60

Warnings of protests at Grenfell Tower Inquiry as anger and frustration mount

Theo Russell

Updated with latest developments 2/10/18

Warnings of protests at the Grenfell Tower Inquiry were heard this week as anger and frustration mount over the direction of the inquiry, at a meeting between the Fire Brigades Union and the local community close to the site of the fire.

The community is increasingly concerned at the direction of the inquiry into the UK’s worst fire since the Blitz in WW2, where the presiding judge initially refused to take any questions from community members and survivors.

Moyra Samuels of the Justice 4 Grenfell campaign received loud applause from the meeting on Monday night when she said “there should be protests outside the inquiry to show the judge that people are not happy with it”.

Her call was backed up by Matt Wrack, Fire Brigades Union general secretary, who said “if a total ban on the use of external flammable cladding is not announced, maybe we should start protesting against the inquiry.”

Samuels told the meeting “We are a tough community, but unfortunately we discovered that through the fire at Grenfell. We need truth, accountability, change and justice”.

She dubbed Kensington and Chelsea council, the richest in Britain, “the Royal Borough of Murder and Profit”, and said that “trust between the North Kensington community and the council had broken down long before the fire”.

“We were told by fire experts that the refurbishment of the Grenfell Tower was safe, yet now a QC has told the Inquiry that it was actually a death trap. We have discovered that profit is more important than people”.

Matt Wrack said that a parliamentary committee was warned as far back as 1999 that faulty cladding posed serious fire hazards.

Now the inquiry has heard from Angelo Lucchini, an Italian architectural engineer, that the cladding used at Grenfell was equivalent to dousing the building with 32,000 litres of petrol, “enough to fill approximately 600 cars”.

The FBU is calling for a total ban on flammable cladding, which is used for weather and sound proofing, yet incredibly so far the inquiry has shown no signs of backing a ban.

Initially the British government launched a consultation in which companies making the cladding would take part, despite an official admission that the cladding used at Grenfell was unlawful.

This was viewed by campaigners as an attempt to kick the issue into the long grass and completely unacceptable.

However, under growing pressure from the Labour Party on its policies and in opinion polls, Housing Secretary James Brokenshire is due to announce a ban on combustible cladding is to be banned for all new schools, hospitals, care homes, student accommodation and residential buildings in England above 18m at the Conservative Party conference.

Matt Wrack told the meeting that “very powerful forces are lobbying against a ban, and they have the ear of the government”. These companies are part of a multi-billion pound building, construction and property industry.

It now seems those companies will be losing out in a clear victory for the FBU and the Justice4Grenfell campaign.

Wrack said that before Grenfell no tests were conducted on combustible cladding, which has also been used on hundreds of blocks across Britain, but since the fire dozens of tests have all failed fire safety requirements.

He said the FBU is also calling for a thorough review of fire and building regulations, which have been decimated in the past 20 years, and cuts to fire brigade services.

Ten fire stations and 600 firefighter posts were cut in the capital during Boris Johnson’s term as London Mayor, and 2015-2016 saw a 15% rise in fire deaths in London.

On the day of the tragedy, firefighters had to call for assistance from neighbouring brigades, yet even then had to work in the tower for 12 hours or more with no chance of being relieved.

The FBU has complained to the inquiry about its choice of expert witnesses, who include the same Chief Fire Officers who supported service cuts and de-regulation.

Fifteen months on from the fire many survivors are still in temporary accommodation. The day after the fire a survivor said the tower was an “accident waiting to happen”, adding: “For years they’ve abused our community.”

Concerns about the tower’s emerged years before the fire. In 2013 the council threatened Grenfell resident Edward Daffarn with legal action after he blogged about fire safety, including power surges which caused computers and stereos to blow up filling rooms with smoke.

In November 2016 Daffam warned: “It is a truly terrifying thought but the Grenfell Action Group firmly believe that only a catastrophic event will expose the ineptitude and incompetence of our landlord.”

Over 100 Grenfell residents claimed ay an emergency Town Hall meeting in 2015 on the block’s refurbishment that the council’s Tenant Management Organisation and the contractors were “using cheap materials and cutting corners”.

