The 7/7 Report
- Thread starter TAE
- Start date
Badger Kitten
oof
Prole said:
The point I make is you are happy for the State to prosecute criminals without claiming they are all innocent, yet here you decide it is all a lie. Why? You've been presented with a lot more reports than you got in the case of say, Ian Huntley. I suppose he is innocent as well?
And don't try to co-opt me as being on the same side as you and your anti-semitic, Holocaust-denying, mass-murderer-exonerating pals. How dare you?
You don't even accept that Islamic fundementalism exists. You try to make out these men were not on the train. You deny their murderousness. You negate their culpability. You disgust me.
Barking_Mad
Non sibi sed omnibus
Prole said:
But have you looked into how cctv cameras work and anomolies they throw out? They said the same thing about the moon landing conspiracy in terms of the photos taken by Aldrin and that certain objects (rocks if I remember) ended up being 'clipped' infront of the viewfinder.
I wont draw a direct comparison but I was watching tv at a friends the other night and their portable aerial gave a crap reception. An advert was on and I could 'see through' the woman and 'see the objects' on the shelf behind her......unles you know the technicalities of these things its a leap of faith to suggest that its just a badly done put up job.
The narrative confirms prior ticket purchase:scalyboy said:
0715 "[The four] enter Luton Station and go through the ticket barriers together. It is not known where they bought their tickets ... but they must have had some to get on to the platform"
The next entry, six minutes later, is:
0721: "The four are caught on CCTV together heading to the platform for the King's Cross Thameslink train ... apparently relaxed..."
The phraseology used strikes me as odd. Does it imply the train was already there, or was pulling in? And then the next entry:
0740 "The London King's Cross train leaves Luton Station"
The narrative could be taken as meaning they got a train at just after 0721 which then hung around for about 20 minutes before leaving or that they got to the platform at just after 0721 and then waited before catching a train which left at 0740.
Comparing the narrative data with the (apparent) timetable data:
07.20 On time 08.15
07.24 07.25 08.23
07.30 07.42 08.39
If all the data is correct:
(a) they had time to get on the 0720, 0724 or 0730
(b) if the trains all used the same platform, only the 0730 would be consistent with the stated departure time in the narrative.
I do not believe all the data is correct. I would want to see verification of the apparent timetable data as a start point. I would also like to see more detail of train movements in the 25 minutes the narrative has them in the station and / or clarification of the meaning of the phraseology used.
Badger Kitten said:
I am on the side of truth and justice. I don't agree with anit-semitism or holocaust deniers or fascists of any hue. On the other hand I am Jewish and Irish and have some knowledge of history. I don't support Israel or the persecution of the Palestinian people. I will agree that 4 young British men angry at the present slaughter of innocents by Bush and Blair could have bombed London when I have seen conclusive evidence for this.
I think she was referring to a change of clothing noted in the narrative of the events of 7 July:TAE said:
0454: Woodall Services - Tanweer buys snacks and petrol. Is wearing white tracksuit bottoms.
0721: Luton Station - heading for platform, Tanweer "now wearing dark tracksuit bottoms"
Barking_Mad
Non sibi sed omnibus
detective-boy said:
*hands Detective Boy his pipe and Sherlock Holmes style hat*
Barking_Mad
Non sibi sed omnibus
detective-boy said:
I wonder if they found any remains of his change of clothing in his rucksack?
Barking_Mad said:
Precisely.
Now try videoing that imperfect signal and see what happens on playback.
From my understanding of video recording technology it would, as I said last night, be highly suspicious if there were not such artefacts.
Last night I was simply asking questions, in an attempt to get prole to say what she actually believes. Give up. She doesn't know from one minute to the next. Time for a statement:
From my direct experience of image manipulation, making illustrations by compositing photos, the only way to include those artefacts in a composite would be to paint or paste them in deliberately - which would be an interesting double-bluff by the Men in Black
(Unless you want to believe that the image was staged, not manipulated, and they wove an already-dead stooge into the actual railings. How long before this is proposed by a fruitloop?)
No. It doesn't. It says the train (it implys) they were on left Luton at 0740.Prole said:
I have pointed this out repeatedly. Please desist from repeating incorrect information.
