I think the 'Man in Grey' is a red herring, assuming the rest of Daniel's testimony is reliable. Here's why:
Independent online wrote:
Gary, On the No 30 bus in Tavistock Square
The floor went completely up to my seat, and I'm in mid-air with a strand of flooring remaining, keeping me from falling from the upstairs seats. I looked behind me and everybody and all the seats had vanished. I just went into 'flight' mode. I just stuck my foot out and launched myself off. I hit the side of the bus on the way down onto the pavement ... I was just screaming. It is funny, because I couldn't hear anything. It was like somebody had got you and stuck you at the bottom of a swimming pool. You are so disorientated. All my clothes were hanging off me where they had all shredded. It blew the top of my shoe off - a heavy-stitched leather shoe. Then two or three girls came and started to help as well as looking after the other injured arriving outside.
Assuming Gary O'Monaghan is the same Gary quoted by the Independent it seems reasonable to imagine that he could have jumped from the back of the bus (the opposite end to the bomb blast) and ended up where Daniel claims to have seen the man in grey. That's not proof that it's the same person of course, although the torn clothing and screaming also match Daniel's description.
Also don't forget that this blast happened outside the British Medical Association. If he had a dressing before paramedics arrived on the scene it maybe came from one of the many medical professionals on the scene before the rest of the emergency services. _________________ "Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows."
The pictures of the man in grey are at Brunswick Square and many of the people also in the pictures are those who exited Russell Square station. I have yet to see any evidence that this man was in Tavistock Square.
I heard this guy on Infowars ,his story makes you think it was false flag terror.Who was the guy with the blanket round his sholders.
EmptyBee wrote:
I think the 'Man in Grey' is a red herring, assuming the rest of Daniel's testimony is reliable.
Its been proven that the man in grey with the blanket was part of the Peter Power terror drills going on that morning
which took place at a number of different locations where there just happened to be REAL bombs going off!
Obachike said that he saw the Man in Grey writhing about on the ground as he ran away from the bomb scene a few seconds after the explosion. The whole point about the bandage the man was wearing is that it was at that point still too early for any medical person to arrive to put a bandage on him and that the man was alone. Why would he be on his own and wearing a bandage if he was a walking wounded leaving the Russell Square tube station? If he had been genuinely injured, there would have been someone helping him to get to an ambulance.
Chi_of_life said:
"Its been proven that the man in grey with the blanket was part of the Peter Power terror drills going on that morning which took place at a number of different locations where there just happened to be REAL bombs going off!"
Proven by whom? It is normal practice to support one's assertions with a link to some hopefully trustworthy source. But even if one accepts your assertion at its face value, being part of a terror drill still does not make him an innocent victim. The following anomaly exists:
Obachike said categorically that the Man in Grey was too far away from the #30 bus explosion in Tavistock Square to have been injured by it. If the man had REALLY been injured by the blast at Russell Square tube station whilst participating in a terror drill there and was one of the walking wounded led out of the tube station, why was he seen by Obachike wailing and thrashing about on the ground immediately after the bus exploded - as though he had suddenly become injured, when he was actually outside the range of the bus blast? And why was he on his own, according to Obachike, implying that he had walked freely from Russell Square, when there is video evidence of him limping and supported by two men? And why was his Priority 2 yellow tag missing from his wrist when Obachike spotted him on the ground as he ran away in panic from the #30 bus? Even if we accept the highly improbable scenario that the man miraculously recovered quickly enough from his previous injury at Russell Square to walk 150 metres towards Tavistock Square without having any more to lean on the shoulders of the two men previously filmed assisting him, and that he had torn off his tag because he no longer needed medical help, this still does not account for his sudden rolling around and moaning on the ground as soon as the bus bomb exploded. If his injury had been genuine, he would not have been able to walk 150 metres to Tavistock Square on his own, as the video of him limping and supported by two men shows. If it had been faked, why did he start rolling about on the ground straight after the bus bomb exploded at a location too far away for him to have caught the blast? Unless, that is, because he was STILL acting - perhaps to distract people's attention from seeing things they were not supposed to see immediately after the bomb had exploded? In other words, his strange behaviour in changing from Superman, who does not need medical help, to a 7-stone weakling, who is moaning in pain despite being too far from the bomb to have been hurt by it, suggests strongly that he was NOT just a member of the public injured by the earlier bomb, nor even an innocent participant in a drill that went live, but, instead, that he was someone who was participating in the black op that is 7/7. As Obachike says on his website:
"It’s funny... the clearer things become, the stranger they seem."
