Joined: 22 Feb 2007 Posts: 179 Location: Manchester
Posted: Wed Mar 07, 2007 2:26 pm Post subject:
If you can't see what's put in front of you then you probably never will. I think you're the kind of person who would argue that black is white.
By the way...you STILL haven't commented on the drills!!!
I think I've asked you about four times now and you continually avoid the issue. That speaks volumes in itself.
If I believed the OCT I wouldn't spend a second of my time on a website like this so you either have no life or you have some other motive. I wonder which it is _________________
"Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither" --Benjamin Franklin--
Joined: 27 Jul 2005 Posts: 881 Location: Woking, Surrey, UK
Posted: Wed Mar 07, 2007 2:50 pm Post subject:
There was no CCTV coverage and no eyewitnesses because there were no Muslim terrorists involved. The four young men from Leeds were "patsies", to take the blame and who may or may not still be alive (probably not)
Joined: 27 Jul 2005 Posts: 881 Location: Woking, Surrey, UK
Posted: Wed Mar 07, 2007 3:18 pm Post subject:
And by the same token, had an airliner hit the Pentagon, CCTV footage would have been available for the world to witness it. The Pentagon was covered from every possible angle by it. Strange it wasn't available that day, or not if there was need to hide a cruise missile.
"By the way...you STILL haven't commented on the drills!!!"
oh dear god is that what all the fuss is about? i thought you claimed they were at exactly the same locations? the video makes no mention of that, it mentions that they had practiced for simultaneous surface and underground attacks on the transport system but at no point does he mention the locations.
and why wouldn't they have practiced that? attacking the underground is pretty obvious thing to do, it's been done in the past for that reason as well.
i would be even more concerned if noone had considered the idea that someone might bomb the underground again.
and as for the photo it's a * photo (most cctv is) and it's been enlarged and shrunk god knows how many times which doesn't help.
Posted: Thu Mar 08, 2007 3:18 am Post subject: Egg McMuffin?
can john doe who i presume is an american spin doctor please explain to us brits. Why would a guy about to blow himself up go into a mcdonalds, queue up buy an Egg McMuffin? while wearing a white baseball cap?
We are told that this geezer was a muslim so it does not seem to make sense. 9am McDonalds only does a breakfast menu which is all PORK.
Allthough a still image was released no staff member remembers serving him. Or else they would have made statements. And before the bus bomber had time to digest his pork he topped himself.
It is so far fetched. Next you will be telling us a couple of hicks walked on the moon back in the sixties.
Remember only two still images have been released. One at Luton station and one in Mcdonalds kings cross.
Non from the bus, the tube carraiges, the tube platforms, the tube stations, the train carraige, the train platform or from any street cctv cameras or any traffic cameras or any nearby buildings.
All the eyewitnesses say the bombs were UNDER the floor.
21/7 all the above cctv footage has been released.
This means on 7/7 it does not exist.
Joined: 22 Feb 2007 Posts: 179 Location: Manchester
Posted: Thu Mar 08, 2007 9:59 am Post subject:
A lot of people in denial have a knack of not seeing the evidence they can't explain away. e.g:
Why did they buy return tickets?
Why did they buy pay and display tickets for there cars?
Why were the bombs in bags and not strapped to there bodies?
Why didn't they shout "Allah Akhbar" as is customary for suicide bombers?
Why do MI5 and MI6 refuse to arrest the so-called "mastermind" (Haroon Rashid Aswat) of the operation and actively hide him? Maybe because he's on there payroll. Police in Pakistan arrested him and offered to deport him but the British government declined. _________________
"Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither" --Benjamin Franklin--
A lot of people in denial have a knack of not seeing the evidence they can't explain away. e.g:
Why did they buy return tickets?
Why did they buy pay and display tickets for there cars?
Why were the bombs in bags and not strapped to there bodies?
Why didn't they shout "Allah Akhbar" as is customary for suicide bombers?