Badger Kitten
oof
Prole said:
But - you HAVE evidence. Khan's video. CCTV pictures. Police forensic statements. Detecvtive work. The entire national & international media working the story out for themselves months before the official report. The interviewing of Muslims in Leeds who report the men's extremism at the 'Al Qaeda gym'. It all stacks up, ity all fits together; meanwhile, you obsess over the fact that the official 7.40 train did not run, though a train DID run at 7.40, so Thameslink timetables were fucked, as usual. That's all that you have. It's pathetic. You have the reports of evidence all stacking up and making a damn good case. You have no credible alternative theory. What more evidence do you want? Charred torsoes? Decapitated heads? Bombs with fingerprints on them? Videos of exploding Asians? Last wills and testaments? Holes in the train floors showing the bomb was on the floor not under it? Visits to the bomb factory and the TATP-filled bath? You'd say they were fake as well.
I have no doubt that if you were shown further CCTV of the men's movements you'd immediately claim that was fake as well, despite your current claims, because you only see what you want to see, Prole. You want to see a false flag situation, you want to see a State conspiracy. There is a conspiracy to lie, to start illegal wars and refuse to accept the consequences, but in your harmful obsession to play Nancy Drew you miss that entirely and bang on and on and on about irrelevant nonsense, because it makes you feel clever and gets you kudos from the similarly-deluded.
pk
drink flounce rinse repeat
laptop said:Precisely.
Now try videoing that imperfect signal and see what happens on playback.
From my understanding of video recording technology it would, as I said last night, be highly suspicious if there were not such artefacts.
Last night I was simply asking questions, in an attempt to get prole to say what she actually believes. Give up. She doesn't know from one minute to the next. Time for a statement:
From my direct experience of image manipulation, making illustrations by compositing photos, the only way to include those artefacts in a composite would be to paint or paste them in deliberately - which would be an interesting double-bluff by the Men in Black
(Unless you want to believe that the image was staged, not manipulated, and they wove an already-dead stooge into the actual railings. How long before this is proposed by a fruitloop?)
Post up this image with the supposed "bar" across the face - I'll tell you exactly what it is if I can.
If you are then the manager must be wishing a broken meta-bloody-tarsel on you before you rack up more own goals ....Prole said:
Badger Kitten
oof
I hear the sound of loons, frothing.
Barking_Mad
Non sibi sed omnibus
laptop said:Precisely.
Now try videoing that imperfect signal and see what happens on playback.
From my understanding of video recording technology it would, as I said last night, be highly suspicious if there were not such artefacts.
Last night I was simply asking questions, in an attempt to get prole to say what she actually believes. Give up. She doesn't know from one minute to the next. Time for a statement:
From my direct experience of image manipulation, making illustrations by compositing photos, the only way to include those artefacts in a composite would be to paint or paste them in deliberately - which would be an interesting double-bluff by the Men in Black
(Unless you want to believe that the image was staged, not manipulated, and they wove an already-dead stooge into the actual railings. How long before this is proposed by a fruitloop?)
One question, just a general one about CCTV - why are the images so grainy and of a poor quality? I'd have thought given the technology and the relative cheapness of it that these images would be of a high, or at least a better quality. Yet so often I find myself squinting at the tv!
What's all that about?
Having re-read it a couple of times, I am still getting that feeling in a few places ... I would far rather have found the narrative to be a "police to CPS" style factual report of the evidence and the basis for the conclusions drawn from it.laptop said:
Barking_Mad said:
Seems to me that bureacratic inertia is a sufficient explanation.
A high-quality digital camera and recorder may only cost £500 or less retail.
But it costs £000s to write the purchase order - in which I include preparing the specifications and tender documents, considering the tenders, taking bids from subcontractors to do the installation, engaging and certifying said contractors, buying yachts out of the guaranteed percentage markup... and more.
E2A: Consider that if you or I decided that a speed bump across the road outside Brixton Tube would be nice, we could put one in for about £500 (tarmac and truck hire: labour donated). The first figure I found for what it costs a council was £27,000.
pk
drink flounce rinse repeat
Barking_Mad said:
CCTV cameras are usually single chip, and black and white, with images usually being recorded either directly to a hard disk or a VHS tape.
More expensive cameras require more maintainance, especially as they're not designed for 24 hour external use.
Badger Kitten
oof
To be fair to Prole, I don't think it was her personally who sent me the abusive emails and called my dad. Just the group she supports and whom she attended the booklaunch to hand out ''bombers never did it it was the Government'' leaflets with. She has been pretty scathing and needling on this and on other websites, but I have called her troll and asked her to fuck off back. If she gets banned I will be delighted, but it should be for trolling conspiraloonery, not threatening behaviour.
Similar threads
- Locked