The day after the tragedy one of the messages on the tribute wall nearby read “Justice for Grenfell. Jail those responsible”. That is still what the community is demanding, and they want the cladding contractors and the senior politicians responsible to be included.


avatar
  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
flaxgirl
Reader

I can’t remember who said it but I think it’s a very important warning to heed: “What will happen is that whether the event is real or staged they will give us the same kind of information about it so we will not be able to distinguish truth from lie.”

What I’ve noticed is that it is not just large-scale “terror” events that seem to be staged, It seems to be smaller events as well that seem to have an agenda.

I try not to avoid the news because I simply do not want to be constantly trying to work out whether something is real or fake, however, this morning I was sitting in a cafe and idly started leafing through today’s SMH. A story caught my attention – it was about a woman, Kristie Powell, who’d been battered to death by a stalker. Powell lived in Bellambi, a suburb of Wollongong about 80km south of Sydney.

I noticed that it seemed to be missing information you’d normally get and didn’t seem to quite add up.

We’re told she was found inside her house at 1.10am by the police, however, we are not told what alerted the police to go to her house at that time. Normally, they’d say neighbours heard screaming and reported it to the police or somesuch but we are not told.

On returning home I checked the internet and these are other versions of the story I found.

The online SMH article which has yesterday’s date said, “Neighbours contacted by the Mercury [the local newspaper] said they slept through the ordeal.” So they’re telling us neighbours slept through the ordeal. How on earth were the police alerted?
https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/woman-s-body-found-in-house-with-baby-boy-police-20181005-p507uu.html

In the ABC report which is linked to on the SMH website, a report of disturbance is mentioned. Why only in the ABC story? And why the very vague “report of disturbance”?

In the Channel 9 story we’re told she was found by a concerned friend but given no clue as to what alerted the friend to go to her house at 1am. Presumably, she must have been able to get through to her friend while the stalker was either attacking her or just before, in which case, why not mention it?
https://www.9news.com.au/2018/10/05/06/29/body-found-woman-home-bellambi-near-baby-boy

A concerned friend finding her contradicts the ABC and SMH stories. They imply that the police were the first to arrive on the scene.

Hallmark of staged events: different and contradictory versions of the story.

It is said that she told her friends she didn’t answer calls from private numbers any more because it could be the stalker. However, we were also told that she received up to 100 calls and messages a day from him, including one saying, “Die, Kristie, die”. You only get messages from a mobile phone so while it may have been more difficult to block the private calls surely she could have blocked any relevant mobile numbers. And even with private numbers couldn’t she block a certain number of these? Was the guy running around to every public phone box?

Photo that seems odd to me
We see a man in a suit and tie helping to carry the body from the house. Suit and tie? Wouldn’t it be paramedics?
https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/woman-s-body-found-in-house-with-baby-boy-police-20181005-p507uu.html

The seeming agenda: it is said she had told friends that she’d told the police but they said they couldn’t do anything about it. Does this mean new phone-related laws that somehow restrict our freedoms?

She says on her FB page:
“He is mentally unwell and I have contacted police about him on a few occasions, but there is nothing they can really do as he is considered non-threatening.”

However, “Police say they never received any formal complaint from Ms Powell about the alleged stalking.”

“Never received” is not the kind of colloquial grammar you’d expect to see in a news report. Another hallmark: the language is often inappropriately colloquial.

Another interesting point is that no one’s name is mentioned except Kristie’s and the police’s. No neighbour’s name, no friend’s name. I’ve seen other events where even the person the event is about is only referred to as “John”. Can you believe that? We are told quite a significant story about someone reported as “John” with not a single other name mentioned. Not the name of his carers referred to, nor any name of police referred to (and the police were also very significant in the story), nor the name of the suburb he lived in, just the “northern suburbs of Melbourne”.

I hate to think that this may be a horrible tragedy and I simply question it. I hate that feeling. That’s why I don’t read the news. For goodness sake, can I not just pick up a paper once in awhile and simply read it without being confronted by a story where I smell a rat?

Frankly Speaking
Reader
Frankly Speaking

This was meant to be a reply to the Flaxgirl Disinfo Agent, not sure how it ended up at the top level.

