George met Rachel North?
George is described as 'deeply shocked and traumatised' - that does not make him a old fool, it makes him 'deeply shocked and traumatised'.It explauins that he went back to work and tried to deal with survivor guilt before it became unbearable and he asked for help.
Do you understand anything about trauma or psychology? A psychologist would understand how trauma works and how people have delayed breakdowns and delayed shock/grief many months, often years after an event.
I suggest you do some reading about shock and trauma.
You would make a point better if you weren't so desperate to make it.
We are saying that because George apparently was disturbed for whatever reason to the point that he lost his mind and his memory completely for moths, he is not a credible witness. That doesn't necessarily make him a charletan. He is not trying to make money while selling his outlandish tale. The poor man lost his mind, so he says, and was unable to recall anything for months, and now he believes that he is a walking tale of the extraordinary. (That could be a Walter Mitty saga, equally.)
He may believe in UFOs ... we don't know.
"Are you seriously suggesting Rachel brainwashes and mind-controls passengers and screens their emails and phonecalls? How could she 'stop inquiring people going near them'?"
No.
"What 'enquiring people'? Do you not think people have a free choice about who they choose to speak to or answer emails from or have meetings with? How could Rachel control all the passengers and 'tie up' George?
Are you also saying she controls channel 4"
Rachel repeatedly writes things like 'we have ways of knowing who was on that train.' She makes these comments about reporters who try to enquire. She badgers survivors and pins them to her points of view. Her blog makes that out.
She also mentioned meeting George.
Now we are idiots who know nothing about trama because we question the evidence of an obviously inadmissable witness who has come under the influence of arch scammer Rachel North.
anon, we deleted your comment because it confused the flow of the discussion bang in the middle there. You made these interesting points:
'And Rachel has a strong link with C4 who are not likely to want to admit to the embarrassing blunder of presenting her baloney to the public'.
Rachel is capable of manipulating an elderly passenger to get him to support her story. It figures she would have tried it. She is always very domineering with some of her 'fellow passengers' and never lets enquiring people go near them. Did that coment come from Rachel~ by any chance?
Can C4 find anyone to call a miracle apart from one distressed and nervous elderly person and Rachel North?'
That is interesting.'
We support your line of questioning and challenge the arch scammer to produce a credible witness who can say that they were three feet away from the bomber and survived without injury.
Oh for god's sake.
You are pathetic.
First you want evidence of bombed people surviving without injury, even though you yourself had already published such evidence with the firefighter story, then you dismiss and ignore a witness, claiming he has 'lost his mind' (no he says he had delayed shock after his horrific experience - ever heard of delayed shock and severe trauma?), then you accuse Rachel of controlling the survivors ( how? does she live in all their houses and screen all their calls and emails from reporters?)
I think we have got the arch scammer herself on line.
Unless we can't read with our own eyes:
George walked away from the scene with minor injuries, telling no one about his story.
He lost his memory ( lost his mind in that respect).
His memory was 'brought back' when he heard a little boy crying.
He would not see a Doctor all this time.
He now believes that he survived a bomb three feet away from a bomber without injury. ( He may also believe in UFO's).
At some point between the last two points he met Rachel North.
This is not a credible witness!
The barrister would bring him down in five minutes.
Produce a credible witness who can honestly say that they survived close proximity to a bomb without injury. Better still, produce the CCTV.
There is no evidence that has been published on this blog of anyone being close to a bomb and walking away unharmed. There is no such evidence in the public domain except Rachel North's charletanism. Unless you want to say that it happens all the time and that you've been reading the X-files Rachel, you might be better taking your vitriol somewhere else.
Ignoring the gratuitous Walter Mitty intterruption; it's very peculiar that Rachel gets back on the train and examines it in September 2005. Youd almost think shed be keen to avoid carriage 1, but she subjects it to scrutiny?
"And I looked about me in carriage one as we neared Kings Cross and I realised that I was in the 'wrong' part of the carriage. Not near the front of carriage one, where I'd survived, and where I'd travelled ever since, but in the middle. Where the bomb had been".
