Jump to content

Evidence Bombs were planted beneath trains on 7/7

Recommended Posts

He wasn't likely to tell her the truth before he went, was he?! :loopy:

 

Agreed, but why make up a story ? ,it makes no sense if he thought he would be a dead anyway.

 

It appears to me VResistance only answers what he wants to, quite selective!

 

Sorry what did you want me to answer ?

 

Yes, he is rather selective. I really think he is clutching at straws now and this thread is almost at the end of it's natural life.

 

I think it's just getting going.

 

One of the sources you have linked to said that there was no evidence that their hair had been bleached, which they agreed [with the Police] would happen if in such close proximity to the substances used to make the bombs.

 

Or, maybe, these exercises aren't as rare as some people would like you to think they are, and in fact happen regularly?

 

The fact that Peter Power could set up an entire company to run these things (and he is by far not the only people doing this), should indicate he runs more than one exercise a year.

 

So was his hair bleached or not ? and what does it prove ?

 

Funny how the "bombers" also chose the same scenario,targeting commuters rather than much more effective targets they could have chosen.

 

They were set up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Agreed, but why make up a story ? ,it makes no sense if he thought he would be a dead anyway.

 

Funny how the "bombers" also chose the same scenario,targeting commuters rather than much more effective targets they could have chosen.

 

They were set up.

 

 

Response to your first comment. He chose to say what he said, for a reason. It makes perfect sense to lie when you want a cover story.

 

They chose the commuter trains, which at the time, were heaving with commuters. They could inflict maximum devastation on the those trains as well as bring the city to a hault, which they did rather successfully.

 

They were only set up, in your mind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Agreed, but why make up a story ? ,it makes no sense if he thought he would be a dead anyway.

 

Oh please - you can't really be so stupid as to think he had no reason to make up a story.

 

Oh, dear. You can.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Response to your first comment. He chose to say what he said, for a reason. It makes perfect sense to lie when you want a cover story.

 

They chose the commuter trains, which at the time, were heaving with commuters. They could inflict maximum devastation on the those trains as well as bring the city to a hault, which they did rather successfully.

 

They were only set up, in your mind.

 

Why would a suicide bomber need a cover story ?

 

So they thought it worth dying to kill a few innocent commuters and inconvenience the rest.

 

these were "westernised",muslim converts etc not hardline muslim extremists.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Funny how the "bombers" also chose the same scenario,targeting commuters rather than much more effective targets they could have chosen.

 

 

Which more effective targets do you mean?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why would a suicide bomber need a cover story ?

 

Because unless he was intending to detonate immediately after telling their loved one of their plans - as clearly wasn't the case here - it leaves a window of several days in which the person they told could inform the authorites.

 

 

It's like arguing with window lickers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

It's like arguing with window lickers.

 

Im going to quote this before you edit it out.

 

Window Licker:

 

(derogatory) ~ sl.: euphemism for a person of mentally challenged status. Etymology: C20 - Derived from the stereotyped behaviour of mentally challenged people, observed to place their open mouths into prolongued contact with the external windows of public or private transport on which they are seated.

It is offensive and wrong to name a person people who is mentally challenged a 'window licker' or a 'retard'.

 

Never come on here and talk down to anyone and try to claim the moral high ground ever again.

Edited by Hots on

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Im going to quote this before you edit it out.

 

Cheers, I'm flattered, but I think we can leave it in - it's true!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Agreed, but why make up a story ? ,it makes no sense if he thought he would be a dead anyway.

 

Because if you tell everybody what your plan is, then sooner or later you're going to get caught. Do you really think all terrorists in the history of terrorism have told anyone they meet what they planned to do beforehand?

 

So was his hair bleached or not ? and what does it prove ?

 

According to at least one of the "truth seeker" sites his hair was not bleached. According to the official report, and now this girl, his hair was.

 

Being in close proximity for periods of time with the chemicals (allegedly) used in the bombs would cause hair to become bleached.

 

Another truth seeker idea is that the bombers never went to the flat which was damaged by the chemicals.

 

Funny how the "bombers" also chose the same scenario,targeting commuters rather than much more effective targets they could have chosen.

 

What more "effective" targets exist? It all boils down to the question of what were they trying to accomplish. If you want to send a message to Government / the population, attack well known locations. If you want to cause general fear and panic amongst individuals, attack them where they feel safe but congregate in large numbers.

 

My sister refuses to use London Underground, because we had to be evacuated from Liverpool Street Underground station back in 1991/1992 because of a suspected (IRA) bomb on the next train arriving (which was then evacuated upon arrival). Judging by that alone, I would say causing people to not trust the security of their transport systems is quite a good way to upset them.

 

They were set up.

 

I'm sorry, but it's looking less and less likely every day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Because unless he was intending to detonate immediately after telling their loved one of their plans - as clearly wasn't the case here - it leaves a window of several days in which the person they told could inform the authorites.

 

 

It's like arguing with window lickers.

:P

you're assuming if he didn't say he was going to Dubai he would have to tell her he was going to blow up a train.:confused:

 

Why not just- "i'm off to scotland for a few days"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
:P

you're assuming if he didn't say he was going to Dubai he would have to tell her he was going to blow up a train.:confused:

 

Why not just- "i'm off to scotland for a few days"

 

What the hell does it matter? The fact is, the evidence you provided fails to show that he was not involved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
:P

you're assuming if he didn't say he was going to Dubai he would have to tell her he was going to blow up a train.:confused:

 

I'm doing nothing of the sort.

 

Why not just- "i'm off to scotland for a few days"

 

That's what he did say. How's that glass tasting?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.