Does new 7/7 Bombing Photo Contradict Official Story?

[freeman]

[TonyGosling]

New 7/7 Bombing Photo Contradicts Official Story
A new photo released on the fourth anniversary of the 7/7 attacks in London appears to contradict the government’s official story that Muslims with backpack bombs were responsible for the Tube and bus bombings which killed 52 people.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/new-77-bombing-photo-contradicts-official- story.html

[freeman]

Quick thought..
Where is this train stored? Surely it's evidence and would of been kept somewhere. Whats the usual procedure? That train is stored somewhere or has been broken up and someone must know either way.
I remember seeing pictures of Pan Am 103 lying in a scrapyard years after the event.

[Pugwash]

Quick thought.
Are we to understand the cleaners came in before forensics! Where is the splattered blood?

Belated thought.. and further to my earlier point.

[freeman]

To answer my own question apparently the trains were transported to Budapest to be repaired as the UK did not have the facilities.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-501445/Tube-carriages-wrecked- 7-7-bombing-repaired--Budapest.html

Further digging reveals a F.O.I request dealing with this.

[Micpsi]

[paul wright]

[fish5133]

[Micpsi]

[Pugwash]

fish5133

[paul wright]

Common sense brothers. An appreciation of how things happen in real life. Not swaying to some "expert" opinion. A floor level backpack bomb of sufficient velocity would give a 360 shockwave, hitting areas of least resistance, like fabric furnishings, glass, plastic and the like, whilst resisted mostly by more resistant material like metal and steel beams in particular
Yet the metal flooring seems to have received the most damage, including distortion of beams, while the soft furnishings and glass appears to have avoided any of it.
The only area that seems to have been affected otherwise appears to be the ceiling area, suggestive of an upward directional surge of energy
Is this so hard to understand?
From the bottom up?

[Danny]

[Micpsi]

[Andrew.]

Picture courtesy of www.air-and-space.com

Directional charges:
"Holes were punched right through the steel plates that were under the shape charges. The lower plate was penetrated by the commercially manufactured shape charge. The upper plate was penetrated by the shape charge that was made from a wine bottle. It has been flipped over."

-------------------

An explosive just lying flat would have just left a burn mark on the steel.

If the relatively small explosive was under the steel plate (train) without an air space or shape to direct the majority of the force it would have directed the force in a 360 shockwave causing most damage to the ground and underside of steel plate (train) without penetrating it, ie just left a burn mark on the steel and distortion to it, ect.

If it was inside the train and just a flat none shaped piece of explosive it would have directed the force in a 360 shockwave causing most damage to the soft furnishings.

If it was inside the train and a shaped strategically placed piece of explosive, it could have been made to make a hole in the floor but would have also caused extensive damage to the soft furnishings.

If it was placed under the train and directed to go through the floor it would have carried through causing some damage to the ceiling and little damage to soft furnishings.

Directed explosives work well with high velocity military grade explosives. Not with low velocity home made explosives?

[Micpsi]

Thanks for your input. However, it does not resolve the issue whether this photo contradicts the official story of 7/7. My opinion still is that it does not, as the damage it shows is compatible with the bomb being either above or below the floor.

[Andrew.]

.

THEY, would have had to use the explosives in a directional way to make it appear at first sight as though the explosives were situated inside the train and not to just show damage to the underside only. As it would have been obvious all along at first sight to the public that the explosives must have been under the train and thus with THEY having no patsies to blame.

Taking that the photo is genuine, the fact that the soft furnishings are not damaged, all points to directional use of military grade explosives under the train to frame patsies. As it would not be possible to get the same results shown in the photograph with explosives inside the train without the use of very heavy partial containment devices for direction. Also the trains were derailed as would happen with explosives under the train.

.

[Micpsi]

[Andrew.]

(Edit)
Micpsi wrote:
But it was not obvious to any of the passengers except those few who happened to notice the floors rising up during one of the explosions. I really doubt whether the perps bothered to take into account whether passengers would notice what kind of damage was done by their bomb! That's not what people tend to take notice of when they are heavily bleeding with limbs missing.

> The general public Micpsi.

--------

Micpsi wrote:
"Inconclusive. A powerful, interior explosion bursting through the floor and jolting/damaging wheels, etc might have had the same effect."

>Not with the size of the actual explosions.

Micpsi wrote:
"Possibly, but it is not conclusive. If people were standing in the train, their bodies would have shielded these furnishings, as would of course those sitting down. You assume there were lots of empty seats."