Why do MI5 and MI6 refuse to arrest the so-called "mastermind" (Haroon Rashid Aswat) of the operation and actively hide him? Maybe because he's on there payroll. Police in Pakistan arrested him and offered to deport him but the British government declined.
And a lot of people invent evidence convenient for their beliefs, or claim something to be evidence when it is nothing of the kind.
There is no evidence that they bought return tickets that I am aware of. I think you will find that the "account" says that the type of ticket they bought is unknown.
There was no need to draw attention to the car by not putting a ticket on it. They might have to abort the operation and return to Luton, and if they did not there was no point in saving money.
If you are building a bomb it sounds easier to build it in a box than divide it up for strapping to your body, it is certainly not evidence against them being involved, nor is a failure to shout "Allah Akhbar". Failure to follow a code of practice for suicide bombers is not much of an argument, really. _________________ ".......some partial collapse [of WTC7] would not have been suspicious......." - chek
Joined: 22 Feb 2007 Posts: 179 Location: Manchester
Posted: Thu Mar 08, 2007 4:10 pm Post subject:
In future when attempting to discredit what I say...try commenting on ALL the points I made and not cherry picking the ones you think you can disprove.
Evidence they bought return tickets can be found here:
Here's another idea, plug your computer into the wall, switch it on, when windows loads, open your internet browser and go on a search engine, i don't know, let's say www.google.com then type in these words "bombers bought return tickets" and an amazing thing will happen before your very eyes, evidence will appear!!
You say that it's more practical that the bombs were put in backpacks rather than strapped to the body, but it's known that the bombs would have fit in much smaller bags.
Quote:
They said the bombs were small enough to fit in a knapsack and were detonated by timers rather than suicide attackers."
According to the only CCTV picture released so far [if genuine - see below at hypothesis 8] the four men seemed very relaxed. They are also reported to have bought return tickets and pay and display tickets for their cars at Luton station car park. Even though it could be argued that the men may have done this to allay suspicion, other behaviour doesn't seem to fit the profile of suicide bombers. Shehzad Tanweer had just spend a large amount of money to repair his car. He was captured on CCTV arguing with a cashier over change at a petrol station shortly before the attacks
So let's get this right, there was no point in them saving money if they were going to die anyway....so why did one of them argue over his change with the cashier??
The fact that they didn't shout "Allah Akhbar" is very significant as it's claimed that the men carried out the attacks for religious reasons. For such devout Muslims to miss out this integral part of the process is very strange. You don't agree?
Also if you can kindly tell me which evidence i "invent" I'd be very grateful.
Here's a quote for johndoe from Peter Power:
Quote:
"At half past nine this morning we were actually running an exercise for a company of over a thousand people in London based on simultaneous bombs going off precisely at the railway stations where it happened this morning."
Key words: "precisely at the railway stations where it happened this morning"
Personally I don't eat such filth so am unqualified to pass judgement on the breakfast menu. I am, however, struck (like Stelios) that these fanatical muslims choose in dine in a noted symbol of western cultural imperialism. A pastie from Greggs maybe, but McDonalds... _________________ It's a man's life in MOSSAD
"In fact this picture appears at least to show a substantial piece of metal pointing upwards."
but the hole is down not up. it shows an obvious downward blast.
"Personally I don't eat such filth so am unqualified to pass judgement on the breakfast menu."
you see in america an egg mcmuffin is made from egg and bacon. however in the uk such a thing is called a bacon and egg mcmuffin and a muffin with just eggs is called........ an egg mcmuffin, obviously.
and as for why they ate mcdonalds. probably the same reason anyone else does, because it was there.
"Here's a quote for johndoe from Peter Power:"
find a reputable source for it. (unfortunately this network doesn't let me download mp3 files but if someone would zip it that would be nice.). it does seem to be from the same interview that was posted earlier that contained no such statement.
but the hole is down not up. it shows an obvious downward blast
Not being an expert in such matters, I'm personally loathe to use such terms as 'obviously'.
An 'obvious' downward blast would need to account for why towards the left of the picture it appears metal has peeled up and back on itself.
However, I am struck by your apparent confidence in accurately interpreting bomb damage.
