astro3
Suspended
Joined: 28 Jul 2005
Posts: 274
Location: North West London
|
 Posted: Mon Jul 31, 2006 1:55 pm Post subject: THE CCTV PICTURES OF JULY 7th |
 |
|
This text was submitted to the www.julyseventh.co.uk site a couple of months ago, and I believe they may be intending to use it. But here it is, in the meantime. It looks at how the government's official 'Narrative' of May 2006 altered the earlier story.
THE CCTV PICTURES OF JULY 7th
London is the undisputed capital of CCTV cameras, with some twenty percent of all the CCTV cameras in the world estimated to be in operation in the UK alone. It has one of the world's most densely packed network of CCTV cameras - and yet, oddly enough, no CCTV images of the four alleged suicide bombers have ever been released, showing them in London on July 7th...
Most people believe the official story of July 7th, whereby four young Muslims were responsible for the event of July 7th, and they believe it primarily on the basis of three photographs – two from Luton station, and one from London. Let us look at the reported sequence of events.
Theoretically, there should be a period of at least one and a half hours of footage of the alleged bombers making their way from Luton station to King's Cross Thameslink station, and then from King's Cross Thameslink station to the Underground station and the various platforms they are alleged to have boarded, for their respective trains. In the instance of Hasib Hussain, who is alleged to be responsible for the number 30 bus explosion, there is potentially another hour of footage of him as he is alleged to have wandered around central London before boarding a number 30 bus.
In the weeks that followed July 7th, the three CCTV images were released thaty seemed to show the four 'suicide bombers' on the day of the attacks. Initially this consisted of just one frame, of the accused just before 7:22am outside Luton station. Subsequently, further dubious photos of Habib Hussain were released lacking both a timestamp and any unique point of reference to identify the location at which the photos were taken.
The Breakthrough Moment?
Looking for clues, the police apparently had their breakthough on the evening of Monday, 11th July: | Quote: | | On Monday night came the breakthrough police were waiting for - when the CCTV at King's Cross showed the four young men setting off in different directions |
www.guardian.co.uk/attackonlondon/story/0,16132,1527404,00.html
This was a day or two before the police found forensic evidence from the blast sites that identified these young men. The police have never released these key CCTV images, so we can only speculate as to how, from images of four young men carrying rucksacks, ‘setting off in different directions’ on a crowded rush-hour station, they were able to ascertain guilt, and identify the perpetrators.
The next morning, papers were reporting the ‘Full Police Statement on London Bombs’, released by Peter Clarke, Head of the Metropolitain Police Anti-Terrorist Branch and the National Co-ordinator of Terrorist Investigations. It affirmed: | Quote: | | We have identified CCTV footage showing the four men at King's Cross station shortly before 8.30am on that morning of July 7th |
Source: The Times www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,22989-1691468,00.html
Moving quickly, search warrants were issued in the West Yorkshire area. The time of the CCTV film was adjusted: “Closed circuit television film from around 8.20am that day shows the four young men, all with identical large rucksacks similar to those carried by infantry soldiers on their backs. The four appeared relaxed. "You would have thought they were going on a hiking holiday," said the senior security source, who has seen the footage www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1697662_3,00.html …‘Shortly before 8.30’ am now turned out to mean ‘around 8.20 am’. If this CCTV footage was so important, one is surprised that none of the police were able to read the time (hours, minutes and seconds) stamped onto it. It seems odd that the public cannot be shown any of the images of the accused from King’s Cross for that morning
Detectives viewed films from more than 5000 cameras (The Express, 15 July) and we are told that the police seized about 80,000 recordings after the bombings in the wake of this event and are reviewing them.
Photographs of Hasib Hussain
On the 14th of July, the police released two photos of 18-year old Hasib Hussain from Leeds: a headshot, plus a head-and-chest photo of him carrying a rucksack, in a passageway. Hussain was keen on hiking and outdoor expeditions. The Police Press Conference on that day stated: | Quote: | | Hasib Hussain, an 18-year-old from Leeds, is shown in a CCTV image mounting the stairs at Luton station before taking the 7.40am train to King's Cross. |
If this was the case, we can only wonder why no time or date was stamped onto this picture. (NB, the mother of Hussain had telephoned the police on the evening of July 7th, concerned that her son had not returned home, and saying that he had told her he was going down to London that day).
