"7/7 absolutely no cctv no video and no eyewitnesses."
you would want the police to release evidence for an ongoing investigation? do you care to mention any other case in which evidence was released before the trial like that?
and there were plenty of eye witnesses, that tends to be what happens when you detonate a bomb in a train, people see it.
and there were plenty of eye witnesses, that tends to be what happens when you detonate a bomb in a train, people see it.
Hello
Could you provide a link to the testimony which backs up your statement here please? Thanks.
Also you say:
Quote:
you would want the police to release evidence for an ongoing investigation? do you care to mention any other case in which evidence was released before the trial like that?
I think you have misread the OP? It did mention another case - the failed bombs of July 21st 2005 - where much more CCTV and many more details were released before and after arrests were made. In the case of 7/7, the government released a report which they promised would tell the public the full story of what happened that day. The report is flawed, a fact which has been admitted by John Reid. If the government is going to provide such reports, it is not in the slightest bit unreasonable to ask for the evidence which backs it up.
Joined: 22 Feb 2007 Posts: 179 Location: Manchester
Posted: Tue Mar 06, 2007 2:07 pm Post subject:
johndoe wrote:
"7/7
and there were plenty of eye witnesses, that tends to be what happens when you detonate a bomb in a train, people see it.
I dont remember reading about ANY witnesses who saw the "bomber". On the contrary I remember reading about people who say that nobody was standing where the bomb went off and that the metal was pushed up as if the bomb was under the train.
"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," he said.
The only witness who claimed to see one of the men, was Danny Biddle on the Edgware Road train, who said he saw Mohammad Sidique Khan. Here's a selection of statements from Mr. Biddle:
Quote:
"He was sitting by the first door of the train and I was standing about 10ft away.
"I noticed him reaching into his bag and he didn't say or do anything. He wasn't agitated or fidgety, he was very calm.
"He looked at me and looked around the carriage. Then he pulled some sort of cord."
That morning I got on the front of the train, which was closest to the stairs, and stood next to the bomber, Mohammad Sidique Khan. I looked at him, as you do. He seemed quite calm. Nothing, in retrospect, made me think: "This guy's got a bomb." He looked at me, and as he did so he put his hand inside his rucksack, looked at me again, looked away, and pulled back his hand.
He was leaning against the perspex screen by the double doors - standing, as always, and people-watching. “I looked around. This Asian guy got on and walked down the carriage. He sat down just past me on the other side of the screen.” He was “sitting with a rucksack over his shoulders and a main bag in his lap over his chest”. Danny watched him look at his wrists several times - as if checking the time. “When he first put his hand in the bag my first thought was medication, or he’s getting something to eat, or he’s a diabetic, whatever. As the train pulled out of Edgware Road station, he put his hand back in the bag, lifted his head and looked up and then there was light like a thousand camera flashes going off.
Danny Biddle was the most seriously injured survivor of the 7 July London bombings.
He was standing opposite Mohammad Sidique Khan, on a westbound Circle Line Tube train, when the suicide bomber reached into his rucksack and detonated his explosives at Edgware Road, killing six other people.....Mr Biddle said he had made eye contact with Khan, who was seated on the train, moments before the bomb went off.
'I noticed him get on and walk up and down the carriage and then sit down. It didn't seem odd, he just seemed like a young guy going to work, casually dressed with a rucksack.'
Unknown to Danny, this was Mohammad Sidique Khan - one of four young zealots in London that day intent on bringing death and mayhem to the capita.
'As we left Edgware Road I looked round. I was just 18 inches away from him with the perspex panel in between us. He glanced up, looked at me and then looked away. There was nothing in his eyes. You might have expected someone who is going to be blowing themselves up to be shouting and screaming but there was none of that.
From 10 feet away to 18 inches away, from 'rucksack' to 'main bag', from standing next to him to standing opposite him and from sitting to standing. This is not reliable witness testimony. This is not to suggest Danny Biddle is a liar; only that it is clear from the amount of variance in his statements, we cannot be sure of anything he says being a fact, given that his testimony changes with almost every report.
The only other person who claimed to see a suspect was Richard Jones, whose testimony could be immediately discounted when it became clear that he was describing a completely different person in appearance to Hasib Hussain and a completely different location on the bus.