Frankly Speaking
Reader
Frankly Speaking

You had your opportunity to show us that you’re not a disinfo troll and spoiler; now there’s no doubt. Get lost.

flaxgirl
Reader

Do you believe in the phenomenon of staged events, Frankly Speaking? Do you feel certain about any events being staged or do you just think they’re a possibility? You really need to get clarity on at least one event. If you don’t study them, if you don’t know their hallmarks, if you can’t see how they’re similar to each other, then how can you judge? So many people say, “Well, maybe but I don’t think so” or they just dismiss the idea as preposterous. The power elite SHOVE these events in our faces. There is no room to be on the fence about them if you study them properly. You cannot legitimately say, “I’m open to the idea of a staged event but I’m not sure they really happen.” They are in our faces. They don’t conduct them as realistically as possible deliberately so that, in their minds, we cannot accuse them of completely duping us. But even though they give us a massive head start on determining what they’re doing to us, I’m vilified for calling out the completely obvious. If you don’t want to see what’s in front of your face, so be it, FS, if you want to sit in the facile argument of how plausible the event is that is your choice but you have no right to vilify me for not doing that.

flaxgirl
Reader

What do you object to in what I say, Frankly Speaking, I’m mystified.

Frankly Speaking
Reader
Frankly Speaking

“ I feel terrible about that and in so many ways I feel helpless to do anything. I feel at a loss to understand how geopolitics really works but the one thing I can understand and is so very black and white is all the false flag hoaxes happening. These things are so very obvious and can be identified very easily if only you open your mind and have a look.“

Perhaps you are being genuine. If so, your comment illustrates where you are going completely off track.

You don’t understand something very complex by your own admission, nothing wrong with that, most of us to struggle along the road of enlightenment. However, you then apply a massively simplistic and massively flawed thought process to try and explain what you are trying to comprehend.

Yes, there are conspiracies to cover up appalling crimes committed by the Controllers such as 911, however, you see a conspiracy in every major event where a far more rational explanation is available based on the facts.

The facts are that not only the Grenfell residents but others living in council accommodation across the country have since 1979 when Thatcher became PM complained about Tory policy. Numerous residences are affected by Tory exploitation and corruption and mismanagement.

Grenfell residents complained for years to their local Tory council. What happened in Grenfell was foreseeable and avoidable and due to greed and mismanagement. Those responsible took numerous decisions which were all challenged yet implemented.

A refrigerator caught fire and due to all the mismanagement and greed and implementation of Tory policy the inevitable consequences then followed.

Those responsible for Grenfell need to be put in prison. By you and others propagating Grenfell conspiracy theories you are in fact lobbying to help those truly responsible for this appalling event, rather than campaigning for justice and see them rot in prison.

If you are a disinfo troll you’ll carry on regardless. If you’re genuine you’ll stop and reflect and then cease your nonsense on Grenfell. The ball is completely in your court Flaxgirl.

manfromatlan
Reader

From a link provided here on these pages about the Tavistock school of psychology, it seems that as long as the ‘evidence’ is in an accepted documentary format any number of people believe it to be true. Alex Jones and his ilk take advantage of this phenomenon.

flaxgirl
Reader

Frankly Speaking, as I indicate, I believe they exploit plausibility as part of their propaganda, so it doesn’t mean anything to me. These people don’t necessarily operate how you might expect – they’re a weird cult who treat us like fools and scum. They have no problem at all with how we perceive them as long as it involves feeling intimidated by their power. How evil we think they are isn’t a problem for them and they’re completely shameless.

I couldn’t agree with your description of the situation more – they simply exploit it, that’s all. I make no great claims to understand them myself but I felt it was incredibly illuminating when I learnt from an an insider via false-flag analyst, Ole Dammegard, that they believe that by pushing their crimes in our faces with things that don’t add up, ridiculousness, etc, the onus is on us to call them out and if we don’t it’s our fault not theirs and they suffer no karmic repercussions for their evil deeds. I’m always plugging away with this aspect of them but others don’t seem to pick it up. It’s very, very important and gives an insight into how they operate. It frustrates we when I call out the complete lack of credibility shown by someone’s behaviour and people simply refuse to see how it’s not credible. This is an example of the power elite pushing their hoaxery in our face and people still refuse to see it. They think someone’s behaviour is credible when it’s utterly ludicrous.

