‘The Holes in the Official Skripal Story’,

Post Reply
User avatar
bindeweede
Site Admin
Posts: 3376
Joined: Sun Oct 25, 2015 3:45 pm
Location: Hertfordshire, UK

‘The Holes in the Official Skripal Story’,

Post by bindeweede » Sat Jul 14, 2018 9:02 pm

I stumbled across this very interesting item. It's worth a read, imo, though I have no idea about its accuracy.
I am, with a few simple questions, demolishing what is the most ludicrous conspiracy theory I have ever heard – the Salisbury conspiracy theory being put forward by the British government and its corporate lackies.

My next post will consider some more plausible explanations of this affair.
https://21stcenturywire.com/2018/07/14/ ... pal-story/

Tony.Williams
Posts: 792
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2016 8:05 am
Location: Still somewhere in England
Contact:

Re: ‘The Holes in the Official Skripal Story’,

Post by Tony.Williams » Sun Jul 15, 2018 9:28 am

He certainly asks some valid questions (some of which have been evident from the start) but until we know a lot more than has been released to date, it's difficult to comment.

The most plausible explanation I've heard so far is that it was an unofficial attack by some people in Russian Army intelligence (to which Skripal used to belong) in retribution for all of the former comrades who he betrayed to the Allies. Perhaps the timing was connected with one or more of them getting out of prison. The implication being that Putin didn't know about it beforehand - although he will almost certainly know all about it now.

The Russians don't help their cause by throwing up the usual ridiculous smokescreen of silly theories (usually involving British intelligence in collaboration with Porton Down), which is what they always do when caught out. And Russian targeted assassinations in the UK are not exactly unknown.

User avatar
chaggle
Posts: 2316
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2015 10:01 am

Re: ‘The Holes in the Official Skripal Story’,

Post by chaggle » Sun Jul 15, 2018 4:43 pm

Who knows? It may or may not become clear.

I agree that your explanation is a plausible.

One point - Craig Murray has a 'mixed past' - he was dismissed from the FCO under a bit of a cloud - could be dodgy.

I await his next post with interest...
Don't blame me - I voted remain :con

User avatar
chaggle
Posts: 2316
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2015 10:01 am

Re: ‘The Holes in the Official Skripal Story’,

Post by chaggle » Sun Jul 15, 2018 5:35 pm

BTW - the linked article reads very much like one of the ubiquitous CT takedowns of the 911 'official record' ie no substance just sniping which is the easy bit.

As I said I look forward to his 'more plausible explanations' ( ct'ers rarely do that as it allows us sensible people to do what they do - rubbish them).
Don't blame me - I voted remain :con

Croydon13013
Posts: 1377
Joined: Sun Oct 25, 2015 7:48 pm

Re: ‘The Holes in the Official Skripal Story’,

Post by Croydon13013 » Mon Jul 16, 2018 10:50 am

I agree that the official story appears a bit dodgy at the moment. Bonking BoJo the Clown certainly lied about evidence that it was the Russians. It might have been the Russians but we haven't been given a sniff of any actual evidence. It seems that evidence that novichok did get out of the USSR and that it could have been manufactured elsewhere is being ignored/supressed.

I was peripherally involved in the polonium/Litvinenko case. There's no doubt at all that the Russian security services did that one. Check out the "polonium trails" bit of the Wiki page. That evidence alone makes it clear who was responsible. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning ... ium_trails
But there are conspiracy theories that it wasn't the Russians.
thIS sIGnaTure iS an

Matt
Posts: 867
Joined: Sun Oct 25, 2015 7:50 pm

Re: ‘The Holes in the Official Skripal Story’,

Post by Matt » Fri Jul 20, 2018 5:10 pm

"Why did nobody see them painting the doorknob? This must have involved wearing protective gear, which would look out of place in a Salisbury suburb. With Skripal being resettled by MI6, and a former intelligence officer himself, it beggars belief that MI6 did not fit, as standard, some basic security including a security camera on his house."

I'm not sure what's being said here. Is he saying that there must have been a camera and the lack of photographic evidence is indicative of a cover up. Or is he saying that these intelligence agents not fitting a camera indicates conspiracy. Which seems odd as one of the intelligence agents in question ended up nearly dying alongside his daughter.

I've looked at the widely available photos and can't see any cameras. Charitably I will simply take this as exasperation rather than an attempt to imply anything.

Post Reply