Evidence Bombs were planted beneath trains on 7/7

[Bassman62 10]

I did watch it with the sound off - how do you know they stood on the spot the photo was taken unless that's what the con men told you.

Dustbins like vResistance will take anything in. Edited December 23, 2010 by Bassman62

[vResistance 10]

Alternatively, seeing as evidence (including DNA and parts of their bodies) of the bombers was found at the scenes of the explosions they might just have been planning 7/7.

 

.....We are told.

wasn't khan's ID found at three of the sights ?,so he must of been there eh:suspect:

 

 

Hi Jay

 

Would the Nick Kollerstrom on that video be related to the holocaust denier of the same name?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicholas_Kollerstrom

 

So - you quote Shayler - someone who believes he is the Messiah.

 

John Hill / Muad'Dib - someone who believes he is the Messiah and believes the Protocols of the Elders of Zion are a fact.

 

Kollerstrom - a holocaust denier.

 

Lovely company our "truthers" keep.

 

Could be ,but that's nowt to do with it ,they don't claim to have divine knowledge on 7/7 why don't you try with the sound on now.

 

 

You can't see how close he is to the railings because he is partially obscured by the guy in white trainers with the carrier bag. Looking at him in relation to the wall to his right he is obviously several feet the camera side of the railings. The height from which the picture is taken makes it look as if his head is just above railing height - note the two lads closest to the camera - their heads below railing height.

 

Not hard is it when you don't listen to the rubbish spouted by the con men.

 

Khan must be quite a way back from him in front because of his size in relation,and the amount of his body you can see above.(the closer he is(to him) the less you'd see.agreed ?

The camera is only about at the height of the bus stop sign, so not at the steep angle of view that would line up with his head if he was close behind him..difficult to explain what i mean without physically pointing it out .but it is not evidence that would stand up in court anyway.you can't tell who those people are in the pictures it could be anyone.

[Longcol 610]

 

Khan must be quite a way back from him in front because of his size in relation,and the amount of his body you can see above.(the closer he is(to him) the less you'd see.agreed ?

The camera is only about at the height of the bus stop sign, so not at the steep angle of view that would line up with his head if he was close behind him..difficult to explain what i mean without physically pointing it out .but it is not evidence that would stand up in court anyway.you can't tell who those people are in the pictures it could be anyone.

 

Suddenly we're a legal expert are we now Jay - the photo doesn't prove whatever point Shayler and Kollerstrom were making either.

 

PS - How do you know how high the camera is?

[Bassman62 10]

Suddenly we're a legal expert are we now Jay - the photo doesn't prove whatever point Shayler and Kollerstrom were making either.

 

PS - How do you know how high the camera is?

He's Inspector Clueless in the Kinky Panther.

[dosxuk 10]

OK, Rob - lets have a look at some of John's claims (I've taken the liberty of moving my reply to the correct thread).

 

Not sure how many on this forum have actually viewed the "7/7 Ripple Effect" documentary film, but it uses nothing but mainstream media sources to completely dismantle the government's official cover-story and it does it in less than 1 hour.

 

I've not watched 7/7 Ripple Effect, as I don't have an hour to waste, but I have read through the entire transcript a couple of times, and looked into the evidence myself and drawn my own conclusions, which I'm sure is what you want us to do anyway.

 

-Peter Power and his firm Visor Consultants were conducting mock terrorists drills for a client on 7/7/2005 in the exact same locations as the actual bombs went off that were allegedly detonated by 4 Muslims.

 

There is probably a mock exercise of some sort happening every day in London, many which will involve a "what if the public transport network is attacked". Peter Power has never revealed which company he was working for on that day, or the exact details of what they were doing, and there appears to be no evidence of it being more than a hypothetical exercise - i.e. not involving the emergency services / london underground / TfL. It appears to have only come to light due to it causing some minor communication errors on the day, not because thousands of actors were coming out of bombed trains going "I knew we were doing an exercise, but I didn't expect it to be that realistic".

