Evidence Bombs were planted beneath trains on 7/7

Simple and irrefutable facts don't need evidence.

Interesting read, this thread. I'm 'agnostic' on the whole thing tbh. But had to pick up on this post. How can 'facts' be 'irrefutable' if no evidence exists?

Can some one tell me what the offical version says about the lack of CCTV footage from the tube stations ?

CCTV is pretty useless at solving crime - and no there aren't "several million" in London, and most will be inside shops and the like.

 

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/6082530/1000-CCTV-cameras-to-solve-just-one-crime-Met-Police-admits.html

 

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23412867-tens-of-thousands-of-cctv-cameras-yet-80-of-crime-unsolved.do

 

http://www.info4security.com/story.asp?storycode=4115263

See post 1171 above - CCTV pretty useless at solving crime.

Why would it catch them - only a small minority of crimes are solved by CCTV.

I'm saying exactly what I've been saying for the last few days.

 

CCTV isn't very good at identifying individuals.

 

It plays very little part in detecting crime.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...ce-admits.html

 

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/a...me-unsolved.do

 

http://www.info4security.com/story.a...rycode=4115263

OK, it isn't very good at solving crime but those few images from which the "bombers" could not be positively identified are about the only "evidence" there is of them even being in london.

Would you agree then it is not evidence they bombed the trains ? (or wouldn't convict them in court )

That leaves the suicide video.

As explained numerous times in the thread this could easily be part of the training exercise, was coerced by the agent, or made it to gain credibility among what he thought was a genuine 'terrorist cell' that he thought he was infiltrating.

The video is not reliable evidence as he does not say what he intends to do and it was made long before the event.

That leaves their DNA being identified at the scene.

I believe they are dead, so they would have their DNA wouldn't they.

But did they die on the trains and bus ,or at canary wharf ?

Interesting read, this thread. I'm 'agnostic' on the whole thing tbh. But had to pick up on this post. How can 'facts' be 'irrefutable' if no evidence exists?

Thanks for appreciating the thread,it has become very interesting especially with the input from Rob (cheers Rob) and thanks Truthlogic. i've just been catching up .

Shame we have to have this enquiry on a forum,this is all stuff that should have been discussed in the 7/7 enquiry.

1+1=2

 

Do you need evidence?

 

And the irony of you saying that is huge.

Haha Im glad to see you are able to count !

Even happier to see you are over the shock of seeing mock child sacrifices which you were screaming about last week !

Except...not. Do you watch the news, or indeed read the threads on this forum...oh wait, we already know you don't read other peoples posts.

Read the news ? My friend some of my threads discuss the role of current media plays in Geo politics

Of coarse I watch and read all available media !

I only whant to know why the bombers were not caught on CCTV

It's the same with the 9/11 hijackers at least 12 of them were never recorded even setting foot on American soil ! It's like no one was bothered they commited mass murder !?

Sorry, you are completely untrustworthy.

 

Here is what Bridget actually said from the link that you provided:-

 

As the timings on the CCTV shown today hadn't been pixellated ,

 

28/6

 

08.10.07 Enter Luton

08.14.26 Go through barriers

08.15.07 Enter platform

 

7/7

 

07.21.54 Enter Luton

07.22.29 Ticket hall

07.22.43 Go through barriers

07.23.27 On platform

07.24.47 Train arrives

07.24.56 Board

07.25.36 Train leaves

 

Presumably you can move in less than half the time when carrying bomb-laden rucksacks!

 

 

 

Did you get that please? She doesn't believe that nonsense either.

Ah - found the source of those timings.

Not someone "putting a stopwatch to it" as per your post #1198 - rather it's from the time stamp of the CCTV of the 4 entering Luton Station, going up the stairs, along the passge, through the barriers and onto the platform. It's about 10 minutes into these vids until the end.

J7 have it tucked away here;

http://clients.mediaondemand.net/judiciary/7julyinquests/

It was shown to the inquest on 13 October 2010.

Surprised none of the "truther" sites have linked to it even to try to cry "fake" - rather we have had the smokescreen of the Jag (also shown as part of the CCTV above) on the J7 inquest blog;

http://77inquests.blogspot.com/2010/10/curious-case-of-jag-that-parked-in.html

And on "Terror on The Tube" we have them appearing that the inquest were given "new timings";

http://terroronthetube.co.uk/inquest-articles/77-inquest-government-offers-new-still-unbelievable-version-of-the-train-times-timeline/

even though the "official" story had been saying the train at 7:25 since 2006.

http://www.julyseventh.co.uk/july-7-luton-kings-cross-train-times.html

So although we haven't got CCTV of anyone buying tickets - which Germin Lindasy could have done earlier (most of the first few minutes of those vids show him in the station for long enough to have bought them) - we have clear walk through CCTV with the 4 on the platform in time to catch the train that left at 7:25 - like J7 always said was possible;

http://www.julyseventh.co.uk/july-7-luton-kings-cross-train-times.html

"Was any train feasible? Let us consider an earlier train, which left Luton station at 07.25, and arrived into King’s Cross Thameslink at 08.23 am; thus, its journey took 58 minutes. This scenario would give the four young men barely three minutes to walk up the stairs at Luton, buy their tickets in the morning rush-hour and then get to the platform. Some have suggested that Lindsay German from Aylesbury had arrived early and bought the four tickets in advance (day-returns at 22 pounds each), to make this feasible."

from http://www.rense.com/general67/camb.htm, Bruce Lait is quoted as saying...