Basically, after trawling through GLA reports, news reports and survivor blogs and other sources of witness testimony, there are no reliable witnesses who say they saw those men, let alone seeing them actually detonate the bombs, so Johndoe, I would really appreciate you pointing me in the direction of where you found the witness statements you mention.
The police say they have CCTV footage of the men at Kings Cross - there should be reams of this. Between the reported sighting of them of them at 8.26am and the time the Piccadilly line train left Kings Cross, which was at 8.48am, there should be plenty of footage of at least Germaine Lindsay, if not Hasib Hussain. The police claimed they were trying to find out Hussain's movements between 8.26 and 9.47am yet only released one single CCTV still of him. Hardly likely to jog many peoples' memories - the very purpose the police stated they were releasing it for. The Official Report stated that the reports of a 'fifth man' being seen with the men on CCTV was unfounded, so on that basis, there is no reason not to release it, even though the reason given is that there may be people on the CCTV with the men who are connected to them. In which case, almost 2 years later, I would have expected some arrests. On 21/7, no deaths occurred and no bombs exploded, yet 43 arrests were made & 17 were charged. On 7/7, 56 people died, yet no arrests have been made & to date, no-one has been charged or will stand trial.
If police were never to release CCTV before investigations had been completed and court cases concluded, then I don't know what on earth 'Crimewatch' has been doing all these years.
"If you're not John then please dig up eyewitnesses who saw the 'bombers' before the four bombs "
i see they've already been provided.... but there is a reason for a lack of witnesses, the exact same reason why there weren't so many witnesses from ground zero at hiroshima.
and the reason for mistakes in witness statements..... eye witnesses are always unreliable that's just the way things are, even more so if you've been going about your business on a normal working day only to have some guy blow your train up.
recollection is always easier after an event which makes it memorable. not before.
you would struggle if i asked who to recall who sat across from you on the bus yesterday.
"If police were never to release CCTV before investigations had been completed and court cases concluded, then I don't know what on earth 'Crimewatch' has been doing all these years."
it is allowed to catch criminals, there is no reason to release this after you have a suspect in custody.
if you want a 100% reliable witness then you'll never find one.
"If police were never to release CCTV before investigations had been completed and court cases concluded, then I don't know what on earth 'Crimewatch' has been doing all these years."
it is allowed to catch criminals, there is no reason to release this after you have a suspect in custody.
All right....now I'm confused.....which suspects are in custody regarding 7/7? If the four men named as the suspected perpetrators of the atrocities of July 7th were in the dock now, there is no reliable evidence, according to the government's own report, with which to convict them. This is a fact. As you yourself say....
Quote:
if you want a 100% reliable witness then you'll never find one.
Then I wonder why you made it your first point to say that witness testimony gives gravity to the idea that the explosions were caused by those four particular men, if witnesses are so unreliable as you say. You stated that there were 'plenty' of eyewitnesses - and I have pointed out that only two people claim to have seen a suspect that day, out of who knows how many potential witnesses, neither of whom can be relied on in this case.
You see to have misread my post. Again, if Khan was in the dock now and Mr. Biddle was the sole witness to his presence on that train - which at present he is - his testimony would immediately be discounted on the grounds of the amount of times it has changed in basic detail. I repeat, the only other person who claims he saw one of the suspects that day clearly did not see the person he claimed to have.
Since, as you rightly say, witness testimony is not very reliable, then it is not unreasonable to seek out other concrete evidence which backs up the official account of that day. If you were to look as deeply into the events, background and context of July 7th 2005 as others have, you would see why this needs to be done.
"All right....now I'm confused.....which suspects are in custody regarding 7/7?"
none but we're not actively searching for suspects that we have on cctv and so there is no need to release it. it is still and ongoing investigation and there is no need to release any video.
doing so can in fact ruin trials, it creates bias in jury's and cases can collapse over it.
"Then I wonder why you made it your first point to say that witness testimony gives gravity to the idea that the explosions were caused by those four particular men, if witnesses are so unreliable as you say."
details are difficult, general events aren't. like i could ask you what you did yesterday and you should be able to give that very easily, however if i asked you who you sat next to on the bus you would struggle.