Quote:
and as for why they ate mcdonalds. probably the same reason anyone else does, because it was there.
The fact he ate in McDonalds does not, of course, 'prove' anything, but it is a bit odd. Many people do not base their eating decisions simply on 'what is there'. I haven't eaten in McDonalds on principle for years. If I see it's there, I make a conscious decision to avoid it. Frankly, I'd rather starve. You might go somewhere simply because 'it's there', but it doesn't follow that's how everyone else thinks. One would expect Islamic Fundamentalists sufficiently fanatical to kill themselves specifically to make a statement against the West to choose to eat their final meal somewhere other than a symbol of Western Cultural imperialism (in fact, if it is the case he was supposed to board a train but couldn't and the no.30 was not part of the original plan (as has been suggested), it would arguably have been a better statement for him to have blown himself up in McDonalds rather than fannying about finding a bus).
It's London. It's not like it's short of cafes. It's one step down from him getting a pint and bag of pork scratchings. _________________ It's a man's life in MOSSAD
Personally I don't eat such filth so am unqualified to pass judgement on the breakfast menu. I am, however, struck (like Stelios) that these fanatical muslims choose in dine in a noted symbol of western cultural imperialism. A pastie from Greggs maybe, but McDonalds...
Don't bombs produce smoke and charring? That carriage floor looks like someone had a go with a giant tin opener...
I am thinking that perhaps 'military grade explosives' don't produce heat - just gas. Shock wave no heat???
Quote:
"If people had known there was no fire, through someone making contact with us, the situation could have been a lot calmer. The most important thing that needs to be recognised is us not having contact with anyone.
"Not long after the bomb went off, we all tried to stay quiet to hear for help, all we could hear were the screams from the other carriages, to our horror we then heard a train, thinking it was coming towards us.
Whilst I do not believe in the police's account of 7/7, I do not accept that the Luton Station CCTV picture reveals anomalies. The metal bar appearing to pass through the face of one of the alleged bombers is an optical illusion caused by some of the pixels of the bar happening to have the same (or almost the same) RGB values at those constituting the man's left cheek. This makes the image of the bar appear to bleed into that of the man's face. It is easily checked when you magnify the picture in an image-editing program and compare the RGB value of the respective pixels. They are very closely matched. It is merely a coincidence that the bar is at the same level in the picture as the part of the man's face sharing the same colour, thus creating the illusion that the white line is one continuous object, whereas the bar ends at the edge of the face having pixels of the same RGB value. Similarly, the much discussed anomaly of the bar seeming to pass in front of the man's body is based upon a misperception that judges the part of the image below the bar to be the edge of the man's torso, whereas in fact it is the edge of the building behind him. When you magnify the image and compare the pixels hues, you spot the man's left arm across his body, not hanging down. It is not clearly visible except when a high-quality version of the original photo is magnified because the dark colours of his arm and his torso closely match, but differ enough for the edges of his arm across his body to be discernible. Because his arm is across his body, it allows the bar to extend further across than it would had his arm been hanging down. But people mistake the part below the bar as belonging to his body, thus creating the anomaly that it passes in front of it. Highly magnified, the bar is seen to end precisely where it passes behind the man's body, as required.
Fintan Dunne at Breakfornews.com was one of the first to discuss this apparent anomaly. But his faulty analysis was thoroughly debunked at the time even by sceptics of the official 7/7 story. The issue of the validity of the photo was a red herring created by sloppy analysis.
One would only want to believe the picture was faked if one did not believe that the four men ever took a train to Kings Cross from Luton on 7/7. That's was Dunne's motivation, for he floated the theory that they were intercepted after they left home. There is no evidence for this. Why introduce this extra complication into the conspiracy? For it then means that we have to explain how they disappeared, even though one of them was seen on the tube train! If you are looking for anomalies, it is easy for your mind to misinterpret the evidence of the eye so that you find what you want to find, especially when looking at compressed, poor-resolution reproductions of a single frame of a video tape found on someone's website. This has happened to many people. It is about time some of you here stopped being taken in by optical illusions because you have not bothered to examine this image properly in a graphics-editing program.