I judge events not by plausibility and not by implausibility but by the EVIDENCE. There is no evidence of injury or death at this event just as there was none at 9/11 and at many other events … where it is very much expected. There are also lots of things wrong with the witness testimonies, their inappropriate smiling, the footage we are shown of people in the buildings and a number of other things.

Millions of people believe astronauts didn’t go to the moon because we haven’t been since 1972 and it’s so very far away and technology has improved so much since then. These are not good reasons. We need to judge the evidence shown to us and it stands up. The evidence shown to us for the claims made about Grenfell do not stand up regardless of people complaining about problems for years or other plausible circumstances tending to suggest it was a real event.

flaxgirl
Reader

This video is all about the Masonic coding of the event, however, if you go to 5 minutes in you’ll see a guy who seems to play two witnesses. As the second witness, especially, what he says seems very odd.
https://153news.net/watch_video.php?v=BO71RKR7BSYM

3 1/2 months ago I was watching them coming with the insulation and I said to one of the workers, “What are you doing with this insulation? Why are you putting it in the building?” He says, “Oh it’s to keep you cool in the summer and warm in the winter,” and I said, “Is it?” And I said, “Watch this,” and I tore off, I broke off a little piece of it, yeah, I put it on the back of my phone and after I put it on the back of my phone, I lit it with my lighter and watched that little piece of foam go pfsss, and I said, “You’re putting that in this building, yeah?”

How credible do you find this?

The power elite hoax us and then they push their hoaxery in our faces.

George Cornell
Reader
George Cornell

Too busy staging false flag operations? Of course no one will hang for dousing Grenfell “with 32,000 litres of petrol”. There will be the usual attempts to frame ‘surplus to requirements’ underlings . There could be a slap on the wrist if the protests wake a 1%er or two in Kensington. All it takes for the dousers to get off Scot free is to make sure they douse the dispossessed, the migrants, the disenfranchised, and to have membership in or even just connections to an ancient fraternal order. This is Third World stuff and anyone considering a partnership with England should know that is how things work in London and have for a long time. If a man is tired of London he is not tired of life, he has finally figured this out.

Mulga Mumblebrain
Reader
Mulga Mumblebrain

Just yet more evidence of how deeply Rightwing psychopaths hate other people.

Schlüter
Reader
kevin morris
Reader
kevin morris

I note that the article questions why, although fires raged throughout Grenfell, the building didn’t collapse into its own footprint like the WTC buildings. Surely, that is straining credibility slightly!

flaxgirl
Reader

Like so many others, evidence shows that Grenfell was a staged event. If you’re interested go to 153news.net. They censored all the videos showing the evidence on YouTube. It’s all about fomenting disharmony. That’s what the power elite love doing: fomenting disharmony: privileged and unprivileged, longterm inhabitants and migrants/refugees, Muslims and non-Muslims. Please wake up to it.

Jen
Reader
Jen

Dear Flaxgirl,

For people to take your claim seriously, you need to present other evidence (or links to other evidence) that support your claim and which was arrived at independently from the people who run 153news.net. This other evidence must come from sources that have no connection to 153news,net or the people who run it, and the sources must be people or groups who can be contacted by all commenters here and who are prepared to state their names and take responsibility for what they claim.

It is very easy for someone or some people to make videos about apartment buildings on fire and then use these videos to “prove” that the Grenfell tower building fire must not have happened the way it was reported to have happened. Apartment buildings are built of different materials and to different standards in different countries, and these differences can affect how fires erupt and develop. The Grenfell tower building was known to have had cheap inferior-quality aluminium cladding, highly flammable as well, installed on the outside of the structure during a refurbishment that took place over 2014 – 2016. There are buildings in Australia that also have this cheap cladding and one of these buildings, Lacrosse tower in Melbourne, also caught fire; the fire spread over 13 floors in 10 minutes.
https://www.afr.com/business/construction/melbourne-apartment-fire-exposes-noncompliant-building-materials-20150427-1mu0ow

Relying on news about people trying to claim compensation and being found out is not enough. Plenty of people pretend to be victims and make false claims for compensation in all sorts of incidents but that fact alone does not mean that these incidents never occurred. A single witness who says that a fire was put out at 11 pm and a second fire developed about 1 am later is not good enough either; there need to be other independent witnesses who back up this witness’s opinion.

flaxgirl
Reader

Hi Jen,

When I look at these events I’m not necessarily interested in their unique aspects such as, in the case of Grenfell, the cladding. Also, I pay no attention whatsoever to how plausible an event may be. The power elite use plausibility as a way to fool people. So many people think that Muslims would have every reason to pilot planes into US iconic buildings but that means nothing in terms of who was actually responsible.