Is this a confession from the arch- scammer of some sort? The "wrong" part of the carriage. Did she realise now that she would have to adapt her fairy tale? Jermaine Lindsay and the damage were in the middle of the carriage. Speculating on her relative position she thought she'd better come up with a bigger and better Billy Goats Gruff. She'd earlier claimed to have been in the "wrong" part of the carriage to make a news story that would continue to run and run. She now decided that she'd been in the middle of the train, two metres away from Jermaine Lindsay.
There is no evidence that has been published on this blog of anyone being close to a bomb and walking away unharmed. There is no such evidence in the public domain except Rachel North's charletanism.
What are you on about?
You published the evidence YOURSELF! on the first day of this blog! You took the evidence from the paper, published in 2005 and in the public domain ever since.
From the link that YOU provided....
He found her bolt upright, sitting still in some sort of private hell. For an hour she had remained, unblinking in the gloom, hemmed in by corpses on either side.
'Hemmed in by corpses'.
Not at the end or the front, but hemmed in by corpses - people next to her had died because of the bomb but she was alive. That is what hemmed in by corpses means.That means she was so close to the bomb that people around her died.
She was an ordinary commuter who found herself at the epicentre of Britain's deadliest terrorist attack
'Epicentre'. Epicentre, surrounded by corpses on either side. She had minor injuries. She was close to the bomb, so close that she was hemmed in by the corpses of those who were killed by it, at the epicentre of the attack - shocked, and she had minor injuries. Read it - you linked it.
Blue Watch dragged six people alive from carriage 346A, some with miraculously minor injuries. The elderly woman sustained only a sore ankle
Dragged out alive from the bombed carriage, where she had been so close that either side of her she was hemmed in by corpses..
'Some with miraculously minor injuries'
The elderly woman had only a sore ankle.
Woman. Epicentre. Corpses. Bomb. Sore ankle. Survived.
There is your evidence, provided by you, on your blog, on the first day - why are you now ignoring it? Don't you read things properly that you choose to link to?
I'm not Rachel, by the way, as should be obvious to anyone looking at my IP address location and checking to see if it has been run through a router.
why do you think someone would make up such a story when it can be so easily checked?
by all accounts she has lost her job and her book publishers have gone bust so you can't say she has made any money out of this.
there are several other people who have written 7/7 books and dozens of other people who have appeared in the media.
I can't see any reason for you to describe what happened to her as a scam, if it is a scam it is pointless since she has made no money from it. Why would anyone bother?
She already had a terrible story to tell about the rape, she could have stuck to talking about that if she wanted to talk about trauma.
She was obviously on the train, she couldn't have faked it, so I don't see what difference it makes whether she was 2m or 3m or 4m or 5m or 6m from a bomb - so what?
Why would anyone want to be famous for being blown up? Why bother campaigning for an inquiry and why bother making a support group for victims who could easily find out if she wasn't there? you have to look at who benefits - Cui bono?
A scam is only worth doing if you get something out of it - what has she got out of it? Nothing that I can see.
Day by day, point by point, her credibility is surely slipping away.
We deleted one of our comments because it interrupted the flow of the discussion.
We said that our main point is that Rachel is stating that she stood two metres away from the bomber.
No one else is claiming this. Except for one Walter Mitty character! This is all she and C4 can produce.
We don't mean to overly focus on this poor old man who lost his memory coming under the influence of Rachel North. It looks as if he is a bit of a jolly old Walter Mitty character of his own accord. Possibly.
But this George did meet Rachel North. She records it herself, on her blog. We believe that she might have filled his head with ideas while he was in a vulnerable condition.
This man was not three feet away from a bomber. He didn't remember what happened for ages. He suffered trauma.
It is a cruel act to tell him that he was three feet away from Lindsay when he obviously was not.
It seems that RN and C4 will do anything for a story.
She is pitiless. I've waited a long time but now I can see how low she will stoop.
good work.
We have received a comment from "someone" who is desperate to insist that we have linked to an article explaining that survivors were dragged out from beneath corpses "without severe wounds". This person has sent us several comments.
All in aid of confirming that Rachel could have survived Lindsay's bomb blast from two metres away.
This commenter's behaviour is appalling.
This commenter's behaviour is so self absorbed and dreadful that we have decided not to publish their comments. In principle we not censor comments but this is incredible.
We find it astonishing that Rachel or her supporters are going to these extremes in their desperation.