Joined: 23 Dec 2005 Posts: 500 Location: South London
Posted: Sat Jun 16, 2007 5:32 pm Post subject:
Micpsi wrote:
Obachike said that he saw the Man in Grey writhing about on the ground as he ran away from the bomb scene a few seconds after the explosion. The whole point about the bandage the man was wearing is that it was at that point still too early for any medical person to arrive to put a bandage on him and that the man was alone. Why would he be on his own and wearing a bandage if he was a walking wounded leaving the Russell Square tube station? If he had been genuinely injured, there would have been someone helping him to get to an ambulance.
An ambulance? At Russell Square? He should be so lucky.
Quote:
The first 999 ambulance call reporting an incident at Russell Square was not received until 9.18 am, 25 minutes after the explosion. Passengers began appearing at the platform, having been led from the train by one of the two drivers in the driver’s cab. The London Ambulance Service despatched a Fast Response Unit at 9.24 am, which arrived at Russell Square station at 9.30 am. A major incident was finally declared at Russell Square by the
London Ambulance Service at 9.38 am, 45 minutes after the explosion.
7 July Review Committee Report
There was a serious lack of ambulances at Russell Square. Injured people wandered off. _________________ Follow the numbers
All eye-witness testimony is unreliable. I vaguely remember writing an essay about it in college. The brain remembers what it can and the "constructive memory" fills in the blanks. As we are unable to determine what is real and what is "constructed" then ALL of the testimony must come under scrutiny.
@ZUCO,
Yeah mate,
Like when you went to the fridge for a Hamburger and found the were 2 slices of stale bread there.
Your brain remembered the taste of a flame grilled burger and constructed it in the fridge.
Were you really unable to determine what is real and constructed? LMAO!
How's college going? Have you passed yet??
A tall black man was the only person left standing on the bottom deck
Daniel as you know IS a tall black man. Whereas Anthony was lighter skinned and average height.
Rather than trying to follow the J7 route of debunking Daniel why not find out who the lady eyewitness Regina Friel is and why she failed to mention RICHARD JONES who claimed that he was on the lower deck of the bus and also why she failed to mention the bomber who Richard Jones claimed had his bum almost in Richard Jones' face.
Nick i am surprised that you would doubt Daniel's sincerity especially as he is to everyone who has met him a very genuine and heart on his sleeve kind of guy.
I am 100% sure Daniel was on the bus and also 100% sure that Richard Jones was not on the bus. And therefore the bus bombing could not have been carried out as reported.
The suspect bus driver, who aparantly came to the UK when he was 16 after having previously worked in the rag trade. THe bus driver who somehow got a visa despite being from mainland Greece which in 1972 had no immigration rights with the UK.
The bus driver who committed a serious crime in abandoning his PCV vehicle and walking 7 miles. The serious crime is failure to stop and be breathelised and give assistance to injured passengers.
Nick why not find out more about the bus driver who is the number one suspect at the moment for the deaths of the bus bomb victims.
Nick why not investigate Bob Kiley the former senior CIA man who was involved in the first september the 11th in Chile.
Why not investigate how Verint were awarded the contract for London Underground security.
Daniel who you have probably met is one of the foot soldiers of the truth movment and your attack on him is totally uncalled for.
Why didnt the brave bus driver call and report it? If his radio got damaged and that is doubtful, surely he would have passed a payphone while embarking on his 7 mile hike.
J7 claim ambulances took 45 minutes to arrive. So what difference does that make? Have you ever called an ambulance? You are lucky if they arrive in 2 hours so 45 minutes is a lucky touch.