Joined: 22 Feb 2007 Posts: 179 Location: Manchester
Posted: Thu Mar 08, 2007 10:29 pm Post subject:
@ Micspi, fair point about the bar going through the body and head of the man, I'm not very competent with a graphics editing program so I won't debate what you said about the RGB values. but what you fail to address is the reflection in the glass behind the man on the far left. If you read the previous posts I made in this topic you should understand what I mean...and if you're efficient enough with the editing program, you should be able to clearly see it. The reflection is flawed, his legs are the wrong way around...I don't mean they point in the wrong direction...I mean the order they appear is exactly the same in the reflection as they appear when looking at the man...when in fact this should be in reverse. _________________
"Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither" --Benjamin Franklin--
ok, this is the morning rush hour so how come ONLY the bombers appear to be going to London? Why arent there any commuters in this still picture? And why havent they released the video.
If you look closely at the picture it looks fake. But at 7.30 am surely someone other than the bombers was getting the train to London?
If this still image from a cctv video was real you would see other passengers in this frame. You would see some interaction between the four bombers who after all appear not to even know each other.
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.
Joined: 22 Feb 2007 Posts: 179 Location: Manchester
Posted: Fri Mar 09, 2007 2:39 am Post subject:
If you compare that picture to the picture of the alleged "dry run" it also appears to be zoomed in. Is any reason given for this?
I think it's also worth noting the way the men are dressed....very Western eh? baseball caps, trainers etc, not the usual garb for supposed muslim fanatics! _________________
"Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither" --Benjamin Franklin--
"9am McDonalds only does a breakfast menu which is all PORK. "
now that's just plain wrong.
don't tell PORKies in future.
Please explain your thery as to what a muslim fundamentalist would be buying in McDonalds at 9am?
You might answer Hash Browns.
The point is he wouldnt have gone there full stop. He is forbidden from eating food that has been prepared with pork. According to a muslim i spoke to most muslims dont frequent mcdonalds.
Joined: 22 Feb 2007 Posts: 179 Location: Manchester
Posted: Fri Mar 09, 2007 3:22 am Post subject:
Funny also that the CCTV cameras weren't working on the number 30 bus, after a strange visit from an unknown "contractor" that is.
Quote:
last saturday a contractor came to inspect the CCTV on the buses at the depot, According to my supervisor the person spent more than 20 hours over that weekend, 20 hours to see if the CCTV is working? Also that person who came was not a regular contractor, for security reasons the same few people always come to the depot to carry out work, this time it was different
In future when attempting to discredit what I say...try commenting on ALL the points I made and not cherry picking the ones you think you can disprove.
Evidence they bought return tickets can be found here:
Here's another idea, plug your computer into the wall, switch it on, when windows loads, open your internet browser and go on a search engine, i don't know, let's say www.google.com then type in these words "bombers bought return tickets" and an amazing thing will happen before your very eyes, evidence will appear!!
You say that it's more practical that the bombs were put in backpacks rather than strapped to the body, but it's known that the bombs would have fit in much smaller bags.
Quote:
They said the bombs were small enough to fit in a knapsack and were detonated by timers rather than suicide attackers."
According to the only CCTV picture released so far [if genuine - see below at hypothesis 8] the four men seemed very relaxed. They are also reported to have bought return tickets and pay and display tickets for their cars at Luton station car park. Even though it could be argued that the men may have done this to allay suspicion, other behaviour doesn't seem to fit the profile of suicide bombers. Shehzad Tanweer had just spend a large amount of money to repair his car. He was captured on CCTV arguing with a cashier over change at a petrol station shortly before the attacks
So let's get this right, there was no point in them saving money if they were going to die anyway....so why did one of them argue over his change with the cashier??
The fact that they didn't shout "Allah Akhbar" is very significant as it's claimed that the men carried out the attacks for religious reasons. For such devout Muslims to miss out this integral part of the process is very strange. You don't agree?