Now these desperate people are admiting that the 'case' for someone surviving close proximity to a bomb hangs on the fire fighter's story about one woman being dragged out of " the epicentre" of the bombing with a wounded ankle. It is this article that they are referring to apparently.
Firstly, we don't know whether this woman's ankle was the only thing that was wounded about her. The fire fighter doesn't say.
Secondly, there is no evidence to suggest that the " epicentre" of the bombing described means " right next to Lindsay."
It means the carriage itself of course.
We accept that those who were less wounded than others will have been at the far end of the "epicentre" ( the carriage) and that others on the rest of the train will have suffered trauma.
We will not be publishing ranting messages from Rachel's Internet people who are clearly twisting reports about the injured and dying in their desperation to make some sort of point.
It is atrocious.
Well said. See that lot show themselves for what they are. Disgusting.
HA HA HA. I'm so pleased that I have comprehensively thrashed your points, one by one, and showed you what rubbish this blog is.
You are now so embarassed and humiliated that you won't even publish my comments any more. You can't even see the irony of your last comment. Do you think I care that you are claiming that my points which prove 100% what bollocks is on this site are 'atrocious' and you are too upset and crying too much to publish them anymore?
You are not just a loser, but a bad loser who is so easy to argue against because you can be easily tripped up by links you have published yourself!
This is a sick blog and it was a dirty job but someone had to take you apart.
Job done. I have completely won and you have been OWNED.LOL.
I'm off for a pint.
LOL.
This seems to be Rachel's way of telling us that she finds the whole thing most amusing.
I wish we did.
We want to be liberal with comments but those we received in favour of Rachel North's argument are so debased we refuse to print them.
We have deleted a comment we wrote in response to Rachel's Internet people as we do not wish to cause any upset with graphic detail.
However it's important to make the point carefully.
When the report states that people escaped with "miraculously minor injuries" - this means, obviously, minor injuries relatively speaking. It does not mean that those poor people who were on the bombed carriage escaped with only a broken ankle. Enough said.
Rachel's Internet people seem determined to make out that 'Miraculously minor injuries" means, "without a scratch." Of course it doesn't. It means that they lived and were badly injured and didn't die. Poor people.
Debate has to be subjected to this grotesque intrusion
Anon wrote: 'A scam is only worth doing if you get something out of it.'
Some scams are undoubtedly initiated purely to achieve financial gain. However, any desire for financial gain is dwarfed by Rachael's need to feed her apparently out-of-control ego by being the centre of attention. Even this blog will inadvertently be serving that purpose.
If we were able to examine Rachael's list of 'favourites' it would most likely consist of all the blogs and forums discussing her ... whatever the angle. It is also quite probable that a single PC would be inadequate to feed her need to be keep 'up to the minute' on what is being written about her. Consequently, expect to see a bank of screens (a la a 'city trader') on her desk.
She will also have a Blackberry or similar device to facilitate access to the internet chatter when 'on the move'. As she probably has this set on 'Alert' whenever a new post appears on any blog or forum mentioning her, it must be going off constantly ... which of course serves to provide the nourishment for this flawed ego.
Deep down the Rachael ego longs for the day in court (even if though it knows it will result in the exposure). Ultimately Rachael's Higher-Self may decide that enough is enough and create a situation where she knows that her game is on the brink of being up.
At this significant juncture, she will have to decide whether to withdraw or to go forward and face the ultimate humiliation of exposure.
The latter option is highly likely because ultimately the ego doesn't really care how the media attention is achieved.
If Rachael has any 'control' over the situation (which I doubt), she will realise that her words and actions over the past three years are being subjected to increasing scrutiny and know that it is time to withdraw. Alternatively (more likely) the ego will be unable to pass up the opportunity for being the subject of a few million more words.
I wish her well but she must be aware the nature of universal law is such that the Truth will ultimately prevail.
We explain that we are not responsible for the comments that have been sent to this blog quoting newspaper reports and gratuitously going into graphic detail about July 7 incidents which is not a thing we encouraging at all.
We believe that these comments are being sent by Rachel's supporters who are intent on causing ructions. They appear intent to promote Rachel's version of events as an untouchable Holy Grail.
Which is dangerous rubbish as we have demonstrated. In fact her versions of various events are full of bizarre contradictions and falsehoods.
Post a Comment