The bomb was close to several hospitals and near the BMA and clearly there are nurses and doctors and wheelchairs on the scene very quickly.
Headband man was on the scene before the medics arrived and was sporting a cut trouser, a headband and had his co workers with him who all got up and took off once their exercise was over. Got up off a stretcher. So you guys are attacking the messenger and avoiding the real questions.
Why dont you contact Stagecoach and interview the bus driver?
Another angle would be to name him in a civil lawsuit as defendant. He failed to call for assistance, he left the scene of an accident, why did he park his bus where he did, etc
J7 claim this bus was NOT the only one diverted, yet they did not provide any explanation. I asked for them to prove it before and hereby ask again.
What was the new diverted route? A bus on diversion must still go to the same destination. If other buses too were diverted what was their new diverted routes? Every day some buses are diverted, but routes are clearly marked out and planned ahead of time and drivers practice the new diverted route. Risk assessments are carried out on the diverted routes. So if this was NOT the only bus diverted that day what are the other buses and where were they diverted to
Joined: 28 Jul 2005 Posts: 274 Location: North West London
Posted: Tue Sep 11, 2007 11:36 am Post subject:
Calm down Stelios. I don't think I am attacking Daniel. We are, together, trying to ascertain what really happened. That involves the notion of verification, and of who will corroborate a story. (NB, I have no idea what the J7 crowd have written about him on their site - I am not following their line)
Daniel claims that he did start writing notes on the subject:
Quote:
I began scribbling notes down for on July 7th [sic], as soon as I got home. It began as an outpouring, such was the burden of what I witnessed that day (p.243).
If we or someone can just see these early notes, checkout that they do exist, then I'd say that all doubts over his story are going to dissolve.
Will you agree, Stelios, or not, that Daniel did not ever come forward to testify concerning july 7th as such - he rather came forward to promote and sell his book about the event, once it was nearly ready?
His front cover has the impressive testimony:
Quote:
A shocking account of monumental proportions from a Tavistock Square survivor and eyewitness
but does not tell us who said this. His Mum perhaps?
PS Richard Jones' testimony is obviously bogus and I'm surprised you mention this red herring.
Joined: 07 Oct 2005 Posts: 632 Location: London UK
Posted: Tue Sep 11, 2007 11:59 am Post subject:
stelios wrote:
J7 claim this bus was NOT the only one diverted, yet they did not provide any explanation. I asked for them to prove it before and hereby ask again.
What was the new diverted route? A bus on diversion must still go to the same destination. If other buses too were diverted what was their new diverted routes? Every day some buses are diverted, but routes are clearly marked out and planned ahead of time and drivers practice the new diverted route. Risk assessments are carried out on the diverted routes. So if this was NOT the only bus diverted that day what are the other buses and where were they diverted to
This has been posted before stelios so I'm surprised you claim not to have seen it:
Interestingly, the number 205, which would not travel down this road on its normal route, is precisely the bus Daniel would have required to get to Old Street, as would several of the victims of the number 30 who either worked in Old St or Liverpool St (not part of the route of the number 30 btw).
edit: The 390 that was also diverted. (Note that the diversions took place as the Euston Road would've been cordoned off and traffic diverted due to the explosion at King's Cross):
_________________ 'The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie -- deliberate, contrived and dishonest, but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic. Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought'. JFK
_________________ 'The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie -- deliberate, contrived and dishonest, but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic. Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought'. JFK
But what are they supposed to show, why have you not included a commentary with the photos? Explain exactly so that simple people like myself can understand. London buses should provide a list of all routes diverted and at what times. I asked you for proof that other buses were diverted too
You need to list what the other buses that were diverted, their destinations and their approximate routes.
EG: bus 38 diverted destination xxxx new route xxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
You forgot to post the scanned copy of the FOI letter from the SO15 officer. You can still tipex out his name but the letterhead is important to verify.
PS: Going back to the funerals Prole spoke of.
There has been no inquests so far from what i can see. Do you know if either or any of the funerals have involved an autopsy and where the results of these autopsies are?