The Luton Photograph
On Sat 16th July, Peter Clarke, head of the Anti-Terrorist Branch, stated:
| Quote: | | We are this evening releasing a CCTV image showing the four men at Luton train station at approximately 7.20am. We know they travelled together from here on a Thameslink train to King's Cross in central London. |
This photograph is of extremely dubious quality and has clearly been ‘photoshopped.’ Problems include:
· A railing bar goes in front of ‘Khan’ in the rear, that should be behind him. Another bar appears to go through his head.
· No other persons are present, even though it is rush hour.
· No faces can be seen on three of the heads.
· A halo effect around two of the figures: “Sometimes these halos can appear as a side-effect of transferring an image from video to computer. However it could also be because the four individuals have been 'photoshopped' into the image -- using earlier individual surveillance photos, possibly from the sequence of photos released apparently showing the accused on June 28th 2005. ’
· One character appears to have his feet off the ground.
The 'Khan' Video
On September 1st, the Khan Video was released. Locals seem generally to have been sceptical: '"It's nonsense," said Mohammed Afsal, a father of five and member of the Hardy Street mosque. "It's a fake," said one. "Look at the way his lips were moving; they looked odd, the whole thing is a fake." It is not just the young who need persuading. Many older men in the grid of potholed streets and boarded-up houses which back on to alleys where rubbish lies uncollected believe Khan, a dedicated teaching assistant at Hillside Primary school, is the victim of a conspiracy'. www.guardian.co.uk/attackonlondon/story/0,16132,1561938,00.html
For more comments on it as a fabricated document, see here. www.blogigo.co.uk/socialdemocracynow/entry/43524 For how well video technology can be faked, see here: 'As live electronic manipulation becomes practical, the credibility of all video will become just as suspect as Soviet Cold War photos.’ http://www.nodeception.com/articles/pixel.jsp
The June 28th CCTV Images
On September 21, CCTV footage was released showing three of the four suspects at both Luton Thameslink station, and King’s Cross (Hussain was not present), on June 28th, i.e they were having a day trip to London. www.guardian.co.uk/attackonlondon/story/0,,1574573,00.html The press called this visit to London a ‘dummy run' and the footage overtly shows three Asian men on a journey into London. However, apart from the fact that they travel from Luton to London on June 28th, none of the other details of their journey in the 'dummy run' has any bearing on what they are alleged to have done on July 7th.
First, there were only three of the accused in attendance on June 28th which would for many be the first clue that this wasn't any sort of rehearsal for what is alleged to have happened on July 7th. Second, on June 28th the accused didn't arrive outside Luton station until after 8:10am, some 30 minutes after the train the Home Office narrative alleges that they caught on July 7th and which was cancelled that day. So, what was it they were rehearsing exactly, how to catch a random train from Luton to London?
The contrast with the earlier-released image was very evident: ‘The still photo we were shown from Luton Station is of extremely poor quality, especially when compared with the plethora of sharp, moving images from the supposed ‘dummy run’ of June 28’ and provoked speculation that the image released on July 7th from Luton was simply an adjusted version of these earlier images: the ‘moving’ CCTV images, i.e. at 3-second intervals, show three of these young men in the same locations (Luton and King’s Cross) on June 28th. www.officialconfusion.com/77/cctv/cctv.html
It helps here to see the two different pictures – 28 June and ‘July 7th’ overlaid:
Perhaps the most impossible feature of the July 7th Luton image is a sharp light/dark, wet/dry boundary line running across the pavement, with the four young men stepping across it. Anyone standing at the ground-floor entrance to Luton Thameslink will be baffled by this picture - the line just isn’t there. It looks as if there were some cover or awning above the entrance, to protect the nearer part of the pavement from the rain – but, there isn’t.