Also if you can kindly tell me which evidence i "invent" I'd be very grateful.
Here's a quote for johndoe from Peter Power:
Quote:
"At half past nine this morning we were actually running an exercise for a company of over a thousand people in London based on simultaneous bombs going off precisely at the railway stations where it happened this morning."
Key words: "precisely at the railway stations where it happened this morning"
Unfortunately, like so many truthshirkers, you have no idea what constitutes evidence. The Independent article and other references in the media to the bombers buying return tickets are simply people repeating the same story without once adducing any evidence to support it. The official narrative says that it is not known what type of tickets they had
LINK Unless you can show actual evidence of return tickets that the police have not found, that is the position.
Speculation on the state of mind of suicide bombers is rather fruitless, as are comments about the size of the bags they used. Why does it matter that they could have used smaller bags? Does it cast any doubt on the official narrative? _________________ ".......some partial collapse [of WTC7] would not have been suspicious......." - chek
"Don't bombs produce smoke and charring? That carriage floor looks like someone had a go with a giant tin opener... "
not entropic explosives like say..... acetone peroxide.
"I am thinking that perhaps 'military grade explosives' don't produce heat - just gas."
no rdx produces heat.
oh dear another layman.
"However, I am struck by your apparent confidence in accurately interpreting bomb damage."
down slope = crater = down blast
up slope = swell = up plast
the curves of the hole are down.
"not the usual garb for supposed muslim fanatics!"
you know how fanatical muslims dress? well that sure would make this anti-terrorism thing easy. hiow about you trot off down to mi5 headquarters and tell them you can spot terrorists by the way they dress. i'm sure you'll get a job.
Joined: 23 Dec 2005 Posts: 500 Location: South London
Posted: Fri Mar 09, 2007 11:01 pm Post subject:
Bushwacker wrote:
ZUCO wrote:
In future when attempting to discredit what I say...try commenting on ALL the points I made and not cherry picking the ones you think you can disprove.
Evidence they bought return tickets can be found here:
Here's another idea, plug your computer into the wall, switch it on, when windows loads, open your internet browser and go on a search engine, i don't know, let's say www.google.com then type in these words "bombers bought return tickets" and an amazing thing will happen before your very eyes, evidence will appear!!
You say that it's more practical that the bombs were put in backpacks rather than strapped to the body, but it's known that the bombs would have fit in much smaller bags.
Quote:
They said the bombs were small enough to fit in a knapsack and were detonated by timers rather than suicide attackers."
According to the only CCTV picture released so far [if genuine - see below at hypothesis 8] the four men seemed very relaxed. They are also reported to have bought return tickets and pay and display tickets for their cars at Luton station car park. Even though it could be argued that the men may have done this to allay suspicion, other behaviour doesn't seem to fit the profile of suicide bombers. Shehzad Tanweer had just spend a large amount of money to repair his car. He was captured on CCTV arguing with a cashier over change at a petrol station shortly before the attacks
So let's get this right, there was no point in them saving money if they were going to die anyway....so why did one of them argue over his change with the cashier??
The fact that they didn't shout "Allah Akhbar" is very significant as it's claimed that the men carried out the attacks for religious reasons. For such devout Muslims to miss out this integral part of the process is very strange. You don't agree?
Also if you can kindly tell me which evidence i "invent" I'd be very grateful.
Here's a quote for johndoe from Peter Power:
Quote:
"At half past nine this morning we were actually running an exercise for a company of over a thousand people in London based on simultaneous bombs going off precisely at the railway stations where it happened this morning."
Key words: "precisely at the railway stations where it happened this morning"
Unfortunately, like so many truthshirkers, you have no idea what constitutes evidence. The Independent article and other references in the media to the bombers buying return tickets are simply people repeating the same story without once adducing any evidence to support it. The official narrative says that it is not known what type of tickets they had
LINK Unless you can show actual evidence of return tickets that the police have not found, that is the position.
Speculation on the state of mind of suicide bombers is rather fruitless, as are comments about the size of the bags they used. Why does it matter that they could have used smaller bags? Does it cast any doubt on the official narrative?