If a person was sitiing next to a bomb and blown up the autopsy will reveal that and alos will reveal what explosive was used.
So were these funerals merely ceremonial or were they actual bodies that were buried?
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Astro3 - Daniel like so many other people is not a professional campaigner. He is also not a professional author. But as a survivor of a near death experience and then subjected to harrasement by the spooks how would you or i react?
I think he has been very brave in coming forward and speaking his mind.
The main point we should learn from him is that the bus bomber was not on board the bus and neither was Richard Jones the only person to have claimed that he saw the bus bomber. ThereforeDaniel's testimony is very important.
Any questions you have you can ask him directly and i am sure he will answer them. There is no need for us to speculate. _________________
Joined: 07 Oct 2005 Posts: 632 Location: London UK
Posted: Wed Sep 12, 2007 11:20 am Post subject:
An analysis and review of the 4th Bomb on the J7 site:
http://julyseventh.co.uk/j7-book-review-daniel-obachike-the-fourth-bom b.html _________________ 'The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie -- deliberate, contrived and dishonest, but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic. Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought'. JFK
Still posting those backlinks?
Hope your alexa count is up
If you have an opinion to post i think you really need to say what is on your mind and i think the moderators should disable your constant use of one messageboard to divert traffic to a different messageboard. That is called spam.
However, i did follow your link again and found practically the whole of Daniels book published on your sight. I am sure he is pleased that nobody actually needs to buy it anymore because you have kindly reproduced it. _________________
Joined: 07 Oct 2005 Posts: 632 Location: London UK
Posted: Wed Sep 12, 2007 12:10 pm Post subject:
stelios wrote:
Still posting those backlinks?
Hope your alexa count is up
If you have an opinion to post i think you really need to say what is on your mind and i think the moderators should disable your constant use of one messageboard to divert traffic to a different messageboard.
Stelios perhaps others may be interested even if you aren't. This forum might still be a place for discussion of 7/7 Truth despite all your efforts to suppress it and drive away anyone who doesn't agree with your own personal take on these events. _________________ 'The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie -- deliberate, contrived and dishonest, but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic. Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought'. JFK
Yes people are interested, i am interested. So why dont you ever feel like posting your views.
Instead you always post backlinks.
That is my point.
Surely it is more convenient for everyone if you simply copy and paste so people can more easily follow the thread.
Im happy to do so if you dont want to.
And who exactly am i driving away?
If people dont want a discussion then why bother. I argue, i discuss and i exchange views. That is after all the purpose of a free internet? _________________
Yes people are interested, i am interested. So why dont you ever feel like posting your views.
Instead you always post backlinks.
That is my point.
Surely it is more convenient for everyone if you simply copy and paste so people can more easily follow the thread.
Im happy to do so if you dont want to.
And who exactly am i driving away?
If people dont want a discussion then why bother. I argue, i discuss and i exchange views. That is after all the purpose of a free internet? _________________
Joined: 28 Jul 2005 Posts: 274 Location: North West London
Posted: Wed Sep 12, 2007 1:36 pm Post subject:
Daniel explained to me that alas one could not approach ‘Hilda’ for verification, that she had met him at Tavistock Square minutes after the blast. That is the charm of July 7 research, that key witnesses always seem to be unobtainable.
I was told that Daniel’s ‘4th Bomb’ website has a link to some police interviews he did; but that alas the links are not working properly. I mentioned this to Daniel and he said he would re-upload them (I can’t find these, not being well able to navigate round his site).
The blurb of his book says he reported his experience of the event to the Anti-Terror Hotline on 8th January – but my reading of his pages 55-56 does not confirm this. The idea that he reported ‘two dark cars he saw holding up the [30] bus just before it was diverted towards Tavistock Square’ to this terror Hotline, - and that his paranoid feeling of being followed stems from this – appears only on the back cover, and maybe not in the book itself?
Stelios didn’t want to comment on the Regina Friel testimony on the lower deck, so I’d like to ask Prole if she would? I’m sure we would all appreciate her view on this matter. Friel has a tall back man (which does sound a bit like Daniel) flat on the floor and unconscious, on the lower deck of the 30 bus, immediately after the bomb blast, and she is worried that he might be dead. Is there any way of contacting Regina Friel, and if so has anyone asked her the question, can she recognise that person as Daniel?
