Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

who is responsible for the London attacks?

Were the bombs placed under the carriages?

760753ae-5be1-4407-b0dc-d861185287b3.jpg

Cambridge News

"When I woke up and looked around I saw darkness, smoke and wreckage. It took a while to realise where I was and what was going on, then my first concern was for Crystal..."
...
He and Crystal were helped out of the carriage. As they made their way out, a policeman pointed out where the bomb had been.

"The policeman said 'mind that hole, that's where the bomb was'. The metal was pushed upwards as if the bomb was underneath the train. They seem to think the bomb was left in a bag, but I don't remember anybody being where the bomb was, or any bag," he said.

Christophe Chaboud, head of the French Anti-Terrorism Co-ordination Unit, told Le Monde newspaper that the explosives used in the bombings were of military origin...

Gonadian
"The charges were not heavy but powerful," said Mr Chaboud. "Among the victims, many of the wounds [lesions] were in the lower limbs, indicating that the explosives were placed on the ground, perhaps under the seats. The type of explosives appear to be military, something which is very worrying.
 
I bet that guy would get out of his bed and slap you about the fucking head if he had the misfortune to read the deluded conspiraloon rubbish you post up here.

How many more wild stabs are you going to have at coming up with something approaching a remotely credible theory?

PS: the clue is "placed on the ground". That's where bags generally go when people are travelling on the underground.
 
But interestingly editor, not if you are a suicide bomber; as waist level bombs produce a greater payload. So that would appear to be in accordance with the hypothesis that the men did not know what they had in the bags.

The change from a firm 'military explosives were used' line to 'we're not sure' also seem curious, and is in accordance with a 'false flag' operation.
 
DrJazzz said:
But interestingly editor, not if you are a suicide bomber; as waist level bombs produce a greater payload. So that would appear to be in accordance with the hypothesis that the men did not know what they had in the bags.
Seeing as you seemingly can't stop yourself posting up this fact-free bollocks, can't you find another board to do it on, please?
 
bigfish, I think it's very likely the men were carrying the bombs rather than the bombs being pre-planted. It would be very difficult to guarantee that the men would be on the right train and impossible to guarantee the right carriage. You would have to get rid of your patsies another way, and why bother when the 'drugs courier' scenario is a strong one?
 
bigfish said:
"The policeman said 'mind that hole, that's where the bomb was'. The metal was pushed upwards as if the bomb was underneath the train. They seem to think the bomb was left in a bag, but I don't remember anybody being where the bomb was, or any bag," he said.

For once I find myself agreeing with you :eek:

When explosives go off a shock wave is sent out in all directions. If the bomb had been on the floor of the carriage there would have been a dent, at the least, or a downward torn hole not upwards.

Anyone had a good look at the Aldgate train?

Part of the body work is pushed inwards and why is there a large rectangular steel object in the doorway?

It wouldn't be hard to get into one of the depots and place a bomb under the train at night. Or place it in one of the tunnels behind some trackside equipment.

However this doesn't mean I don't think it wasn't terrorists.
 
hmmm. I dare say the dynamics of how the metal would behave is beyond me, but I wouldn't rule out the possibility that the top (of the side portion) could come in if the bomb was at the bottom (by the doors) depending on how the doors were fixed.

It's certainly unlikely that the bomb was on the side of the train!
I have no idea what the rectangle is.

edited to add: I think the rectangle is the base portion of one the sliding doors (in red elsewhere along the train)
 
WouldBe said:
Part of the body work is pushed inwards

Sure? From that picure? Taken after a rescue operation with cutters and all?

WouldBe said:
and why is there a large rectangular steel object in the doorway?

That's a supesized Scientologists' "E-meter".

In case anyone was feeling distressed, like.
 
TeeJay said:
Dr Jazzz - how does the Thursday attack and todays (Friday's) events fit in with your false flag theory?

The sizzling sound is DrJ's brain frying, trying to find a line.

Whereas my theory is perfectly consistent: 07/07 was Scientologists creating a demand for their "services"; 21/07 was them mopping up extra demand without having to release more operatives from their billion-year contracts.
 
laptop said:
Sure? From that picure? Taken after a rescue operation with cutters and all?



That's a supesized Scientologists' "E-meter".

In case anyone was feeling distressed, like.

Scientologists....I like it! :D

Beware of your engrams!!!! :D
 
laptop said:
Sure? From that picure? Taken after a rescue operation with cutters and all?

When the pics were shown on ITV news on 7/7 none of the bodies had been removed at that point. Walking wounded had used the intercarriage doors and exited through the ends of the train.

Why would 'cutters and all' have been used at this point in time?
 
WouldBe said:
When the pics were shown on ITV news on 7/7 none of the bodies had been removed at that point. Walking wounded had used the intercarriage doors and exited through the ends of the train.

Why would 'cutters and all' have been used at this point in time?

They wouldn't. As you have rightly pointed out, the wounded were evacuated through the carriages and then down the tunnel to the nearby Aldgate platform.