What I look for are things that do not add up generally, contradictions, strange changes in the story, impossibilities, lack of evidence of injury and death (where it’s claimed), witnesses not behaving as one might expect, signs of agency staff behaving as if they’re in a drill and a few other things.

As a number of the 153news.net videos show media footage I’m not sure why you’d require that you need other sources. You don’t dispute the media footage do you? Of course, there’s the actual media itself to consult but that requires more work.

In this event we see (and I have to speak from memory for some of these things):
— no evidence of injury, smoke inhalation, etc (which would be expected) and the only evidence we see of death is body bags (easily fakable)
— while much is made of people at the windows any footage that you see of people at windows is taken with vertical mobile phone camera so you cannot see whether they’re really surrounded by flames or not – vertical mobile phone footage is often used in these events to block out what the surrounding situation really is. You have to ask the question, if you really want to show the dire situation someone is in why would you not show them in proper context? The media was there, weren’t they, they don’t use mobile phones for their footage.
— witnesses saying strange things, eg, the one in my comment further up
— one witness (I think he’s a Somali) who says he lived in the apartment building but evidence showed he lived around the corner

In the case of Grenfell I’m distant from any research I did now and, as so many videos have been pulled down, it’s a pretty big effort to go to the actual media and try to find stuff. That being the case, I don’t expect people to take what I say seriously, but at least they know that it is claimed by a number of people that this event was staged and you can always do your own research.

Jen
Reader
Jen

In the case of the Grenfell tower fire, you do need to consider the unique aspect of the cladding that contributed to the spread of the fire. It was placed over the entire exterior of the building. The cladding also happened to be highly combustible and in fact that type of cladding is banned in the construction or refurbishment of buildings in many countries.

As I mentioned previously, the Lacrosse tower in Melbourne that caught fire in November 2014 also had this external cladding. The fire began on the 8th floor (it was caused by someone leaving a lit cigarette on a balcony) and in 10 – 15 minutes shot up to the 21st floor.

The fact that the fire started at about 1 am and the speed of its spread may account for the anomalies you picked up in the visual recordings of the blaze.

Grenfell tower is an old apartment block built back in the 1960s and 1970s and housed mostly poor families, many of whom are migrants from Africa and Asia. Poor fire safety regulations, poor or blocked emergency escape routes and irregular evacuation procedures may have contributed to the death toll. The fact that the fire spread so quickly combined with these other possibilities, along with toxic fumes released from burning material, could have led to people being trapped in intense fires and dying from other causes than smoke inhalation.

It is not difficult in the age of the Internet and mobile phones, and in a culture dependent on property speculation (and the obsessive focus on interior design and renovation), for people to know a fair bit about building insulation materials and their properties, especially if their lives depend on that knowledge.
🙂

flaxgirl
Reader

I don’t think the witness seemed in any obvious way the type of person who would have an interest in cladding material. In any case, he doesn’t mention any knowledge of it, he simply says that he asked the question “What are you doing with this insulation?”, then tore off a bit which he stuck on his phone and lit to demonstrate its flammability. I simply do not find this credible. And then it seems pretty clear they’ve made lame attempts (the glasses, the different camera angle) to make out he’s two witnesses.

I wouldn’t be in the least surprised, Jen, if Lacrosse was staged as a convenient precursor to Grenfell. Not saying it was at all as I know nothing about it but these things tend to have a global flavour and you’ll see echoes of one event on one side of the world in another on the other side.