I have a problem with a dozen people up on the top deck – all looking fairly comfortable and laid-back, lighting up cigarettes etc, no blood visible – and Daniel assured me that they were really there, immediately after the blast, and his book seems to indicate that – while only having three on the lower deck. Buses usually have more people on the lower deck. He admitted this was odd when I asked him but said that persons from the lower deck had got off and left …. Hmm, I may need a bit more corroboration here.
Daniel has himself jump up from the floor onto which he had been hurled, leap nimbly out of the blasted bus, run 30 metres, and then turn round in time to …
Quote:
He caught sight of the tail end of the bus’s roof as it performed a final pirouette in the air in slow motion before floating gently to earth, settling to a crumpled heap in the road.. (p.24)
No way could he be that fast! That’s just a dream.
Next time I see him, I’ll ask him if he’s still got those notes he started to scribble out on the evening of July 7th.
Joined: 07 Oct 2005 Posts: 632 Location: London UK
Posted: Wed Sep 12, 2007 2:10 pm Post subject:
astro3 wrote:
Stelios didn’t want to comment on the Regina Friel testimony on the lower deck, so I’d like to ask Prole if she would? I’m sure we would all appreciate her view on this matter. Friel has a tall back man (which does sound a bit like Daniel) flat on the floor and unconscious, on the lower deck of the 30 bus, immediately after the bomb blast, and she is worried that he might be dead. Is there any way of contacting Regina Friel, and if so has anyone asked her the question, can she recognise that person as Daniel?
Regina Friel's statement would appear to contradict Daniel's and I did check with Thomas Ikimi how tall Anthony Fatayi-Williams was - about 5' 10" - would she consider that 'tall'? _________________ 'The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie -- deliberate, contrived and dishonest, but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic. Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought'. JFK
Yes people are interested, i am interested. So why dont you ever feel like posting your views.
Instead you always post backlinks.
That is my point.
Surely it is more convenient for everyone if you simply copy and paste so people can more easily follow the thread.
Im happy to do so if you dont want to.
And who exactly am i driving away?
If people dont want a discussion then why bother. I argue, i discuss and i exchange views. That is after all the purpose of a free internet?
xxxxxxxxxxx
I stick with my previous view. Miss Freil describes a TALL and BLACK man which describes Daniel whereas Anthony was average height and had lighter skin.
So basically Brigette you are accusing Daniel of lying and stating that he was not even on the bus. I find that a very strange position to take. Very strange because Miss Friel does not identitfy the bomber nor does she identify Richard Jones.
I would say she confirms Daniel's story.
Brigette why do you think Daniel would lie and make up everything?
Wha has he got to gain?
And why have you copied most of his book on your website without asking his permission?
Regina Friel wrote:
A passenger commented that King's Cross was only a 10-minute walk. Lots of people got off. A tall black man was the only person left standing on the bottom deck.
That is why there were only a few people left downstairs because most got off. I can agree with that. _________________
Next time I see him, I’ll ask him if he’s still got those notes he started to scribble out on the evening of July 7th.
You might also try asking him why he claims that getting the 08:27 from Enfield Town allowed him to get to his office in Old Street before "the petulant manager came a-hovering minutes after 9" (p. 5) each day that week before the 7th. The 08:27 did not get to Liverpool Street until 09:04, so with around another ten minutes to get to Old Street by Underground, it's hard to see how he could have done so. He clearly paints his detour via Seven Sisters on the 7th as a change from his normal commute.
As he missed the 08:27 that morning, he would have had to get the following service, but that was not until 08:49, arriving at Liverpool Street at 09:26. It would have arrived at Seven Sisters between 1 and 3 minutes before it was timetabled to leave there at 09:03, so how could he have been on the Victoria line approaching King's Cross when his "watch told him it was almost 9 o'clock"? Even if he is mistaken and he did actually get the 08:27 after all, it would have got to Seven Sisters around 08:38-08:40. The Victoria line only takes 10 minutes to get from there to King's Cross, so he would have arrived there around the time the Piccadilly Line bomb went off, but before other lines started non-stopping, and so could have changed to the Northern to travel on to Old Street.
