I'm not even linking to it since I'm totally discusted that she'd even mention it. I didn't read it so I don't know what she said about it. I wouldn't be surprised though if it was something that could be seen as very offensive towards the victims.

Just noting there is such a thing as signs of times about the incident.

Shouldn't there be laws against something like that?

she can yap and natter to prove to the community how silly these ideas area

So you're disgusted at her just for saying something about the attacks? You don't know and don't care what she said but you think she's such a repellent person that she dishonors the dead just by mentioning them? And rather than just ignore her incoherent rantings, you decide this needs to be posted here so we can all yell about what an awful person she is?

This topic is nothing but a needless personal attack.
I don't understand the meaning of this sentence, so I am sorry if I'm missing some meaningful point that you are making.
No.

Censoring kooks who say things like that only makes the public all the more curious about what they have say. Better to let them get their silliness out in the open for everyone to see and keep from adding to the mystique by passing laws against spouting such ridiculous misinformation.

__________________
One nuclear bomb could wreck your whole day.

Sign of the Times is Nancys page dedicated to things that...I don't know if this is the right word...prove that the whole pole shift alien invasion thing or whatever is real and is going to happen. The London bombings presence on that page means that Nancy is using it as evidence that her wacky ramblings are real.

__________________
"Most editorials are written by people that love to argue but got kicked off debate team for not making any sense." -Seanbaby

OK. I had forgotten the name of Nancy's page. I haven't been bored enough to go there in a long time. Anyway, if that's all the sentence meant, I wasn't missing anything.

Edited to add:
Maybe it is offensive for her to use the bombings as evidence for her theories. It depends to a great extent on how deeply she believes whatever it is she says on the subject, and with her, that's hard to know. But I am leery of the argument that "it is disrespectful to the victims of the attack to use the attack as evidence for x." Since Sept. 11, 2001 I've heard that way too many times from both sides of the political football game here in the U.S., and it always seems to be a very unfair and hypocritical argument, not least because it completely ignores the substance of what the other side is saying. It's a way of presumptively declaring your opponents' position out-of-bounds before hearing it. Maybe it's different, though, in this case, where the substance of what Nancy is saying is in all likelihood absurd.

Edited to add "Edited to add:" above because I forgot I was editing and not posting a new post.

Oh well, you might have a point, I just sort of flipped over as I think she finally kind of a crossed the line here, at least for me. The case is just too fresh to be used for her...uh agendas in my opinion.

But anyways, using other people's suffering for personal gain...

Oh I don't know, somehow just seemed grossly inappropriate.

edit to add:

Oh well, actually I started reading it but then started feeling somehow just very bad about it all so I just stopped.

edit: Now that I think of it some more, I have to say, no... I'm not attacking her persona. I'm just attacking the content of that page in the context of the rest of her website.

__________________
I have many of 'em mental powers

I had a read of it, and it demonstrates such bizarre logic as to defy belief. In the topsy-turvy world of planet x, the London bombings (as well as the Madrid bombings) were designed to stop the UK (and Spain) from withdrawing from Iraq.

The invasion of which Nancy said would never happen, then turned around and basically claimed responsibility for tricking Bush into invading.

You don't have to read what she writes to know that she's said something stupid.