 

Reflecting on the ordeal, he said: ."Out of that whole carriage, I think Crystal and I were the only ones who were not seriously injured, and I think we were nearest the bomb

 

He "thinks" he and Crystal were nearest the bomb.

Despite in the story in the Cambridge Evening News;

http://www.veronicachapman.com/archive/83e33146-09af-4421-b2f4-1779a86926f9.lpf.htm

he says there were people laying on top of him and Crystal when he came round from the blast.

"When I woke up and looked around I saw darkness, smoke and wreckage. It took a while to realise where I was and what was going on, then my first concern was for Crystal.

"She was okay but she was in shock because she was trying to deal with the person on top of her who had massive head injuries. We have just found out that this person died," said Mr Lait, who lives in Suffolk.

He too was afraid to move because there was a seriously injured woman lying on top of him.

"I realised someone was lying on top of me. I tried not to move her because I didn't know if she was still alive, or I could have made it worse. This person also died, while on top of me."

Surely at least one would have been nearer the bomb than Bruce Lait - probably stood between him and the bomb.

line from The Black Eyed Peas,

if you never know truth, then you never know love.

He "thinks" he and Crystal were nearest the bomb.

 

Despite in the story in the Cambridge Evening News;

 

http://www.veronicachapman.com/archive/83e33146-09af-4421-b2f4-1779a86926f9.lpf.htm

 

he says there were people laying on top of him and Crystal when he came round from the blast.

 

"When I woke up and looked around I saw darkness, smoke and wreckage. It took a while to realise where I was and what was going on, then my first concern was for Crystal.

 

"She was okay but she was in shock because she was trying to deal with the person on top of her who had massive head injuries. We have just found out that this person died," said Mr Lait, who lives in Suffolk.

 

He too was afraid to move because there was a seriously injured woman lying on top of him.

 

"I realised someone was lying on top of me. I tried not to move her because I didn't know if she was still alive, or I could have made it worse. This person also died, while on top of me."

 

Surely at least one would have been nearer the bomb than Bruce Lait - probably stood between him and the bomb.

Perhaps, still he says this also.

Quote;

"The policeman said 'mind that hole, that's where the bomb was'. The metal was pushed upwards as if the bomb was underneath the train. They seem to think the bomb was left in a bag, but I don't remember anybody being where the bomb was, or any bag." .

Perhaps, still he says this also.

 

Quote;

"The policeman said 'mind that hole, that's where the bomb was'. The metal was pushed upwards as if the bomb was underneath the train. They seem to think the bomb was left in a bag, but I don't remember anybody being where the bomb was, or any bag." .

I do find it interesting that you truth-seekers take this as gospel, but when he talks about having seen the bomber, you say he is untrustworthy, and his evidence is flawed and shouldn't be taken into account. Surely if you were being objective you would either accept everything he has to say, or nothing, not cherry-picking the bits which suit your argument. I suppose though that does leave you with the dialema that he's the only person every to have claimed "metal was pushed upwards" and that it looked "as if the bomb was underneath the train", and if you dispose of his statement, the bomb must have been inside the train as that's what all the other evidence points to...

Perhaps, still he says this also.

 

Quote;

"The policeman said 'mind that hole, that's where the bomb was'. The metal was pushed upwards as if the bomb was underneath the train. They seem to think the bomb was left in a bag, but I don't remember anybody being where the bomb was, or any bag." .

Perhaps because he was reading the paper - here is the transcript from the inquest (section 29 onwards of the link).

http://7julyinquests.independent.gov.uk/hearing_transcripts/19102010pm.htm

"12 Q. All right. There came the explosion. Do you remember

13 the explosion itself?

14 A. I can remember it in detail, yes.

15 Q. Could you tell us, please, something of the effect of

16 the explosion on you?

17 A. Well, initially, when I got on to the train, I sat down,

18 I opened up the Metro newspaper, reading the good news

19 about the Olympic Games, and the train pulled off, it

20 seemed like less than a minute, when, all of a sudden,

21 it felt like I wasn't on the train anymore. I was

22 obviously unconscious or -- I didn't actually know what

23 was going on. I felt like I was -- I was asking

24 questions to myself, "What's going on? I don't really

25 understand why I'm not reading this -- the paper

30

1 anymore", and I started to wonder what was happening to

2 me, and I just kept telling myself "Wake up, wake up,

3 you're obviously alive, you're not dead, wake up".

He can't remember the gender of the person next to him (earlier in section 29).

6 Q. Do you recall whether or not it was a lady who was next

7 to you in seat 19?

8 A. No, I don't recall whether it was male or female.

Just like any normal person on a bus or the tube - going about their journey and not taking a great deal of notice of what's going on.

I do find it interesting that you truth-seekers take this as gospel, but when he talks about having seen the bomber, you say he is untrustworthy, and his evidence is flawed and shouldn't be taken into account. Surely if you were being objective you would either accept everything he has to say, or nothing, not cherry-picking the bits which suit your argument. I suppose though that does leave you with the dialema that he's the only person every to have claimed "metal was pushed upwards" and that it looked "as if the bomb was underneath the train", and if you dispose of his statement, the bomb must have been inside the train as that's what all the other evidence points to...

I think you've got the wrong man. It wasn't Bruce Lait who claimed to have seen a bomber - it was Daniel Biddle - on a different train.