Professor 'Expert' wants to cloud the issue by bringing in cutters, scientology, the kitchen sink, etc. because he has invested so much of his energy in promoting the official "it was 4 Muslim suicide bombers wot done it, honest gov" hypothesis. Notice too that he has ducked out of addressing the revealing assertion made by the eyewitness, Mr Lait, that the metal around the hole in the floor had been "pushed upwards" by the blast.

How is it possible to interpret what the eyewitness saw in any other way than an explosive charge being attached to the underside of the carriage he was traveling in?
 
TeeJay said:
Dr Jazzz - how does the Thursday attack and todays (Friday's) events fit in with your false flag theory?
I'm not sure, but there was certainly a load of hype going around and they certainly don't seem to fit the notion of the dastardly Al-Qaeda, do they?

Fintan Dunne has concurred with bigfish here. This would answer questions like, how come three bombers haven't been identified? How come no-one saw the bombers at King's Cross? How come the only eyewitness account of the bombers in action is the obviously discreditable Richard Jones one? Many survived the blasts.
 
You really think the bombs were the work of our own government?

Fuck right off, you totally stupid wanker, haven't you been ridiculed enough?

DrJizzz said:
I'm not sure, but there was certainly a load of hype going around and they certainly don't seem to fit the notion of the dastardly Al-Qaeda, do they?

Fintan Dunne has concurred with bigfish here. This would answer questions like, how come three bombers haven't been identified? How come no-one saw the bombers at King's Cross? How come the only eyewitness account of the bombers in action is the obviously discreditable Richard Jones one? Many survived the blasts.
 
DrJazzz said:
Fintan Dunne has concurred with bigfish here. This would answer questions like, how come three bombers haven't been identified? How come no-one saw the bombers at King's Cross? How come the only eyewitness account of the bombers in action is the obviously discreditable Richard Jones one? Many survived the blasts.

Setting charges outside the train would be fucking stupid. Would do more damage to the train tracks etc than to the people inside the train. Why would secret services want to permanently damage the tube infrastructure when they could just as easily put bombs inside the train? What a bollocks theory. You're making this thread more binnable by the second.
 
pk said:
You really think the bombs were the work of our own government?

Fuck right off, you totally stupid wanker, haven't you been ridiculed enough?

Whilst nothing has come to light yet that proves the UK govt was involved in these particular bombings, it is not unreasonable to consider the possibility given the UK govt record of collusion with terrorist groups.

Presumably pk you would consider Lord Stevens a suitable authority on such matters (Random link re Stevens report
 
UK goverment in league with Al Qaida sympathisers?

You can get fucked too.

Jesus Christ what kind of fucking drugs are you conspiraloon lot on?????

sparticus said:
Whilst nothing has come to light yet that proves the UK govt was involved in these particular bombings, it is not unreasonable to consider the possibility given the UK govt record of collusion with terrorist groups.

Presumably pk you would consider Lord Stevens a suitable authority on such matters (Random link re Stevens report
 
pk: can you ease off on the personal abuse, Dr J and bigfish are talking bollocks here (my opinion of course) but there's no need to be rude about it. Dr J at the very least is generaly polite about the discussions.

The stevens report is on how police in Northern Ireland helped the Loyalist terrorist groups attack the Republican ones isn't it? If so it's pretty irrelevant to this discussion as the terrorist groups acused/claiming the attacks are pretty much oposed to the UK gov.

Either it's a complete Conspiracy (ala. Bigfish's and other's "the bombs were under the train not in it") or it's terrorists unrelated to the government, there is no chance of it being somewhere in the middle as sparticus proposes.
 
maomao said:
Setting charges outside the train would be fucking stupid.

I agree, but setting charges under the train, on the underside of the carriage floor, does appears to be the case, at least with the Aldgate bomb. That is according to the eyewitness account of Mr Bruce Lait, a survivor from the carriage of the Aldgate blast.

He told his local paper, the Cambridge News, that: "the policeman said 'mind that hole, that's where the bomb was'. The metal was pushed upwards as if the bomb was underneath the train. They seem to think the bomb was left in a bag, but I don't remember anybody being where the bomb was, or any bag," he said.

Also, earlier reports carried in the Gonadian, Independent, Torygraph, The NYT and other Big Media, speak of "military explosives" being used - identified as coming from Eastern Europe or the Balkans - and of "timers" and "timing devices" being found. In fact, the head of the French Anti-terrorism Co-ordination Unit has actually gone on record saying precisely this in the Le Monde newspaper. The British, of course, are furious that a leading French counter-terrorism expert has been allowed to break the sacred oath of omerta, thereby throwing a spanner in the works and ruining the original deception.

Getting everyone to focus on the 4 dead Muslim guys and their motivation and now all these latest incidents, only serves to drag our attention away from the original blasts.

The wealth of CCTV evidence is conspicuous by its absence, don't you think? The bus seems to have already been forgotten about. A bomb on bus and an out-of-action CCTV camera cannot possibly be connected in Scotland Yard's mind. Where is the film from the various bombed trains? Have we seen even the much cited Kings Cross footage, come to that? No footage was ever shown of any rucksack bombers in Madrid either. We must await further revelations, like the audience of an opening night play.