"Since, as you rightly say, witness testimony is not very reliable, then it is not unreasonable to seek out other concrete evidence which backs up the official account of that day."
the martyr tapes aren't good enough? the devices found weren't good enough?
Joined: 22 Feb 2007 Posts: 179 Location: Manchester
Posted: Tue Mar 06, 2007 7:28 pm Post subject:
I assume you're referring to me as his "little friend". I never said the floor was bent up, if you clicked the link I provided you will see it's a victim of the explosion who said it.
What ongoing investigation are you talking about? Isn't the 7/7 investigation closed? We've had the narrative already and it's been debunked expertly.
You also refer to the "martyr videos". None of the men in the videos mentions anything about a suicide bombing and friends sy the videos show them from several years ago.
It amazes me when faced with overwhelming evidence some people still can't accept that the government would do this.
I wonder if you can explain how Peter Power's security company was running a drill to see what would happen if bombs went off at the exact same train stations at the exact same time on the exact same day. Coincidence? The same can be said about 9/11 when it came out that there was a drill of hijacked planes hitting the twin towers amongst other buildings. Another coincidence? Me thinks not! _________________
"Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither" --Benjamin Franklin--
"I assume you're referring to me as his "little friend". I never said the floor was bent up, if you clicked the link I provided you will see it's a victim of the explosion who said it."
i meant the victim, not you.
"What ongoing investigation are you talking about? Isn't the 7/7 investigation closed? We've had the narrative already and it's been debunked expertly."
i wasn't aware that the case had been closed at all, and "debunked expertly" by who exactly?
none but we're not actively searching for suspects that we have on cctv and so there is no need to release it. it is still and ongoing investigation and there is no need to release any video.
doing so can in fact ruin trials, it creates bias in jury's and cases can collapse over it.
What ongoing investigation is this, then? As Zuco says, 7/7 is closed. If you can find evidence it's ongoing, please let us know as it'll be news to this site. The need to release the cctv stems from the notion that the government, as (ha!) public servants should evidence that they are correct in accusing specific individuals of mass murder. The families of those men have to bear that burden. If there is no trial, there is no reason not to release the cctv they say they have. They've not been exactly shy about releasing 21/7 cctv have they?
The fact that they got the time of the train caught from Luton wrong despite allegedly having reams of cctv following them on their route is a bit odd, no?
Why can only one of the men be definitively placed in London on the day according to what's in the public domain?
zuco wrote:
You also refer to the "martyr videos". None of the men in the videos mentions anything about a suicide bombing and friends sy the videos show them from several years ago.
Indeed - this is circumstantial evidence only. In court, this may show intent but could not in itself convict.
johndoe wrote:
the devices found weren't good enough?
Initial reports were of remote detonated military grade explosives. This abruptly changed to self detonated TATP. This despite the explosive effect of TATP being inconsistent with the fiery explosion reported on the day. TATP would more likely be used as a detonator as was the case with Richard Reid.
The 'extra' devices found in the car is a bit weird; why would you leave extra bombs behind on a suicide run?
Why was (according to HM government) ID for Khan found at THREE of the bomb sites? Bit weird?
The fact there will be no trial makes this more important - if my government is going to posthumously convict men of mass murder, I expect them to prove it by all reasonable means. Otherwise we are simply taking the government at it's word which I consider highly dangerous in any supposedly 'free' society.The 'narrative' we got was a joke. It's a disgrace this was treated so superficially.
And like HM government never pinned a bombing on the wrong perps before...? _________________ It's a man's life in MOSSAD
You neglected to answer this part of my last post: "I wonder if you can explain how Peter Power's security company was running a drill to see what would happen if bombs went off at the exact same train stations at the exact same time on the exact same day. Coincidence? The same can be said about 9/11 when it came out that there was a drill of hijacked planes hitting the twin towers amongst other buildings. Another coincidence? Me thinks not! "
Please explain how these miraculous coincidences are possible...... _________________
"Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither" --Benjamin Franklin--
Joined: 22 Feb 2007 Posts: 179 Location: Manchester
Posted: Tue Mar 06, 2007 8:30 pm Post subject:
If the investigation IS still ongoing then I'll admit I was wrong on that point. But still the release of CCTV footage shouldn't be an issue. The only pictures we have seen of the "bombers" is quite obviously forged. If they can release pictures...why not video?