>It terms of explosives, bodies and furnishings are soft and both would be damaged. With the same force equally of a 360 shockwave had it not been a directional explosion as the photo shows.

Micpsi wrote:
"I disagree, for the above reasons. There are alternative explanations for the lack of damage to furnishings."

>Such as ?

[Andrew.]

"A linear shape charge set to cut the flange off of an I-beam"



"The I-beam flange was peeled away by linear shape charge. Pitting can be seen on the lower flange from the jet of plasma that cut through the upper flange."

--------------------------

A 360 shockwave explosion.




"Three 45-gallon drums of water with C-4 explosive inside, placed next to a car as an anti-car-bomb demo. The blast of water is intended to disassemble the car-bomb components. The water spray loses much of its force in a relatively short distance, limiting damage to the surroundings."





"A member of the EOD team posed next to the rear half of the car in the distance."

[Micpsi]

[Micpsi]

[Andrew.]

It was to show what can be done with explosives and how they behave via velocity and physics. And to show why there is relatively little damage to the soft furnishings.

[Andrew.]

Micpsi wrote:
"Nah! The dumbed-down general public would not notice any difference if they had been shown a hundred photos. It is ludicrous to suggest that the perps were concerned photos would expose their modus operandi."


They would have if the PTB had said that the bombs were under the floor. They would have had no patsies to blame in the way they have.


Micpsi wrote:
"Oh, you know exactly how powerful the explosions were to be able to dismiss this? Only if you had been a witness would I take you seriously."


If a bomb went of inside, powerfull enough to derail the train it would cause much more damage than the photo shows.


Micpsi wrote:
"The photo does NOT show unambiguously a directional explosion. That's your inference, which may be false because you have not taken into account shielding of supposedly soft furnishings by human bodies."


They do show that, and if the bomb was inside the train to cause derailment it would cause much more damage than the photo shows.


Micpsi wrote:
"I already gave one. Shielding by bodies, shopping bags, suit cases, etct, etc,"


Then how did it go through the Floor and cause damage to the ceiling if it was supposedly powerfull enough to cause derailment and not cause extreme severe damage to soft bodies and furnishings. And whilst supposedly being a home made low velocity explosive.

[Micpsi]

[Andrew.]

Micpsi wrote:
"But they were certain that the PTB would NOT say that because MI5 and MI6 dictated what the police revealed to the public."


But they (the general public) were certain that the PTB would NOT say that because MI5 and MI6 dictated what the police revealed to(the general public)." ?


Micpsi wrote:
"That's a judgement you will find very few share. The downward blast of a bomb a few inches above the floor could have forced wheels off the rails."


On to the rails, unless it was a very large explosion which the photo shows that it was not.


Micpsi wrote:
"Nope. Your wish to believe in a bomb planted under the floor of this train makes you interpret the evidence to conform to what you want to believe."

Nope it just fits the photo best:




Micpsi wrote:
"Military-strength explosives WERE planted under the floor of the train where witnesses saw it rise during the explosion."


then you agree that it was an inside job ?


"Some could have blown up by operatives planting them on the ground, getting off the train and then detonating them when it had left the platform."


mute point now.

[Pugwash]

As I understand it Micpsi is not arguing that the explosive was not under the train, but that the picture alone (assuming no tampering) does not in itself prove the point. On this I would agree.

However, perhaps I am lacking some knowledge here (perhaps someone could advise), which is how many and which trains were lifted from the track? If this is a case in point, then I would argue that this is positive proof that the explosivives were placed below.

An explosion on board strong enough to either lift the carriage or buckle axle, axle mountings would have tore through the carriage nearby furnishing, and passngers with insignicant resistance.

[Andrew.]

[Micpsi]

Reality is not what one wants to believe.

[paul wright]

Coming back to this a long time later, and referring to the original photo, I might probably be willing to retract all sorts of observations under pressure.
But one thing still bothers me greatly. Why are those floor beams bent outwards? That left one is definitely bent given the perspective A floor level bomb, if it was capable of blowing a hole in the floor, which it clearly wasn't if the photo is to be believed, would obviously have pulled those beams inward surely, that makes sense don't it?
You blast the metal out the steel plates from above and the beams twist inward - they're dragged inward from the force of the explosion, which appears to be essentially downward and upward
Now if the force is from beneath the floor and essentially upward, it would without a doubt bend those beams outward
This has to happen to accommodate the force of the blast
I suppose the argument could be applied to the downward blast, but the steel plating would have lessened the force so that it at least produced no distortion
If the picture is real, you have to apply a bit of common to what you see
Am I a bit thick or something? This much is obvious

[Micpsi]