It’s interesting, isn’t it, that the cladding went up 3 1/2 months before the event. I’m sure there are multiple agendas behind the cladding issue. The cladding is both a pretext and a distractor. It so easily produces the kneejerk reaction, “The rich screwing over the poor with their substandard materials” and aids fomenting disharmony. Of course, the rich screw over the poor bigtime, we don’t need the cladding issue to tell us, but when they control the narrative it’s a bit different. It allows them somehow to screw us over even more.

The most important element of this event is whether or not people were killed and injured. The evidence does not support the claim. Just as it doesn’t support the claim for 9/11 (and many other events). In both cases, people could easily have been evacuated beforehand and we simply see no convincing evidence of death and injury.

To accept an event as being staged it really does help to look at a few of them (and there’s a heap) because then you get a feel for them, their hallmarks and how they work. You really need to accept the paradigm of “staged event”. If you never really come to grips with that paradigm and you’re always explaining this or that oddity away you’ll never really “get” them.

Jen
Reader
Jen

It would probably make no difference to you then if more and similar building fires involving the type of cladding used on the Lacrosse tower or the Grenfell tower were to occur, because to you these will all be “staged events”. It seems that no matter how simple and logical the explanation is, you look for conspiracy theories instead. I’ll leave you to your own gabbling circular ruminations – you are little more than a disinformation troll as Frankly Speaking says. I’m not surprised at FS’s disgust with your commenting.

flaxgirl
Reader

But this event can be judged without any reference to the cladding. I have no opinion on the cladding – it may well be horribly flammable. But we don’t need to consider the cladding. What I look for is discrepancy between show and tell. We are told about injury and death and we are given no evidence of it. Why don’t we see any people suffering smoke inhalation or some kind of other injury? We are told that there are people at the windows surrounded by flames but all we are shown is vertical mobile phone footage that excludes any possible flames. We have witnesses saying things that simply aren’t credible.

There is absolutely zero evidence provided that does not fit “staged event”. To my mind, if everything can fit “staged event” and there is nothing that can only fit real event then the event must be staged. If you think that everything shown can fit “staged event” and still be a real event so be it. I don’t judge events in that way. Unless there is something in the evidence that strongly supports real over staged I will believe it is a staged event.

I don’t know what is so difficult to understand about the power elite targeting people concerned with social justice with their propaganda. Do you think the propaganda is just for “the masses”, Jen? Do you think people like us are not a target? Do you think that the power elite don’t have streams of propaganda aimed at all the different groups including those concerned with social justice?

bevin
Reader
bevin

“. That’s what the power elite love doing: fomenting disharmony: privileged and unprivileged,..”
Why does the power elite, with its privileges, want to foment disharmony between itself and the unprivileged?
Does it need the exercise?
The reality is that disharmony between the privileged and unprivileged needs no fomenting: it is one of the few drawbacks to privilege that it excites the resentment of the rest of us.

flaxgirl
Reader

You’re right, bevin, but they do it anyway.

Mulga Mumblebrain
Reader
Mulga Mumblebrain

The sheer, vicious, inhumanity of this repetitive swill is becoming utterly nauseating.

Antonyl
Reader
Antonyl

Next: Brexit April 1st 2019: staged event 😉

Frankly Speaking
Reader
Frankly Speaking

You are a disgusting disinfo troll. Trying to bring this site into disrepute. Now feck off back to Cheltenham.

Haltonbrat
Reader
Haltonbrat

Surely such events should at least be questioned. I suppose that you believe that 9/11 happened as stated?
I wonder how enough heat was generated on the outside of Grenfell from whatever caused an internal fire.

flaxgirl
Reader

That is so funny, Haltonbrat. Of course, I don’t, however, what I do think is very unpopular even with truthers, that is, I think the evidence shows that no one died or was injured on 9/11 – not to say that no one died or that no one was injured but, essentially, it was a staged event just like Grenfell. http://occamsrazorterrorevents.weebly.com/3000-dead-and-6000-injured-a-lie.html

flaxgirl
Reader

Do you think I don’t care about people dying, Frankly Speaking? Do you think I think no one dies anywhere and everything is a hoax? I don’t. Not at all. I feel very sad for people whose countries are wracked by death and destruction whether it’s natural disaster such as what’s just happened in Sulawesi or whether it’s due to invasion by the other nations such as in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya, Yemen, etc. I feel terrible about that and in so many ways I feel helpless to do anything. I feel at a loss to understand how geopolitics really works but the one thing I can understand and is so very black and white is all the false flag hoaxes happening. These things are so very obvious and can be identified very easily if only you open your mind and have a look.