This puzzle could be resolved, once the 28th June images were released. It was raining on July 7th in Luton that morning, but not on 28th June. There is a slight difference in shading along that line on the pavement, and massaging that image to look like 'July 7th,' somebody evidently wanted to get some 'rain' on the pavement. Adjusting the image, the best they could do, was to get it onto the darker part of the pavement, further away. Yes, it looks like puddles.
The key incriminating evidence, has to be the fact that Germaine Lindsay can be seen holding the same Tesco’s white plastic bag with the same hand in both photos. The baseball hats and t-shirts are also recognisably similar. It has also been noted that enlarging the date ‘07/07/05’ in the Luton image shows that it looks somewhat fudged and hand-written, in contrast with the clearly printed-out date ‘28/06/05’: www.medienanalyse-international.de/bilderschwund.html
Many people seem to believe that they have seen images of the young men at King’s Cross on July 7th, when what they have actually seen is the earlier 28th June CCTV film.
October 2nd: Hussain at Boots the chemist, King’s Cross
There are no shadows in this picture, nor any time and date stamped on, as should be there for a CCTV image, and Hussein's shirt has turned a bluer shade since the earlier image. It was said to have been taken at 9am, but if so the young Hussein is looking remarkably casual while King's Cross was being frantically evacuated, as it was by then. The image ends above the feet, so we don’t get to see whether they are standing on the ground. This image was released on the day after the (second) bombing in Bali, which also featured a Muslim-with-rucksack story, as if to remind us.
May 11, 2006: The Story Changes
Instead of a public enquiry into the worst attack upon London since it was bombed by the Luftwaffe, the British people were generously given a ‘narrative’ about July 7th, telling them what to believe.
The Government's Report
The Government's ‘Official Report’ (May 11th) alludes to seven sets of CCTV film taken that day:
· at 03.58 in Leeds, the 'light blue Nissan Micro' car the three were driving in was filmed;
· at 04.54, film of Tanweer entering Woodall Services on the M1 to pay for petrol, and arguing about the change he was given;
· at 06.49 when the four emerged from their cars at Luton and pulled bulky rucksacks out of the boots;
· at 07.22 at Luton station entrance;
· at 08.23 at King's Cross Thameslink;
· at 08.30 as the four hugged each other then separated (i.e. at the tube station);
· at 08.50 Liverpool Street station 'seconds' before the train blows up.
One of these sets of film, that of Shehzad Tanweer at the petrol station in the early morning, has a distinct aura of credibility, and various investigators have surmised that it may really exist. If one accepts this, then one is obliged to conjecture as to why it cannot be shown. The explanations here are, either that his clothing was different from that of the Luton image (probably fake) later that morning, and the Official Report does allude to this (Did he need to change his trousers before committing suicide?); or, that his demeanour in arguing with the cashier about his change was not quite in accord with one making his last earthly journey.
We ought to doubt whether any of these other sets of CCTV film exist, except for the probably –fabricated 07.22 Luton station image. The Narrative omits mention of the Hasib-in-Boots-the-chemist image at 9 am - the only picture putting any of them in London on that day.
The Report continually alludes to details of the story as if it had CCTV film or witnesses, where in fact none have been identified: for example, witnesses to the behaviour of the four young men allegedly on the 07.40 Luton to King's Cross train that morning: The Government’s narrative still has them catching the cancelled 07.40 train at Luton – one of the few parts of the story that remains unaltered! Even if this train had run, it would not have got them into King’s Cross in time, because all trains on that line were running 20-30 minutes late that morning. It was actually the 07.25 am from Luton which came in at 08.23 am.