Over all, what seems very strange is that Obachike is emphatic about Christian Small's supposed journey making no sense on the grounds that in actual fact, "like any commuter who naturally opted for (the) quickest and most straightforward journey, he remained seated on the Victoria Line until Kings Cross" (p. 123 - my emphasis). This being the case, one is given to ask why Obachike would walk five minutes to Enfield Town station to take a 37 minute journey to Liverpool Street, and still need further time to get to Old Street, when he could walk ten minutes to Enfield Chase station and catch the 08:34 that went direct to Old Street by 08:58? If he couldn't make the 08:27 from Enfield Town on the 7th, why not the 08:39 or 08:58 from Enfield Chase, which would have got him to Old Street at 09:04 or 09:24 respectively - both earlier than the 08:49 from Enfield Town would have got him just to Liverpool Street.
You seem to be forensic about Daniel's movements.
For an NHS administrator more accustomed to spending as much money on waste as possible.
so are you at North Midd or St Ann's?
You seem to be less forensic about the timing of the bombers trains and you seem less bothered by them not taking hte shortest routes too.
If you look at the Luton train timetable you will see that it is impossible for them to have arrived in London in time to detonate the bombs.
It is physically impossible to catch the 7.24 AM as in a joint time trial it took 3 minutes 35 seconds just to reach the platform WITHOUT EVEN INCLUDING ANY TIME TO ACTUALLY BUY A TICKET
The 7.40 train was cancelled.
So please be equally forensic _________________
You seem to be forensic about Daniel's movements.
For an NHS administrator more accustomed to spending as much money on waste as possible.
Wrong again.
Quote:
so are you at North Midd or St Ann's?
Neither, genius.
Quote:
You seem to be less forensic about the timing of the bombers trains and you seem less bothered by them not taking hte shortest routes too.
If you look at the Luton train timetable you will see that it is impossible for them to have arrived in London in time to detonate the bombs.
It is physically impossible to catch the 7.24 AM as in a joint time trial it took 3 minutes 35 seconds just to reach the platform WITHOUT EVEN INCLUDING ANY TIME TO ACTUALLY BUY A TICKET
The 7.40 train was cancelled.
So please be equally forensic
Oh, sorry, is there a rule that I have to question that "journey" first? More to the point, will everyone who already has done be following it up with what I did?
Question everything. Except the bits you don't want questioning, eh?
Joined: 07 Oct 2005 Posts: 632 Location: London UK
Posted: Wed Sep 12, 2007 7:17 pm Post subject:
stelios wrote:
I stick with my previous view. Miss Freil describes a TALL and BLACK man which describes Daniel whereas Anthony was average height and had lighter skin.
So basically Brigette you are accusing Daniel of lying and stating that he was not even on the bus. I find that a very strange position to take. Very strange because Miss Friel does not identitfy the bomber nor does she identify Richard Jones.
I would say she confirms Daniel's story.
Oh dear stelios, you do jump to conclusions don't you.
Ms Friel does describe a tall black man I agree. BUT she goes on to say:
Quote:
Suddenly there was a massive explosion. My only memory is of my body being thrown with such violence. Then nothing. When I was conscious, I was dazed and confused and there was a terrible, intense burning smell. Then I noticed the man on the floor. I couldn't see his face and the only reason I knew it was the same man was from the colour of his top. Was he dead?
My only point is that this contradicts Daniel's statement, as pointed out by astro3, that he was off the bus within 10 to 12 seconds. _________________ 'The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie -- deliberate, contrived and dishonest, but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic. Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought'. JFK
I stick with my previous view. Miss Freil describes a TALL and BLACK man which describes Daniel whereas Anthony was average height and had lighter skin.