What’s happening now makes me think of a reverse-Holocaust situation. During the Holocaust I can just imagine a small number of people saying, “They’re killing people in the gas ovens” and others responding, “Preposterous”. Now when you say, “People are not dying in these events, they’re just drills pushed out as real,” you get the same response, “Preposterous.” Please just open your mind and have a proper look.

Haltonbrat
Reader
Haltonbrat

But it is a criminal offence to question the holocaust, so should you not also be thinking that is suspicious?
Amazon are avoiding supplying a recent book by experts questioning 9/11.

flaxgirl
Reader

Yes, it’s very, very bad that they make it a criminal offence and I find it hard to believe that the history books tell the real story simply because it seems they never do, however, I do not doubt that a very great number of people were killed during the Holocaust including a very significant number of Jewish people regardless of whether the number is the number stated or not. There is simply too much testimony in my opinion, however, I cannot say I’ve looked at the material of those who question or debunk.

flaxgirl
Reader

I can understand that you don’t agree with me, Frankly Speaking and Mulga (below), but I do not understand your antagonism. Don’t I seem genuine in my belief? I have set up my own website with everything explained in a perfectly logical and reasonable manner. Why would I be spreading this as disinformation? Who for and what would be the purpose? http://occamsrazorterrorevents.weebly.com/

Mulga Mumblebrain
Reader
Mulga Mumblebrain

Yes, indeed. ‘Genuinely’ morally insane or ‘genuinely’ a disinformation troll designed to muddy the waters with odious and paranoid confabulation.

flaxgirl
Reader

I’m afraid, Mulga, you remind me of Germans who, while their fellow Germans were being gassed in ovens, didn’t bother to turn their head one bit to do any investigation and denounced those informing them in exactly the same way you are denouncing me. You obviously haven’t looked one little bit and simply dismiss any claim at all as being preposterous.

We live in a Hitlerian Lie/Emperor’s New Clothes world, Mulga. It’s right in your face and yet you don’t won’t turn your head the tiniest bit to look.

rilme
Reader
rilme

“Germans were being gassed in ovens”?
Do you have the tiniest piece of evidence to support that claim?

manfromatlan
Reader

You might be sincere in your false beliefs, probably due to your psychological makeup?

flaxgirl
Reader

If my beliefs are so false, why has no one submitted a response to my challenge when I offer them the choice of judge, even though they have engaged in lengthy exchanges in email and YouTube comments? Do you believe the Manchester bombing real or that there was a shooting at Sandy Hook – I mean, come on – thousands upon thousands recognise that as fake. If so, please tell me why. I have listed 10 perfectly compelling points to illustrate that neither event was real and no one has come up with a single point for either event to show that they were.

manfromatlan
Reader

I’m interested in observing the psychology of belief, flaxgirl, but that’s it.

Mulga Mumblebrain
Reader
Mulga Mumblebrain

You have it precisely, Frankly. I’d use ‘revolting’ as well as disgusting, too.

kevin morris
Reader
kevin morris

I took the trouble of going to 153news.net and looking at the posts on Grenfell trickery.
They seemed to consist of one guy- an American- stating ‘I believe this event didn’t happen’ then citing eyewitness reports which he claimed were made by actors.

Frankly, if this really counts as ‘evidence’ then I feel very concerned. There were fakers at Grenfell. A number of people have been prosecuted for making false compensation claims, but all their ‘evidence’ proves is that some people will stoop to anything and it isn’t just the authorities who are corrupt.

The spectacle of individuals who have been nowhere near disasters making pronouncements based upon a few videoed news reports often says far more about those individuals than it does about the events in question.

flaxgirl
Reader

Generally, propaganda works like magic regardless of how close to an event you are, Kevin. An event can happen right under your nose virtually and you’ll believe the propaganda about it rather than be able to tell what really happened. I’m sure many people at the Ariana Grande concert believed a bomb went off right next door while people half-way across the world will detect all the false-flag hoax hallmarks within minutes of looking at the media stories. Their hallmarks are very, very distinctive.