 

I also fail to understand the link that is made (and drawn to tedious length with John's probablility mathematics towards the end), between a private company doing a mock terror drill, and the Government attacking the public. The story John puts forward does not rely on Peter Power's exercise going on, so why put so much empasis on it happening at the same time?

 

-the bombs themselves have been proven to be military grade high explosives, which would not be available to Muslim suicide bombers

 

Some media sources have reported that the bombs contained traces of high explosive. They have not suggested that this is military grade, but they have suggested it was of similar composition to that used in the Madrid train bombings, indicating that terrorists are currently capable of sourcing high explosive, or making up bombs which have a similar signature.

 

-the explosions on the tube trains exploded upward through the floors and derailed the trains, which means they were fastened underneath the carriages and could not possibly have been in ruck sacks inside the train (which would have exploded downwards through the floors)

 

This image - http://jforjustice.co.uk/77/images/Bomb-underneath-floor.jpg - from John's own site, clearly shows the floor deformed downwards towards the ground - not upwards as John says.

 

-the 7:40A train from Luton station to Thames Link at King Cross that the 4 alleged bombers were supposed to have caught was canceled, as was the next train, so the alleged bombers could not have possibly been on the 3 tube trains that exploded

 

According to Thameslink, only the 0740 train was cancelled. However, the previous train - the late running 0730, left Luton station at 0742, arriving into Kings Cross with sufficient time for the bombers to get to the Underground.

 

-the single frame, time stamped (7:21:54A) photo taken outside of Luton station, that is the primary piece of evidence in the government's story, was obviously fabricated

 

There is far more evidence that hasn't been released into the public domain which the official report relies on more - for example the confirmed presence of the bombers DNA at the bomb sites. The single released CCTV image (I remain convinced there are far more images, but they haven't been released because this single image is enough to report the bombings, and it's an ideal picture for printing in the press / showing on television).

 

If it was a manipulated image, why leave so many flaws - flaws which are understandable if you understand how CCTV works (limited resolution, size of lenses, analogue transmission / capture, etc)? Secondly, why only release one image? Why not release all the images captured on the first London trip with modified timestamps? It's not difficult to manipulate an image.

 

Finally, it would be quite easy to prove the image is representative - all you need is permission to recreate the scene and to get a capture from that camera at Luton station.

 

-the mainstream media reported that 3 of the alleged suicide bombers were shot dead in Canary Wharf. How did suicide bombers survive the suicide bombings to be shot in Canary Wharf?

 

According to John's film, one network broadcast this story as a "report" and then never repeated that report. It was subsequently picked up by a handful of newspapers (mostly foreign), with one even managing to find a witness (albeight third hand - they hadn't seen it themselves), however, the witness only saw one person being shot.

 

The same networks broadcast numerous times that six trains had been bombed and at least three buses, complete with numerous eye-witnesses happy to be interviewed, yet John never brings up these discrepancies.

 

-the list of other impossibilities with the government's official cover-story is lengthy, so watch the "7/7 Ripple Effect" and do your own research

 

Unfortunately, while there are some discrepancies in the official report (which I expect many to be answered when MI5 are forced to reveal their secrets in open court as part of the current enquiry), there are far more in John's film, and that's before we even start on the way he ignores facts, uses artistic license to fill in gaps (like why did the bombers go to Canary Wharf? Because that's where the media is. Oh, right, so they couldn't go to Fleet street, the well known home of the newspapers, which is far closer to where they were, or to ITN - based just round the corner from Kings Cross, or back on the train and escape to Manchester and go to any of the media there? I'm sorry, he's making his story up to fit the evidence he's found, not finding evidence to support his story).

 

Now, before you start on the insane / ego-driven / lunatic insults again, please note I have not attacked you, or John in my comments above. They are my interpretation of the same facts available to John. If you would like to debate whether I'm wrong and John is right (or vice-versa!), then please do. If you're just going to write back I'm an idiot with my head in the sand, then please keep it to yourself.

