I meant reference to the source document / verbatim record of a verbal statement, not just name.Prole said:
Where did you see that the narrative stated that they caught the 7.40 train anyway? I have not seen that.
7/7 Home Office 'narrative' leaked: Iraq led to July 7
- Thread starter Badger Kitten
- Start date
Where did you see that the narrative stated that they caught the 7.40 train anyway? I have not seen that.
Kid_Eternity
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Rohen said:
I'm not convinced, part of me thinks they don't want a public inquiry becuase it might turn into an inquiry about the decision to go to war (something they can never allow).
On the issue of you losing an ex, my condolences but I think Jessiedog said it best...
Just to reply to your question as I'm fed up with the abuse i get so I've opted to leave these boards:detective-boy said:
p.4 of the ofiicial account: "7.40 the London KX train leaves Luton"
here is the copy of the email from Thameslink:
http://julyseventh.co.uk/july-7-luton-kings-cross-train-times.html#underground
That quote says at 7.40 a London King's Cross train leaves Luton. It does not say the 7.40 London King's Cross train leaves Luton.Prole said:
As for the various data in the copy e-mails, on the face of it it appears to show discrepancies. I would not, however, rely on that as it stands as (a) neither of the people to whom the e-mails are attributed provides an indication as to the original source of their information and (b) the timings on any cmputer-based system and on CCTV may, or may not be 100% accurate. I would be surprised if all the timings involved here turned out to be 100% accurate and we are probably only talking about a minute or two discrepancy.
The apparent discrepancy is, on the face of it, worthy of further investigation. In context with the other evidence it is not, in my opinion, sufficient to undermine the whole hypothesis.
Right. I've read all 41 pages of the report (0.5Mb PDF!).
There is one huge, glaring, lie of omission.
One instance of this is in the timeline (Annex C):
What's missing? Any mention of US support for any of the above at that time.
(I'd also completely forgotten about the two men arrested in Birmingham 2000 and convicted in 2002 for making 70kg of high explosive...)
There is one huge, glaring, lie of omission.
One instance of this is in the timeline (Annex C):
Code:
1979 Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan and subsequent occupation.
c1984 Radical preacher Abdullah Azzam set up an organisation called
Maktab al-Khidmat (MAK)“Bureau of Services ”to disseminate
propaganda about jihad in Afghanistan.Usama bin Laden (UbL)
joins.
1989 Withdrawal of Soviet forces from Afghanistan.UbL returns to
Saudi Arabia.What's missing? Any mention of US support for any of the above at that time.
(I'd also completely forgotten about the two men arrested in Birmingham 2000 and convicted in 2002 for making 70kg of high explosive...)
editor
hiraethified
Thing is, if it was all a massive conspiracy-tastic cover up they would have had a ready supply of Photoshopped photos ready to be released to the media immediately, wouldn't they?Prole said:
Strange that when 'they' were busily planning the biggest black op terrorist attack in the UK they forgot that bit, isn't it?
Why do you think that is?
Any idea?
You still here? Why?
So.
You have dismissed the idea that the bombers took a train from Luton to London.
You claim to have no interest in what did happen.
But your mind, such as it is, is certainly active in dealing with "it was all faked" scenarios.
Do we believe you?
And: clearly none of those whingeing about the Luton picture have ever dealt with a video frame-grab; and none have the faintest idea how video recorders work.
A lack of the artefacts complained of would be more suspicious...
Prole said:
So.
You have dismissed the idea that the bombers took a train from Luton to London.
You claim to have no interest in what did happen.
But your mind, such as it is, is certainly active in dealing with "it was all faked" scenarios.
Do we believe you?
And: clearly none of those whingeing about the Luton picture have ever dealt with a video frame-grab; and none have the faintest idea how video recorders work.
A lack of the artefacts complained of would be more suspicious...
editor
hiraethified
So where's your conclusive proof that the image has been 'Photoshopped' please - and why do you think no one involved in the investigation has picked up on it?Prole said:
What's your area of expertise in graphics?
What gives you authority to declare this image as being Photoshopped?
Please explain. Thanks.
Prole said:
As I said, if such artefacts had been missing, that would be suspicious.
Prole said:
No, you need eyes, a brain and expertise.
Without the latter all you have is "stands to reason, innit" bollocks.
I deduce from the image that it was a VHS recording. There are other posters here with considerably more expertise than I who I predict will agree. Now, if you'd like to tell us everything you know about how a VHS image gets from lens to screen...
On second thoughts, don't bother.
Mix of Luton 28/6 & 7/7
http://img359.imageshack.us/img359/5195/lutonmix29wy.gif
<editor: FAQ busting image removed>
http://img359.imageshack.us/img359/5195/lutonmix29wy.gif
<editor: FAQ busting image removed>
editor
hiraethified
I've already warned you once about this. Stop it please.Prole said:
So explain to me the relevance of the white bag please, and show me your hard evidence for the image being Photoshopped as you have repeatedly and emphatically claimed.
Have you independently verified the sources of the images making up that animation, btw?
editor
hiraethified
I appreciate the fact that like most conspiraloons even the most basic of research is something you tend to avoid, but had you bothered to read the FAQ - like all posters are required to so - you'd see that images over 75k are not permitted.Prole said:
It's a courtesy to folks using dial up/slow connections.
Similar threads
- Locked