Also you displayed again your inability to answer my point:
"I wonder if you can explain how Peter Power's security company was running a drill to see what would happen if bombs went off at the exact same train stations at the exact same time on the exact same day. Coincidence? The same can be said about 9/11 when it came out that there was a drill of hijacked planes hitting the twin towers amongst other buildings. Another coincidence? Me thinks not! "
Please explain how these miraculous coincidences are possible......
Come on can you honestly explain this? I suspect not and that is why you won't comment on it. _________________
"Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither" --Benjamin Franklin--
I say that the image is forged because the railings behind the guy with the white hat can be seen to clearly pass through his head (save it and zoom in)
Also look at the guy on the far left, in his reflection behind him his legs should be in the reverse position and they are not. _________________
"Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither" --Benjamin Franklin--
because it's not been closed, it would have been opened after the event and was not closed afterwards.
? I'm not sure I understand that sentence. To be specific - AFAIK the investigation of 7/7 is not ongoing. HM Government have been clear they believe they know what happened. We have been given the narrative, a call for an enquiry has been refused. If you are aware of ongoing police/government investigation into the events of 7/7, please provide evidence investigations are ongoing.
Quote:
there could be trials in the future however.
Of who? The government position is that there are no others they are pursuing.
Irrespective of that, the government have already released three images and been absolutely unequivocal in their pronouncement of guilt. How could releasing further images of men being where they say they were possibly influence any jury in a trial of some hypothetical third party who (according to HM government) was not present on the day and would thus not be featured in the images?
Quote:
back ups? acetone peroxide is a bit of a * explosive and it would be wise to have a plan b.
You wouldn't know if they worked until they went off. Presumably prior testing would be key. You can't 'test' them once you're en route. If they work, you're dead, if not you've a slim chance of escape. You'd certainly not get the chance for another go any time soon. On the presented narrative, 'plan b' is simply not an option.
Quote:
maybe so but why if it was faked would someone be that stupid?
I have no idea. I am simply curious as to why HM government record this as fact with absolutely zero commentary or apparent surprise.
Quote:
we never bothered trying hitler either, or himmler. are we to try and revise that as well?
Well that's pretty disingenous. Are you therefore suggesting that's a benchmark for not thoroughly investigating crime and evidencing said investigation to the public? Maybe the dibble should just decide who's guilty as they fancy?
Though, having said that, investigations into the extent of crimes against humanity perpetrated by Hitler, Himmler and a host of others have been extensive and exhaustive. The available evidence base for their crimes is as comprehensive as it is physically possible to be. And it was fairly clear who they were and what their positions were. _________________ It's a man's life in MOSSAD
" HM Government have been clear they believe they know what happened. We have been given the narrative, a call for an enquiry has been refused."
it would not be for the government to decide, it would be the police. they have different investigations as well.
"Are you therefore suggesting that's a benchmark for not thoroughly investigating crime and evidencing said investigation to the public?"
not a benchmark per se, we just have a habit of not trying dead people. just as well too because you're allowed to libel the dead. that would not lead to a very fair trial at all.
"Though, having said that, investigations into the extent of crimes against humanity perpetrated by Hitler, Himmler and a host of others have been extensive and exhaustive. The available evidence base for their crimes is as comprehensive as it is physically possible to be. And it was fairly clear who they were and what their positions were."
you still find holocaust deniers.
"Of who? The government position is that there are no others they are pursuing. "
of course we are pursuing others, the only reason we wouldn't is if we were to believe this was a lone rogue group.
or maybe the government just doesn't want to. and why would it?
Joined: 22 Feb 2007 Posts: 179 Location: Manchester
Posted: Tue Mar 06, 2007 11:41 pm Post subject:
This part of your last post is interesting....
"of course we are pursuing others, the only reason we wouldn't is if we were to believe this was a lone rogue group."
"we"???
Who is "we"?
