I believe this incident was an accident, and that the van driver was probably drunk, or perhaps fell asleep at the wheel, for the following
1) There is no CCTV of the event, even though CCTV cameras are clearly visible on Google Streetview, pointing directly at the entrance to Whadcoat
Street, where the incident occurred.
The media isn’t mentioning CCTV anywhere. Why is that? Would they not mention it and hope that it would reveal how the attack happened?
2) The one photo of the van that we have seen, which shows the front of it, stopped in front of bollards, shows only a very small dent in the bonnet.
No blood, no damaged windscreen. If the driver was attempting to kill muslims, he would have driven into the cul de sac (Whadcoat Street is a very
short cul de sac with metal bollards at the end) at high speed, and then crashed into the bollards.
3) There is no description anywhere of the injuries suffered by the nine people who were taken to hospital. There is no proper media footage of the
scene of the incident, only lots of really poor quality mobile phone footage of the driver and the crowds. Why are we not being told about the nature
and extent of the injuries?
4) The man who died was already dying of a heart attack after collapsing in the road, which is why there were people around him, in the middle of the
road, when the van drove into it, and thus into them. There is no proof whatsoever that the van even hit the dying man, so why is the entire media
saying that the van driver killed him? Whadcoat Street is a left turn off Seven Sisters Road, before you reach Whadcoat Street there are two normal
roads (i.e. not blocked off by bollards after twenty yards) on the left, so the van driver would have had no reason to think Whadcoat Street was any
different, at 00:20 at night. If the van driver was trying to run people over to kill them, why would he drive into a road that is only twenty feet
long and then has bollards? He wouldn’t be able to accelerate into the people he was trying to kill, because he would hit the bollards at full
speed. The fact that the van WASN’T smashed into the bollards, with extensive damage, probably proves that he wasn’t accelerating into the crowd
– IF he hit them.
5) The van driver allegedly said “I want to kill all muslims” as he was being dragged out of the van by muslims who were beating him up! The
person who claimed the van driver said this was a muslim who was holding him down on the ground. If you were being beaten up and held down by a large
group of muslims, would you say to them “I want to kill all muslims” while they are beating you up?
6) The media repeatedly used the term “worshippers” to describe muslims who were walking along a road at least 500 yards from a mosque. Would they
describe Christians who were walking along a road at least 500 yards from a church as “worshippers”, without any proof that any of them had
actually been in the church, never mind the fact that you don’t normally refer to people as “worshippers” unless they are INSIDE or right in
front of their place of worship.
7) Why would the van driver have driven all the way to London to attack muslims, when there are plenty of mosques in Wales he could have targetted?
And he could have actually targetted the front of a mosque, instead of a random group of people 500 yards away.
8) Why would the van driver have chosen twenty past midnight to attack a group of random people down a side street, whom he couldn’t possibly have
seen during his approach, if he was speeding, as is alleged? (Or at least, he would only have seen them for a split second before deciding to drive
into them.) Bear in mind there is a bus lane all down the left hand side of Seven Sisters Road, and it is a one way street.
From the aerial photograph in the article above, we can see that the incident was not even in sight of the mosque! This is the only aerial photograph
I've seen in any article about this incident, and it shows that the driver was nowhere near the mosque - why wouldn't he have driven into the area in
front of the mosque, 500 yards up the road, to maximise the number of victims?
10) Look at the photo of the van in the article above - look how short a distance the van got up Whadcoat Street – because there are bollards! Isn't
that the worst place to try to drive into a group of people?
11) The article says the van ‘mounted the pavement’ – “It was then that a white van came down the street, mounted the pavement and drove into
people.” – but it isn’t “mounting the pavement’ if it’s driving into Whadcoat Street. Otherwise, every car that drove into that street
would be considered to be “mounting the pavement”.
12) This is the first time I’ve even seen the name ‘Whadcoat Street’ in any article about this. Why isn’t the media telling us the name of the
street in which the incident occurred, in every article? Because it’s 500 yards from the mosque, that’s why.
13) Presuming the black car and silver car in the picture were already there before the van got there, he managed to avoid hitting the black car, so
how fast could he have been going as he turned left into Whadcoat Street?
14) Why would he not have rammed into the hoardes of people who would have been outside the mosque, which is over 500 yards down the road? Why would
he target a side road where he would have no idea who was standing there, and would have no reason to expect people to be standing in the middle of
the road – bear in mind they claimed he was speeding down the road and then did a hard left turn into the side road...
“The terror attack happened shortly before 00:20 BST on Monday, 19 June, when the vehicle mounted the pavement outside Muslim Welfare House - which
is also a community centre - on Seven Sisters Road.”
But the very photo they show beneath this sentence shows that it wasn’t “outside Muslim Welfare House”, it was 200 yards up the road.
And most importantly of all – it occurred at just before 00:20, just after midnight! How many muslims do you expect to be ‘leaving a mosque’
(that is the implication that the lying media has been spinning ever since this happened – describing the ‘victims’ as ‘worshippers’
repeatedly – are Christians who are walking down a street after going to see a show at midnight, classed as ‘worshippers’ – ever?)
16) The BBC article says: “A number of worshippers from Muslim Welfare House and nearby Finsbury Park Mosque were on the streets at the time, having
just taken part in evening prayers after breaking the Ramadan fast.
A group were helping an elderly man who had fallen down in Whadcoat Street - a short road off Seven Sisters Road - as they waited for their next set
So how long is the gap between prayers? Half an hour? Ten minutes? Are muslims leaving the mosque (which is 500 yards away from Whadcoat Street) and
walking home, and then turning straight round to walk back to the mosque?
The whole thing looks like a stitch up job to me. A drunk driver accidentally ran into a group of people who were standing in the middle of a road,
the drunk driver didn’t know the road was only twenty yards long, he may have hit some of them, one muslim was dying of a heart attack before the
van even got there, and died – now it’s a ‘white terrorist’ attack.
More to follow...