So basically Brigette you are accusing Daniel of lying and stating that he was not even on the bus. I find that a very strange position to take. Very strange because Miss Friel does not identitfy the bomber nor does she identify Richard Jones.
I would say she confirms Daniel's story.
Oh dear stelios, you do jump to conclusions don't you.
Ms Friel does describe a tall black man I agree. BUT she goes on to say:
Quote:
Suddenly there was a massive explosion. My only memory is of my body being thrown with such violence. Then nothing. When I was conscious, I was dazed and confused and there was a terrible, intense burning smell. Then I noticed the man on the floor. I couldn't see his face and the only reason I knew it was the same man was from the colour of his top. Was he dead?
My only point is that this contradicts Daniel's statement, as pointed out by astro3, that he was off the bus within 10 to 12 seconds.
It's rather ironic that Obachike himself or those who unquestioningly accept his version of events are quick to discount the word of anyone whose testimony conflicts with his (e.g. O'Monaghan & Friel), even when it actually corroborates his presence on the bus! Incidentally, I see that he has now changed his story again, and on his blog is saying the the "CCTV" footage he claims shows him "returning to the scene" was six minutes after the explosion, rather than the just one or two minutes previously suggested. This despite the fact that the visible scene is very unlikely to be as early as even six minutes after the explosion.
I actually think that there is enough circumstantial evidence to suggest that he was there, but that his recollection of what happened - and the order in which it happened - is very flawed. His book is filled with a mass of detail that almost screams, "look how much I can remember - I must be reliable," but if he can get something as basic as the train times wrong, what else is?
I also find it odd that while he's been quick to post the "CCTV" footage he claims shows himself left, right, and centre, he's not noticed this high-angle shot on the British Medical Journal site before:
Now, the figure visible in front of the bus does seem to match that seen in the "CCTV" footage that Obachike claims is him, and is in the same area, although to be honest it looks more like a balding dark-haired European man to me....
Then I noticed the man on the floor. I couldn't see his face and the only reason I knew it was the same man was from the colour of his top. Was he dead?
Does Daniel not say that he fell on the floor?
Because i recall him saying he fell and then got up and left the bus.
But two years have gone past and none of you researchers have seen fit to interview Mrs Friel even though her location, her husbands name, her children's names and schools were all mentioned and so she must during 2 years have been easy to trace.
Instead of spending two years filing countless FOI requests which will never get you any results why not interview the witnesses and survivors who are already in the public domain?
This is what frustrates me about the whole J7 approach. Why not interview Daniel, Mrs Freil, and all the other survivors who have given interviews already to the press and publish these on your website.
While your at it why not interview stagecoach employees and the cashier working at WHSmith and morgue employees as well? _________________
I actually think that there is enough circumstantial evidence to suggest that he was there, but that his recollection of what happened - and the order in which it happened - is very flawed. His book is filled with a mass of detail that almost screams, "look how much I can remember - I must be reliable," but if he can get something as basic as the train times wrong, what else is?
Time keeping is not my strong suit either.
And dont forget his book was not copy edited so it has grammar and sequential errors which a second edition may address.
I found it interesting you posting a link to a site that was full of lies, more lies and propaganda. Why would you do that and not simply post the picture.
I know why the BMJ is countering what was written in the Israeli press which claimed the explosives WERE the same as the Haifa cafe bombing which apparantly involved two British suicide bombers, but why are you propagating the BMJ myths?
On 7 July 2005 four bombs ripped through London's crowded commuter transport system in a coordinated terrorist attack, resulting in the death of 52 people and injuring around 700.1 On 23 July 2005 in Sharm-ElSheikh, Egypt, three bombs exploded in central locations around the city, leaving as many as 88 people dead and 700 injured, the majority of whom were Egyptian.2 The coauthors of this article were on medical elective in Sharm-El-Sheikh and experienced first hand the reality of the management of blast victims and of dealing with the aftermath of a terrorist bomb.