On the other hand the official narrative is full of evidence such as:
"It is not known where they bought their tickets or what sort of tickets they possessed, but they must have had some to get on to the platform."
"At around 08.30am, 4 men fitting their descriptions are seen hugging. They appear happy, even euphoric. They then split up. Khan must have gone to board a westbound Circle Line train, Tanweer an eastbound Circle Line train and Lindsay a southbound Piccadilly Line train. Hussain also appeared to walk towards the Piccadilly Line entrance."
"CCTV images show the platform at Liverpool Street with the eastbound Circle Line train alongside seconds before it is blown up. Shehzad Tanweer is not visible, but he must have been in the second carriage from the front."
"Hyde Park Road is close to 18 Alexandra Grove – the flat which appears to have been the bomb factory."
"Hussain goes back into King’s Cross station through Boots and then goes into W H Smith on the station concourse and, it appears, buys a 9v battery. It is possible that a new battery was needed to detonate the device, but this is only speculation at this stage."
"Expert examination continues but it appears the bombs were homemade, and that the ingredients used were all readily commercially available and not particularly expensive. Each device appears to have consisted of around 2-5 kg of home made explosive."
Agreed Numeral
The official report is a sack of nonsense of supposition And the debunkers and the thickos buy it
Still I see an upturn in the streets
Many ordinary people do not accept the story _________________ http://www.exopolitics-leeds.co.uk/introduction
"However, I am struck by your apparent confidence in accurately interpreting bomb damage."
down slope = crater = down blast
up slope = swell = up plast
the curves of the hole are down.
You see a uniformity I don't.
You fail to explain the metal twisted upwards.
Incidentally -
johndoe wrote:
then how come photos of the blast show the floor bent down and not up?
Your use of the plural implies you've seen more than one. That's the only picture showing the interior of one of the trains I've seen - If you could link to any others that might be helpful - thanks in advance. _________________ It's a man's life in MOSSAD
Joined: 22 Feb 2007 Posts: 179 Location: Manchester
Posted: Fri Mar 09, 2007 11:42 pm Post subject:
Well done johndoe for continually avoiding the issues you can't explain and cherry picking the ones you think you can. You would make a great politician I think.
you know how fanatical muslims dress? well that sure would make this anti-terrorism thing easy. hiow about you trot off down to mi5 headquarters and tell them you can spot terrorists by the way they dress. i'm sure you'll get a job.
I'm sure there are some people at MI5 who do a good job, but it would be made infinitely easier if the country didn't attack itself.
And I'm no expert on the way people dress but I know that Muslim fanatics are extremely anti-western so it's unusual to see them dressed in such clothing. Any fool can see that.
Quote:
Unfortunately, like so many truthshirkers, you have no idea what constitutes evidence. The Independent article and other references in the media to the bombers buying return tickets are simply people repeating the same story without once adducing any evidence to support it. The official narrative says that it is not known what type of tickets they had
The message I wrote earlier contains more evidence than the official narrative. As numeral points out the "official" narrative relies heavily on conjecture...i.e "must have"... "appear to"...."fitting their descriptions"...'it is possible"....not exactly what I'd call evidence. _________________
"Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither" --Benjamin Franklin--
Unfortunately, like so many truthshirkers, you have no idea what constitutes evidence. The Independent article and other references in the media to the bombers buying return tickets are simply people repeating the same story without once adducing any evidence to support it. The official narrative says that it is not known what type of tickets they had
The message I wrote earlier contains more evidence than the official narrative. As numeral points out the "official" narrative relies heavily on conjecture...i.e "must have"... "appear to"...."fitting their descriptions"...'it is possible"....not exactly what I'd call evidence.
Your post contains no evidence to show that they bought return tickets. The official narrative says the type of ticket is unknown.
Show some evidence that they bought return tickets or accept that it is not known what tickets they had, as the narrative says. _________________ ".......some partial collapse [of WTC7] would not have been suspicious......." - chek
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