[Longcol 610]

Unfortunately, while there are some discrepancies in the official report (which I expect many to be answered when MI5 are forced to reveal their secrets in open court as part of the current enquiry), there are far more in John's film, and that's before we even start on the way he ignores facts, uses artistic license to fill in gaps (like why did the bombers go to Canary Wharf? Because that's where the media is. Oh, right, so they couldn't go to Fleet street, the well known home of the newspapers, which is far closer to where they were, or to ITN - based just round the corner from Kings Cross, or back on the train and escape to Manchester and go to any of the media there? I'm sorry, he's making his story up to fit the evidence he's found, not finding evidence to support his story).

 

 

You're right about everything bar Fleet Street - AFAIK all the national press had decamped to Wapping etc in the 1980's.

 

Stuck in a strange city with a return ticket I reckon 99% of us would head back home.

[dosxuk 10]

You're right about everything bar Fleet Street - AFAIK all the national press had decamped to Wapping etc in the 1980's.

 

Stuck in a strange city with a return ticket I reckon 99% of us would head back home.

 

I was sure there's still some offices based along there, but from a brief look at wikipedia, it does seem that basically everyone has left now (Reuters only left in 2005 apparently), although there are numerous media places still in the area.

 

TBH, I think if I was desperately trying to get to the media, I would head to one of the most recognised media buildings on the planet - Television Centre, not the assorted random buildings which make up the media's presense on the Isle of Dogs.

[vResistance 10]

OK, Rob - lets have a look at some of John's claims (I've taken the liberty of moving my reply to the correct thread).

 

I've not watched 7/7 Ripple Effect, as I don't have an hour to waste, but I have read through the entire transcript a couple of times, and looked into the evidence myself and drawn my own conclusions, which I'm sure is what you want us to do anyway.

 

There is probably a mock exercise of some sort happening every day in London, many which will involve a "what if the public transport network is attacked". Peter Power has never revealed which company he was working for on that day, or the exact details of what they were doing, and there appears to be no evidence of it being more than a hypothetical exercise[/Quote]

 

 

You say you don't have an hour to waste but obviously spend a lot of time on researching how to "debunk" these things why not watch the film.

 

Power said around 1000 people were involved in the organisation of the exercise,maybe they are common but same day,same time,same place as actual bombers chose .hypothetical or not.

Edited December 24, 2010 by esme
quote tags

[vResistance 10]

I was sure there's still some offices based along there, but from a brief look at wikipedia, it does seem that basically everyone has left now (Reuters only left in 2005 apparently), although there are numerous media places still in the area.

 

TBH, I think if I was desperately trying to get to the media, I would head to one of the most recognised media buildings on the planet - Television Centre, not the assorted random buildings which make up the media's presense on the Isle of Dogs.

 

Perhaps it was a pre-arranged meeting place.

[dosxuk 10]

Perhaps it was a pre-arranged meeting place.

 

A prearranged meeting place for people who were supposed to be dead?

 

So who would have arranged this meeting point - governmental forces or the bombers themselves? Either way, why on earth would they choose Canary Wharf, other than it fits a random unexplained and unrepeated report by ONE news channel. Again, there were many incorrect reports broadcast by all media channels on the day, yet John is clinging to this single one of those.

 

If he (and you, as you are defending his story), rely on this report being true, and that the reported shootees are the bombers, you're going to have to come up with far more concrete thinking that "maybe it was x" - this is just making up theories to fit evidence, and it's impossible to prove a theory in that manner.

[Longcol 610]

You say you don't have an hour to waste but obviously spend a lot of time on researching how to "debunk" these things why not watch the film.

 

Power said around 1000 people were involved in the organisation of the exercise,maybe they are common but same day,same time,same place as actual bombers chose .hypothetical or not.

 

For a company employing a thousand people - half a dozen managers took part in the exercise.

 

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=821

[vResistance 10]

For a company employing a thousand people - half a dozen managers took part in the exercise.

 

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=821

 

Who were the managers ?have they ever come out in defence of power ?

And who were the managers managing ?