The 7/7 Report
- Thread starter TAE
- Start date
I think the Luton pic from 7th July is flawed, compare it to the quality of the 28/6 (I only suggested uploading one because both of mine have been removed previously)laptop said:
I think the lack of Khan & Tanweer's faces on 7th July Luton image makes identification of who they are impossible.
Just dark men with back packs?
Well may be it is not considered relevent to release and publicise every single piece of information relating to 7/7?Prole said:
Back to our logical conundrum. Now I know this will shock Prole, as Prole has never considered any further implications beyond that the released train data and CCTV data seem to have a conflict (assumong the "data" from conspiraloon sites is correct), but lets go there anyway.
As a reminder, released CCTV footage shows the bombers at Luton, references to CCTV footage show the bombers at KC, but details of the trains do not allow for them to get to London in time <logical whirring> therefore either.....
1) The released CCTC footage of Luton has been cleverly doctored to give a wrong time.
2) The CCTV footage of KC has the wrong time.
3) The details regarding the train journeys are wrong.
(This assumes that magic teleportation devices were not involved).
Now, if either of the three points above are true, then this means that it is perfectly possible that the bombers were actually CCTVed at Luton, got on a train to London, and were CCTVed at KC, therefore the official story would could be true.
Now to take this a bit further, how about either...
1) There were mistakes in the exact details of how 4 men went to London and then proceeded to blow up trains and a bus.
2) There were no mistakes in the train journeys, CCTV data was doctored to make it look like the men had no possible way of making it from London to Luton.
Just release the evidence and then we don't have to waste time with this kind of speculation. So far we have had an official report which has them entering Luton at 7.15 and on CCTV enetering at 7.22. On a train that can't have arrived at KX at 8.23. Either our police are utterly incompetent or something is wrong because if something makes no sense it's nonsense.axon said:
So you are not willing to consider any explanations, but merely to repeat your mantra of "release the evidence" which, given your previous claims about photos being doctored is actually quite ironic.
Due you extend this diligence to every aspect of your life, never even attempting to make any conclusions until you have seen every single piece of data pertaining to an event?
Due you extend this diligence to every aspect of your life, never even attempting to make any conclusions until you have seen every single piece of data pertaining to an event?
Jonti
what the dormouse said
Organic peroxides are sensitive, dangerous explosives. The military does not use them because there are many much better alternatives. Even for people who synthesize homemade explosives, there are many far safer alternatives. Even nitroglycerin is not nearly as sensitive as acetone peroxide. sourceAzrael23 said:
Amateurs.
Photos? Surely just the one photo. The one iconic image of 4 young men with backpacks which has served as judge and jury.axon said:
I haven't questioned the images from the 28/6 as they show a moving sequence with other people in shot. I haven't doubted their authenticity.
I think that each and everyone of us, but particularly those affected that day, deserve better than a shoddy official report and one dodgy image to explain the events that day.
Prole said:
It's only you and your co-delusional pals - your folie aux plusiers - who are fixated on the image, FFS.
Like a broken vinyl record, you scratch back to calling it "dodgy". You seem to have learned nothing from the comments of an experienced video editor and an experienced still-picture editor. You want not to learn.
So, for example: the explosives in the car in the car-park at Luton were made up? And the photos of them?
The bomb factory in Leeds was made up?
When this image came out ages ago I was posting - where the hell are the others?
Best part of a year on and still no sign of them.
Whether one thinks that there is a genuine reason for this, posters have to admit that there should be many, many more images of these men on their way to their final destinations (not including the one of the guy shopping in Boots) and they should be of the kind of quality of the images from the dry run on the 28th June or indeed the other guys from the 21st June 2006, and that it is really pretty weird that we only have this extremely poor image to go on.
Best part of a year on and still no sign of them.
Whether one thinks that there is a genuine reason for this, posters have to admit that there should be many, many more images of these men on their way to their final destinations (not including the one of the guy shopping in Boots) and they should be of the kind of quality of the images from the dry run on the 28th June or indeed the other guys from the 21st June 2006, and that it is really pretty weird that we only have this extremely poor image to go on.
Is there any law that says that CCTV images must be made public, outside of a trial where they are required as evidence for the prosecution or defence?Jazzz said:
In fact it wouldn't be wise to publish all CCTV pictures on a regular basis unless there was a compelling reason to do so, as it would enable people to work out exactly where all the blind spots are, for example in the major London railway stations.
All you can conclude from the non-appreance of the images is that we haven't seen them. You can't conclude that they don't exist. I admit that at the same time I can't prove to you that they do exist, or what they look like. This would only become a pressing issue in a criminal trial where they would be required as evidence. And it is there is lots of intelligence held by the police and security services that is not released to the public - and by extension to terrorists planning their next attack or trying to refine their plans and techniques (or even to pickpockets operating at Kings Cross for that matter).
detective-boy said:
I was watching TV when it was first reported - and the story then was not what the story is now. Did you watch the TV documentary on that shooting? Big difference between that and what the police said at the time.
