Audio: Alex Jones & the Temple of Doom

Audio: Alex Jones & the Temple of Doom
http://www.breakfornews.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1841



The implosion of the 9/11 Truth Movement continues as Alex Jones
goes totally fruitloop on his radio show. Audio and analysis.

Plus: A claimed survivor of the London 7/7 Bus Bombing is pushing
a wild story on an Alex Jones broadcast a few days ago.

And: Why the 9/11 CoverUp Will Come Apart at the Seams

The 9/11-3i Investigation Resumes
"The Next Level" Internet Radio Show

DSL Mp3 Audio
http://www.breakfornews.com/audio/NextLevel070209a.mp3

Dialup Mp3 Audio
http://www.breakfornews.com/audio/NextLevel070209.mp3

First Nine Minutes of this Audio on YouTube
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CGYZcpIcQM8

Full Audio of Daniel on the Alex Jones Show
http://www.breakfornews.com/audio/Daniel-AlexJones.mp3

7/7 Survivors Tale is a Bomb


Some weeks ago I reviewed the London bus bombing tale by someone
claiming to be a survivor of the blast, at: http://www.the4thbomb.com/

When I first checked out this story of 7/7 by "Daniel", I found that one of
the links was to a PDF at www.scenarium.com. The link didn't work.

http://www.scenarium.com/bookshop/daniel77.pdf

When I checked the root URL, I saw it was was a sparse homepage, also
with no functioning links. Even the directory /bookshop/ was not found
on the site. No big deal, but I didn't like it.

So, who is this guy?

His name is Daniel, apparently. And on the blog and the website he is
writing about the fourth bomb on 7/7. The one which struck the bus.

But on the website, he writes 7/7 as 7 : 7. I suppose you know why.

Put that together with his name and you get "Daniel 7 : 7".

And if you look up Daniel 7 : 7 it's is a passage from the Book of
Revelations:

Daniel 7 : 7 - "After this I saw in the night visions, and
behold a fourth beast, dreadful and terrible, and strong
exceedingly; and it had great iron teeth: it devoured and
brake in pieces, and stamped the residue with the feet of
it: and it was diverse from all the beasts that were
before it; and it had ten horns."

http://bible.cc/daniel/7-7.htm

It's the prophet Daniel speaking about the "fourth beast" eh?

And our "Daniel" is speaking about the fourth bomb.

Which is really rather convenient, if Daniel is his real name.

And if it's not, then he is picking a name which takes us into the
Book of Revelations --with all the associations of such references
with lunatics who jabber on about the apocalypse.

Fruitcake territory, in other words.

Looking into his story some more, according to the website, he went
to "a police station" in North London, where he gave a statement to
an anti-terrorist branch detective called DC Gary White. He even has
a poor-quality audio extract of a few minutes of the detective
speaking to him.

How thorough.

But all we get about the location is: "a police station"??

He was being followed, apparently, and he writes on the website:

"I realise my apartment blocks concierge had been keeping them
informed of my comings and goings."

Just as in the case of the police station interview, he has video
this time, not just audio, but unfortunately, despite the fact that we
are in an age of high-resolution digital video, the quality is poor and
we never get a clear glimpse of the face of the concierge.

The footage is strongly blurred. And at one or two points in the video
where we might be able to see the face clearly... we don't.

The first chance was as the camera comes through doors to the lobby
area but that opportunity is lost because the concierge puts his hand
perfectly in the way of his face at the critical point. The second time,
the man has a cellphone to his ear, blocking view of his face.

"Daniel" makes it clear that he left the scene of the bus blast just after
the explosion. Which might help explain away the lack of reference to him
in any reports, or lack of photos of him at the scene.

Or which might indicate the lack of reference is valid --because he
wasn't there. And the tale of him leaving is just a concoction.

The thorough detail on peripheral issues like the audio of the "police
interview" and the video of the concierge, seem to me to be padding out
the story with detail to hide a weakness in the central aspects of his
tale. Another example of peripheral detail is the audio of the alleged
harassing phone telephone call from the police in relation to a van of
which Daniel was --the call alleged-- supposedly the owner.

"Daniel's" tale is also seemingly backed by an interview with a newspaper
in which he gave an account of his experiences on the day. The reporter
writes that she had confirmed with Scotland Yard that he was interviewed
in relation to the events of 7/7. But that is not much use to us, as we
have no idea of the content or relevance of that interview. It could have
been a banal issue of no substance --simply to lend authenticity to his
story.

Then there is the relentless focus on being followed, and being harassed.
Again without substantive confirmation. Who knows if the telephone call
audio is really that of a police officer? Who, other than Daniel can confirm
that he was being followed? What of substance have we got in the video
of the concierge --except.... em..... video of a concierge. We only have
"Daniel's" word that it is significant.

These issues can easily be portrayed as almost cliche "conspiracy theory"
paranoia. And thus discredit legitimate investigators by association. As
another example I would quote the movie "Who Killed John O'Neill", which is
almost a parody of such cliche conspiracy theory ramblings and paranoia.

I am also very suspicious of this quote from "Daniel's" blog:

"I’d hurriedly left the death strewn by the blast in my wake but was
befuddled by what I saw ahead of me. I stopped, turned round and was
even more dumbfounded by what I saw. Strangely I found myself drawn
back to the scene of the crime and meandering between the angels and
agents in Tavistock Square headed back towards the bus."

http://daniel77witness.blogspot.com/2007/01/angels-and-agents-of-tavistock-square.html

This reiterates an aspect of his story which he has alluded to in another
account. Namely that he was on the bus, but left the scene immediately
after the blast --only to return later. I imagine any competent police
officer would be as suspicious of this claim as I am. Furthermore it
serves as a convenient explanation of the lack of photo evidence of him
at the scene. He can simply claim that the photos of the scene must have
been taken at a time he was not there. Such a mechanism lets him neatly
off the hook. Without that claim, his absence from photos of the scene
might be decidedly suspicious.

Secondly, that account has him identifying individuals at the scene as
"agents" without any substantive merit to such claims. Again taking us
back into the arena of paranoid conspiracy theory.

The holes I have picked in the story would certainly be siezed on by any
professional journalist. And worse still, the focus on peripheral detail;
the conspiracy ramblings and the lack of hard confirmation of his presence
on the bus in the first place are in my experience symptomatic of a type
of story pushed by what I have called the "CIA Fakes".

http://www.breakfornews.com/TheCIAInternetFakes.htm

Looking back over all that I have detailed, I find the choice of using
the "Daniel 7 : 7" wording probably the most damming --in the context of
the other issues I have raised. The Book of Revelations allusion makes
me positively cringe.

"Daniel's" tale is to me more indicitative of lurid diversionary material
designed to discredit legitimate investigators than it is evidence of
a true account by a survivor of the 7/7 bus bombing.

30th January, 2007
Fintan Dunne, Editor
http://BreakForNews.com

http://breakfornews.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=13526#13526
Also Posted at:
http://z13.invisionfree.com/julyseventh/in...post&p=11822989