What people completely underestimate is how powerful propaganda is and how easily it works. I understimated it myself, even when I’d been researching these events for four years – that’s how long it took me to realise that injury and death were staged on 9/11 just as they are at all the other events.

But in a comment on one of the 153news.net videos (https://153news.net/watch_video.php?v=G3UXASG6GK75) this is what someone says who, allegedly, knew someone close to the incident.

My Italian friend lives next door to Grenfell and informs me that fire engines were there at about 10:30pm dealt with a small fire, then went away. When the ’real’ blaze began before 1:00am he says the fire brigade arrived but couldn’t get water from hydrants on the north side and relocated to the south side of Grenfell. The earlier fire, if there was one, was perfect opportunity to evacuate! Hmnnn…

flaxgirl
Reader

Kevin, there was more stuff on youtube which clearly showed it. Also, it is a hallmark of these events that they double-hoax us with people who are “revealed” to be hoaxers (and, in some cases, allegedly sent to jail) – it blows your mind what they do. A classic case is Paula Robinson at the Manchester Bombing who a great fuss was made of by the media. She said that she took children from the arena to the Holiday Inn and put on FB that she was doing so, so that their parents could come and fetch them. Her story was utterly ludicrous but the media lapped it all up. A few days later they came out saying she’d lied, however, they in no way vilified her or admitted to an inappropriate lack of stringency in vetting her story in the first place.
This is a great video by UK Critical Thinker on her that has somehow remained on YT (for the moment).
youtube.com/watch?v=PDSPvxMBqzk

BigB
Reader
BigB

The only conspiracy about Grenfell was that the death toll was only 71. The “Royal Borough of Murder and Profit” should, perhaps, suffer the same fate, trapped in the eternal fires of Hell?

manfromatlan
Reader

With all due respect to flaxgirl, it seems like everything is a “staged event”.

Mulga Mumblebrain
Reader
Mulga Mumblebrain

‘flaxgirl’ is a ‘staged event’.

flaxgirl
Reader

It’s true, manfromatlan, the evidence shows many events are. But I only judge by the evidence. If you go to 153news.net, search for Grenfell, you will see a number of videos on the subject. Don’t you think that the story we’re told seems a little unlikely, too, though?

There is one quite popular conspiracy theory I don’t subscribe to, however, and that is landing on the moon. I think that astronauts went to the moon and it was an amazing achievement. The reason I believe they went is simply that I see nothing in the evidence presented that looks unconvincing – in fact, the opposite. It also seems to me that there are a number of people who speak with authority about going to the moon whereas all the people who say we didn’t go don’t seem to have any knowledge about what going to the moon involved.

On the other hand, I think the Challenger disaster was faked and faked in an amazing way. We see all the people alive today with, in several cases, exactly the same name. Astounding!
youtube.com/watch?v=ZcS79WyiuJo

harry stotle
Reader
harry stotle

Hillsborough, David Kelly, and now Grenfell – each time the authorities have tried to brass it out presumably in the hope that drawn out and ineffective legl proceedings will ultimately lead to the clamour for real justice fading?

Fair dinkum.
Reader
Fair dinkum.

‘Never hold an inquiry unless you are sure of the outcome’
(It’s in the Psychopaths rule book).

George Cornell
Reader
George Cornell

Inquiries in the UK are a joke. They are routinely planned organized and executed by paid lackeys of the 1% .
When the Newspaper toady Brooks was up against it, Blair told her to have an inquiry and even named who should conduct it. That is someone who will exonerate even the most vile criminal.
Any inquiry chairman has been selected for being an obsequious fartcatcher, who then is rewarded with a peerage, knighthood or some other taxpayer funded sop.Hutton is a prime example, now “Lord” Hutton.
If you want a scumbag to illustrate the “vermin” entry in Wiki, just pull up the last inquiry chairman. The code for scumbag among the 1% is a “safe pair of hands”.
Nothing in the UK of any significance is on the level. And anyone unhappy with the state of affairs is better off taking their concerns to the nearest Masonic Lodge. What a disgusting shadow of its former self! The EU will be much better off without England at least.