This seems to imply that you speak on behalf of the government...
johndoe you seem unwilling to address my points about the drills running on that day and the forged CCTV image. Why is that? I think your lack of response on these issues is due to your inability to discredit these pieces of evidence and your silence just proves my point. _________________
"Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither" --Benjamin Franklin--
t would not be for the government to decide, it would be the police. they have different investigations as well.
Yes; I mentioned the police in my post. So do you have evidence that the police are still investigating into 7/7? What are they investigating? The government say they know exactly who did it and how. Do the police investigate crimes considered by themselves to be solved?
Quote:
not a benchmark per se, we just have a habit of not trying dead people. just as well too because you're allowed to libel the dead. that would not lead to a very fair trial at all.
Not strictly speaking true. For example Derek Bentley's conviction for murder has been posthumously set aside after re-investigation of the evidence. If a crime is to be investigated it matters not one jot whether the alleged perp is dead. No-one is suggesting there be an actual trial. All that is asked for is that the evidence used to ascertain guilt be accessible to the public. You can't libel the dead more strongly than calling them mass murderers.
If you believe that the state should tell you who is guilty and who is innocent without giving you reasonable access to the evidence used to reach this decision, then that's up to you. I disagree.
Quote:
you still find holocaust deniers.
Yes - your point?
Quote:
of course we are pursuing others, the only reason we wouldn't is if we were to believe this was a lone rogue group.
or maybe the government just doesn't want to. and why would it?
Then who are we pursuing? Given, of course, that the official narrative is that they were a lone rogue group.
I don't think 'they don't want to' is a sufficient answer.
They should release it as they have no rational reason not to and a duty to the British public to justify their pronouncements.
Do you simply blindly accept what the state tells you without it backing up its claims? _________________ It's a man's life in MOSSAD
sorry i never watched the video on the drills, internet is real slow just now, will watch it tomorrow if i can.
as for the photo i can't see what reflection you are talking about and neither can i make out this railing going through the guys head. any illusion of what you see might be from enlarging an already low quality pixelated image.
and do you really think that if the government did do this and the video i s fake they would really do a * job on it? if you were busy performing such acts wouldn't you be a little bit cautious on making such everything was perfect?
johndoe - most people would recognize your arguments by now - they are referenced by the jref debunking agenda - there's a possibilty that you've created it anew - but you fit the pattern closely
If you're genuinely speaking from the heart and not from the agenda, then please make that clear _________________ http://www.exopolitics-leeds.co.uk/introduction
Joined: 22 Feb 2007 Posts: 179 Location: Manchester
Posted: Wed Mar 07, 2007 12:08 am Post subject:
Good job on avoiding the issues once again.
Your internet is slow? The video is 1 minutes 24 seconds...somebody still on 56k dial-up could watch it quite easily!!
I don't see any "illusion" in the picture. It's quite clear that the rail goes through the guys head.
I'll try to make the point about the reflection a little clearer....
As you look at the man on the far left of the picture, his left leg is in front...so when that reflection is mirrored back from the glass behind the railings you should see his right leg in front...but that's not the case!
How convenient that your internet is slow and you cannot see the image.
Real evidence in front of your eyes and you can't see the wood for the trees. You should have gone to specsavers... _________________
"Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither" --Benjamin Franklin--
To get entangled momentarily....
It is also worth noticing how much clearer the image from this same cctv camera was a week earlier during the "trial run" _________________ http://www.exopolitics-leeds.co.uk/introduction
Joined: 22 Feb 2007 Posts: 179 Location: Manchester
Posted: Wed Mar 07, 2007 12:23 am Post subject:
[quote="johndoe"]ah i see the reflection now and it appears fine for the blurry dark bit it is, but the legs appear to be the right way around.
"It's quite clear that the rail goes through the guys head. "
stating it again doesn't make it anymore true.
So you agree that the rail goes through his head?
You say his legs appear to be the right way round...yes they are pointing in the right direction...but as you look at him his left leg is in front...in the reflection his left leg is also in front...when in fact his right leg should be in front when reflected, it's not all that difficult a concept to grasp. _________________
"Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither" --Benjamin Franklin--
All times are GMT Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7Next
Page 1 of 7
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You can download files in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