Here is a link to some of the discrepancies - I'm sure you can find others on your own.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4158832.stm
editor said:*Still* waiting for you to answer my questions.
ok, sorry it took me a long time to think this one through. Your questions were very detailed and took me a lot of reading to analyse properly.
I know the passions are running high at the moment but we have to stand firm, for eachother.....its the only way.
You know I`ll always have a place for you....
But, I had to be honest,
No, roadkill is not romantic....
No, I could never love an alcoholic.
Jonti
what the dormouse said
Your point was It couldn`t have been amateur terorists as the explosives were mil grade.Azrael23 said:
My point is the explosives were not military grade; and that there are far, uhh, safer substances to manufacture than the particular explosive chosen ("Mother of Satan"). It's attraction seems to be exactly that it can be made with very low-tech gear and easily obtained chemicals. Here's some more info.
I wasn't arguing that it did.scalyboy said:
I have absolutely no doubt that the four were at Luton at about 7-ish and that they then took a train and arrived in London, going on to take the various trains and bus and exploding their bombs. I am satisfied that there will be masses of other evidence to prove that one way or another - loads more CCTV much of which is referred to in the narrative for instance.
It matters not a jot, so far as I can see, whether or not they got a train at a particular minute, whether or not that train was any particular scheduled one or what bloody colour it was.
I was simply pointing out to the conspiracy theorists that there were clearly errors somewhere in the data they were using to prove that their account must be true.
They could.Prole said:
I have no idea why they haven't released significantly more than they have.
I was hoping that the narrative would be a far more evidentialy based document than it has turned out to be. As a statement of what the police believe took place it sets out their "best-known" sequence of events but it does not provide sufficient detail to make any sort of assessment of the thoroughness of any particular aspect of the enquiry or of the reliability of many of the conclusions drawn.
As I have argued previously, I do not think that public enquiries are the best way of progressing every issue of public concern. They are routinely demanded as pretty much a knee-jerk reaction (and that, in itself, has undermined their own worth in a "Cry Wolf" sort of way). I do, however, believe that the evidence gathered in any enquiry should be shared with the public, and tested in their presence, to the maximum possible extent. The intention should be to provide a forum in which the outcome in terms of public knowledge is similar to that provided by a criminal trial.
The narrative has not fulfilled that function and I believe there does need to be significantly more sharing of the evidence with the public.
Unlike you, however, I do not:
1. Assume that they are not releasing it because they do not have it (they would be fucking mad to repeatedly mention CCTV, fingerprints, DNA, etc. knowing that it doesn't exist) or
2. Immediately conclude that the lack of release "proves" that the bombers must be innocent (I am 110% satisfied beyond all doubt that, broadly speaking, the events took place as set out in the narrative and that they knowingly carried out the acts attributed to them) or
3. Run off speculating wildly about alternative theories.
Why do you find it so difficult to simply keep asking a simple question: "Dear Home Secretary. You will note that there are the following apparent discrepancies in the data relating to train times contained within the narrative. There are even more discrepancies when it is compared with the following data we have had supplied by Mr A Trainspotter by TrainsOnTime'R'Us. As a matter of public record, I would be grateful if you could have the source of these apparent discrepancies investigated and ensure that the primary source of the actual information is made public if at all possible. Love Prole".
You may find that such an approach actually gets an answer to your question whereas your current strategy of (a) adding green ink bits to your requests suggesting that this clearly means that MI5 did it and (b) repeatedly pointing out to anyone who will listen (and many who wont) that it hasn't been released and therefore MI5 did it.
Go ask. Tell us what happens. Until then don't expect us to engage with your evidence-free theories.
There you are, jumping to conclusions instead of simply pointing out inconsistencies.Prole said:
And, if you are the slightest bit interested, I would put an awful lot of money on the fact that the narrative was not written by a police officer (certainly not a detective). It has the look to me of a (very, very) summarised account of a much, much larger evidentially referenced police report distilled down and put into ... er ... civil service-ese by a civil servant and polished by a more senior civil servant (or even committee).
In this instance, bearing in mind the number of people directly affected by the events of the day, and the millions indirectly affected, I would argue that there is an overwhelming reason to provide a more detailed public account of the evidence.TeeJay said:
That said, all I do conclude from the non-appearance is that we haven't seen them. As I said in another post, the police would be mad to refer to non-existent CCTV, fingerprints, DNA, etc. in the narrative and loads and loads is mentioned (in a way entirely consistent with it being distilled out of an evidentially-referenced police report).