The picture released of the men together at Luton station was timed at 7:22am and yet they are the only people visible on the street. How likely is that for a London commuter station, at that time in the morning, in a town with a busy airport?

Another advantage of dead men is that you can say and write whatever you like about them. If these guys ID hadn't been found on those trains and they were not presumed dead, none of this stuff about them could be published in the media, could it? And what might people start thinking in its absence?

From all this it appears to me that the 4 dead Muslim guys have almost certainly been fitted up. The specific utility of the fit up is aimed at creating a false association in the public psyche, linking the 7/7 atrocities to the British Muslim community. It's the classic divide and rule tactic. Think Hitler and the Jews - and so it's 'official' then, the "enemy" is Islam and the "enemy" is within. Already, attacks against Muslims have started to escalate, in line with expectations.

The fash are salivating over this, it's perfect for them.
 
bigfish said:
From all this it appears to me that the 4 dead Muslim guys have almost certainly been fitted up.
As ever, your armchair conspiraloon conclusion has been reached without the need for facts, credible evidence, proof etc etc
 
editor said:
As ever, your armchair conspiraloon conclusion has been reached without the need for facts, credible evidence, proof etc etc

But it's a fact that the eyewitness, Mr Lait, describes the metal hole as being "pushed upwards as if the bomb was underneath the train". He also has no recollection of seeing "anybody being where the bomb was, or any bag" in a carriage which he says was occupied by "about 20-25" passengers, so less than a third full then with plenty of visibility as most passengers would have been seated.

Unlike you, I much prefer to give credence to the testimony of eyewitnesses present in the events, rather than take the word of a War Party led by a professional liar, aided and abetted by trained parrot's in Big media.

Mr lait's account of what he saw also fits with the comments made to the Le Monde newspaper by Christophe Chaboud, head of the French Anti-Terrorism Co-ordination Unit. He said: "among the victims, many of the wounds [lesions] were in the lower limbs, indicating that the explosives were placed on the ground, perhaps under the seats."
 
bigfish said:
Unlike you, I much prefer to give credence to the testimony of eyewitnesses present in the events, rather than take the word of a War Party led by a professional liar, aided and abetted by trained parrot's in Big media.
Only when you manage to find one that might possibly fit in with whatever bonkers theory it is you've dreamt up, of course.

Naturally, you then bury your head deep in the sand and completely ignore all other eye witness testimony, expert analysis, police statements, evidence etc etc.

It's indescribably tedious and disgracefully dishonest.
bigfish said:
Unlike you, I much prefer to give credence to the testimony of eyewitnesses present in the events, rather than take the word of a War Party led by a professional liar, aided and abetted by trained parrot's in Big media.
Ah. So you're now completely convinced that the Pentagon was hit by a passenger plane then, because plenty of eye witnesses said so?

Glad we cleared up that 'conspiracy' then!
 
bigfish said:
Another advantage of dead men is that you can say and write whatever you like about them. If these guys ID hadn't been found on those trains and they were not presumed dead, none of this stuff about them could be published in the media, could it?

Have i got this right mate, their ID was found on the trains? The bombers' ID?

If that is the case, then i must be forgiven for thinking that that is most strange.
 
Bob_the_lost said:
pk: can you ease off on the personal abuse, Dr J and bigfish are talking bollocks here (my opinion of course) but there's no need to be rude about it. Dr J at the very least is generaly polite about the discussions.

The stevens report is on how police in Northern Ireland helped the Loyalist terrorist groups attack the Republican ones isn't it? If so it's pretty irrelevant to this discussion as the terrorist groups acused/claiming the attacks are pretty much oposed to the UK gov.

Either it's a complete Conspiracy (ala. Bigfish's and other's "the bombs were under the train not in it") or it's terrorists unrelated to the government, there is no chance of it being somewhere in the middle as sparticus proposes.

Agree: less personal abuse please pk

Disagree: the Stevens report (or atleast the bits that were released) shows that the UK authorities worked with and infilitrated terrorist groups on BOTH sides of the conflict and colluded in the cover of their crimes or are you conveniently forgetting about 'stakeknife'

Disagree: Given the US and UK history of infilitrating, supporting and acting as agent provocateurs amongst numerous terrorist groups, then the probability that Al Q is similarly infilitrated by western intelligence can not be dismissed. This is even more probable given the evidence of 9/11 that implicates US authorities in these events and their cover-up and the known links between US authorities and Al Q (OBL, ISI, Saudi Arabia and the CIA).

So just as 9/11 need not an either/or choice between 'Al Q' and the CIA so these bombings need not be a straight either/or choice. Indeed the Stevens report provides a good example. I'm not saying there were no Provisional IRA terrorists. But what Stevens shows is that the UK govt had no qualms about infilitrating terrorist groups (ON BOTH SIDES) and being directly involved in terrorist acts themselves for their own politic gain. And Ireland is just one example from a very long list.
 
Back
Top Bottom