The police 'breakthrough' in solving this case had always been dated to Monday evening, 11th July, since it was broadcast the next day in newspapers with much aplomb. We now learn, that this moment has been re-scheduled, and postponed until Tuesday lunch-time. We are now informed that nothing much happened on Monday, and the synthesis happened on Tuesday: | Quote: | | By lunchtime, police working on the theory that there is a King's Cross link to the 3 train bombs, all being broadly equidistant from there at the time of the explosions, identify a CCTV image of 4 men with rucksacks at King's Cross. They recognise Tanweer first from a driving-license photograph |
(July12th). We would like to see this photo of Tanweer on his driving license: was it singed just a bit, from the awful blast at Aldgate? Shortly before this, on Tuesday morning, the Report tells us that the police were in Leeds raiding the homes. So, all notion of a ‘breakthrough’ made by perusing the CCTV at King’s Cross has faded away, as if the official ‘narrative’ could just re-tell the story with impunity. Maybe the police got tired of answering the question, as to how they recognised the four on video without other supporting ID?
The earlier narrative had the police moving swiftly after their insight, and raiding homes in Leeds on Tuesday morning, and this still remains in the ‘Official Report'. So we now have them searching the homes of Khan, Tanweer and Hussain on Tuesday morning, then later, at lunch-time, identifying the train-journey CCTV pictures. A central role had previously been assigned to the identifying of these images, in solving the case, whereas now the police somehow, we gather, traced the suspect’s homes in the North of England, before they had even located the pictures. How clever the police are.
Concerning the much-publicised King’s Cross CCTV images, their location now changes. The Official Narrative has the much-hyped (but unseen) King's Cross CCTV pictures taken in the Thameslink station. Let us here explain, that Thameslink recommend allowing twenty minutes to get from the Thameslink platforms, to the separate main station: http://www.nationalrail.co.uk/stations/KCM.html#Interchange. It is a walk of about 250m and includes two crossings of busy roads. Or, one can take a 600m long tunnel that leads via steps to the Piccadilly Line. This descends into the deep lines then passes up an escalator to the underground ticket hall and then through the ticket barriers and then up and down some steps and through more barriers to get to the sub-surface line platforms. http://z13.invisionfree.com/julyseventh/index.php?showtopic=205&st=77
The narrative now tells us, 'The 4 are captured on CCTV at 08.26am on the concourse close to the Thameslink platform and heading in the direction of the London Underground system,' whereas the earlier version released on July 12th, had this CCTV camera showed 'the men setting off in different directions"
www.guardian.co.uk/attackonlondon/story/0,16132,1527404,00.html i.e. at the tube station. It takes about seven minutes to navigate from the Thameslink station to the Underground at King's Cross, through a labyrinth of tunnels and a ticket barrier in rush hour (and maybe longer while carrying large, liable-to-explode rucksacks), so this time-difference is rather crucial. The Official Report has them arriving at King's Cross at 08.23, which is why CCTV for 08.26 would have to be in the Thameslink station. It then has them at 08.30 in the Underground, a wholly impossible situation.
In a creative new twist to the story, the Official Report has the four 'hugging' together before going their separate ways. This was at 08.30, and would therefore have to have been at the Underground station: they zoomed from one station to the other in a mere four minutes. We learn that the CCTV showed the four appearing 'happy, even euphoric,' but, naturally, these pictures cannot be shown the British public. A train from Luton that morning did arrive at 08.23, and possibly the present narrative re-adjustment is endeavouring to reconcile that train time, with the time of their alleged CCTV film.
Following the release of the government’s ‘narrative’, rolling news coverage on BBC and Sky TV kept featuring the June 28th images, with their date-stamps removed. That was not the first time they had done that, to make it seem as if CCTV pictures exist of the four in London on July 7th, but it was done in a more brazen fashion than hitherto.
Have so many claims ever been made in a UK crime report, with so little substantiation, as that of the 'Official Report' on 7/7? A string of new allegations have been made, concerning CCTV films that supposedly endorse the official story. Journalists who reported the new, improved narrative have not appeared troubled by the unattributed sources, unseen film and unnamed witnesses on which the narrative was based. Changes made to the earlier-published narrative have passed unnoticed and perhaps one can now rely upon journalistic amnesia.
If you want a copy of the 'Official Report' (The ‘Narrative’), download it from: www.officialconfusion.com/77/Reports%20Narratives.zip
or buy a copy (36 pages, no author, nor Editor) from 'The Stationary Office’ Holborn, ISBN 0102-937-745. |
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