No there is not. There are two primary discrepancies:ZAMB said:
1. The police statement refers to "clothing and behaviour" adding to suspicions. As I understand it the behaviour bit is still part of their account (the getting off and on a bus at Brixton) but the clothing bit was inaccurate (and probably originated in a mix up with a witness account)
2. The police (primarily in the form of Ian Blair) allowed the media to maintain an incorrect version of events (gathered from other sources) when they knew differently. That is a very different allegation from saying they provided the incorrect information in the first place.
You are clearly totally incapable of seperating what a witness said (for which the police cannot be held responsible) from what the police said in official statements.
In your link there are seven mentions of police statements which would still be argued to be correct (albeit a couple of them could be a little misleading). There is one (which is repeated twice) which would now be incorrect (point 1 above). There are five mentions of witness accounts, all of which contain the "meaty" wrong information.
Bernie Gunther
Fundamentalist Druid
I agree with this, but I can see a number of possible reasons other than the 'MI5 did it' theory, which would explain why they chose not to give the public enough detail to make the sort of judgement that you're talking about above.detective-boy said:
They don't want the public thinking about this, or talking about it. They want it buried as far as humanly possible, because Blair and the senior spooks who were complicit in his lies about WMD, are desperate to avoid taking responsibility for the consequences of joining the US in Iraq. If they provided substantial detail, the media would be all over it for weeks and both the media and the public would be able to start asking far more informed questions. So they may be restricting detail to avoid adding fuel to the fire and reminding potential voters yet again of their bad judgement.
Somewhere in that detail, there may very well be some evidence of incompetence and/or poor judgement on the part of one or more branches of state security. For example, some of the unreleased details of exactly what the security services knew about the bombers may lead to further and more painful questions about their judgement in treating them as a low priority threat and focussing their resources elsewhere.
It might also be, that if the full evidence were to be published, given that there were at least two independent self-starting groups that we know about, we might find that the state security people were tracking dozens more self-starting terrorist groups, all motivated by Iraq. Not something that would do Blair much good if it were to become a matter of debate.
In addition, if the evidence were fully published, it would no doubt raise some rather awkward questions about how any of the proposed draconian security measures, such as ID cards and the abolition of various ancient liberties, would have been any help in preventing the bombing. If we had the details, it would be possible to show systematically how useless those measures are. Without the details, it's harder to make that argument stick.
It's worth bearing in mind too that we've had several years of the 'war on terror' now, in which all those old Northern Ireland spooks, made reduntant by the Good Friday agreement, have undoubtedly found a new lease of life and have very likely been doing all kinds of dodgy stuff that 'the public just wouldn't understand' but which might come into the painful light of day if any significant evidence backing up the state's narrative of these events were to be published. For all we know some of these guys, or their close friends may have been on the books as informants, which is not the same thing as 'false flag' terrorism, but is still bloody embarassing.
More likely, they're worried that releasing substantial evidence to back up this narrative, and the same will most likely turn out to be true of the De Menezes killing, will just make them look like the Keystone Kops.
I think the most fundamental point though is that the more evidence that is produced, the more the media will have to talk about and the more that the public will be reminded that this happened in the first place, because Tony Blair and some senior spooks lied, in order to drag us into an illegal war.
Perhaps I should have been clearer:Blagsta said:
The webpage I linked to was/is the primary source for the claim that the train was cancelled, AFAIK. I sifted through quite a few blogs talking about the cancelled train and the links I saw ended up at that site.
Yes the email could have been faked but I think conspiracy theorists thrive on using real evidence to build up their alternative stories.
No, I've worked with JPEGs as part of my job. I've spent quite a lot of time looking at them close up.Blagsta said:
Look at the image in post #383.
JPEG works on blocks of 8x8 pixel, as you can see if you enlarge a JPEG encoded image in PaintShopPro.
Those blocks are very clearly visible on the pavement at the bottom of the image.
The artifacts which are caused by these blocks actually tend to break-up straight lines.
On the bar in question, you can clearly see the borders of the 8x8 blocks.
The bars extending accross the person's face and body more than 8 pixels is not something that JPEG encoding would typically cause.
scalyboy
They’re taking the piss now
scalyboy said:
detective-boy said:
Yeah I know, I wasn't addressing you there DB, but others- who may have thought along those lines. Apologies if I didn't make that clear.
Yes it is regrettable that the narrative contains various inaccuracies, and yes it is equally regrettable that other CCTV images haven't been released (eg of the bombers inside Luton station, and arriving at Kings X). However, as you point out, the police would be mad to make repeated references to such evidence (DNA, CCTV) if such evidence did not exist.
In your experience, is it at all unusual for the police to release comparatively few images (compared to those of the dummy-run)? Or would doing so now, when the identity and fate of the 4 is not in doubt, be considered to be pandering to conspiracy theorists?
Similar threads
- Locked