British Medical Journal wrote:
The bombs
Both bombs were homemade but of contrasting types. Police currently believe that each of the four London transport bombs contained less than 5 kg of the explosive TATP (triacetone triperoxide).3 This can be manufactured from scratch from over the counter products including bleach and acetone. By contrast, the Sharm-EI-Sheikh bombs are believed to have contained over 500 kg of "highly explosive material," most likely to be TNT (trinitrotoluene)4 reclaimed from military shells possibly dating back to the 1967 six day war between Egypt and Israel
.
Dont you people ever think about what you write?
Or is it because this site is knackered that you dont think anyone is really reading it.
Maybe, but most people would know the difference between being knocked unconscious, and claiming that they were fully conscious and able to account for every second of the first minute after a tramatic event.
Quote:
And dont forget his book was not copy edited so it has grammar and sequential errors which a second edition may address.
You mean like including the carefully ommitted details that show how nonsensical his wilder "theories" are? E.g. his account of the shooting of Simon Murden is highly misleading, even though it's the cornerstone of pretty much everything he claims is behind his supposed surveillance. Knock that away and the whole house of cards comes tumbling down.
Quote:
I found it interesting you posting a link to a site that was full of lies, more lies and propaganda. Why would you do that and not simply post the picture.
I did both, in case people wanted to see the context in which the picture appears.
Quote:
I know why the BMJ is countering what was written in the Israeli press which claimed the explosives WERE the same as the Haifa cafe bombing which apparantly involved two British suicide bombers, but why are you propagating the BMJ myths?
Riiiiggghht... So now the British Medical Journal is in on it?! Do you not realise how ridiculous you sound? Let's even suppose for a minute that you are right, and that the explosives used on 7/7 had "MADE IN ISRAEL" and a little Star of David on them, how would someone writing a medical article know that? Why assume that the writer knows and is putting out a "cover story," rather than not knowing and simply recording what has been reported elsewhere? You seem to excel at circular theories that don't require a shread of real evidence.
Quote:
Dont you people ever think about what you write?
"You people"? So what am I now? A medical writer, or are we back to MI5 again?
Hold on a minute, the BMJ is a medical publication. So what on earth would they be entering into the realms of what the explosive was?
When the police itself have not announced any forensic data.
So whatever the BMJ is writing is PURE SPECULATION and why on earth are they mixing the London Bombings with the Sharm El Sheikh bombings which are nothing to do with BRITISH MEDICAL.
The BMJ is entering into politics and promoting one version of events which they know nothing about.
I notice you did not comment on the google video link which actually discusses the Sharm El Sheikh bomb too.
And just for interest my family were actually in Sharm El Sheikh when the incident actually occured.
You ask me the question the BMJ are in on it?
In on what? the reporting of a certain version of events that does not bear up when investigated. Dont forget where the head office of the BMJ is
BMA House
Tavistock Square
London
WC1H 9JR, UK
coincidence i'm sure, but it does mean their reporting will be less than impartial
I am happy to debate whether TAPT could have been carried in rucksacks while running up the stairs and jostling for position on overcrowded rush hour trains and tubes. TAPT is very volatile.
Againd TAPT does not produce an orange glow when it explodes as ALL the eye witnesses have said happened.
Staraker wrote:
Let's even suppose for a minute that you are right, and that the explosives used on 7/7 had "MADE IN ISRAEL" and a little Star of David on them, how would someone writing a medical article know that?
I have never claimed the explosives were made in Israel. Please correct yourself.
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/crime/article298515.ece
The claim by the Israelis THEMSELVES is that the explosives are the same as those used in the Haifa bombing, meaning FROM THE SAME BATCH or of the same type.
Staraker wrote:
"You people"? So what am I now? A medical writer, or are we back to MI5 again?
You people is a collective term to describe DEBUNKERS. You are working hard to foster a certain version of events. Which i actually congratulate because you are actually taking things seriously, and others like the media and political leaders are narrowly promoting the official line despite all the obvious shortcomings. So "you people" is a collective for Official conspiracy theory. Nothing to do with M15 who i am sure have better things to do than waste man hours on internet forums.
You with your talk of kilometres and strawmen sounded like you were reading from a script. And Star of David is your way of bringing anti semitism into your argument as your accusation of last resort. _________________
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
Duh!
