It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Van Slams Into Pedestrians Near London Mosque Leaving "Number Of Casualties", Driver Arrested

page: 19
48
<< 16  17  18    20  21 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 20 2017 @ 10:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: oldcarpy
a reply to: jadedANDcynical


Sky is now reporting that this bloke was thrown out of a Cardiff pub 24 hours before this incident shouting about how he wanted to kill Muslims and that this was reported to Police.

This seems to knock this "accident" theory on the head.



That logic would dictate that Madonna would also have actually blown up the White House if she had the opportunity...because she said she wanted to.

Hearsay testimony only goes so far...and it's often false or inaccurate.
Let's let the official investigation ferret out the actual facts...and separate them from the many already discarded false claims which have been reported.




posted on Jun, 20 2017 @ 01:33 PM
link   
a reply to: IAMTAT

It's true. I'm local to the area. He was ejected from the Hollybush pub in Pentwyn Cardiff on that very night for those very reasons. I knew of this before it was on the news.



posted on Jun, 20 2017 @ 01:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: Mogzy1977
a reply to: IAMTAT

It's true. I'm local to the area. He was ejected from the Hollybush pub in Pentwyn Cardiff on that very night for those very reasons. I knew of this before it was on the news.


I am not saying this didn't happen.

But I just want to point out how witness statements can not always be taken at face value.

During the interview I saw on sky, all pf the witnesses were screaming "He wasn't drunk. This is white terrorism!"

Now the pub people seem to be saying he was drunk.

More reason to wait for all facts to come out.

But I will admit it seems most likely this was an intentional act.



posted on Jun, 20 2017 @ 03:07 PM
link   
So anything on the supposed 2 other suspects the witnesses reported? Or did they just make that up?



posted on Jun, 20 2017 @ 03:08 PM
link   
a reply to: face23785

As near as I can tell that was complete fabrication and this guy was a lone loon.



posted on Jun, 20 2017 @ 03:14 PM
link   
a reply to: jadedANDcynical

What about the knife he supposedly had? Made up too?



posted on Jun, 20 2017 @ 04:06 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

My apologies, he was ejected from said pub 24 hours earlier. Weather he was drunk or not during the actual attack I don't know for fact. But knowing the said individual somewhat vaguely, he likes his beer!



posted on Jun, 20 2017 @ 05:11 PM
link   
There are plenty of cctv on the road ; I would really like to see the whole incident , unedited from various angles.

I read somewhere that May is preparing a proposal to " control " internet access like China does .






posted on Jun, 21 2017 @ 01:17 PM
link   
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 reasons:

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.
9) www.bbc.co.uk...
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...
15) www.bbc.co.uk...
“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 of prayers.”
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...



posted on Jun, 21 2017 @ 01:26 PM
link   
17) metro.co.uk...

He was drunk 24 hours before the incident. So he could very likely have been drunk at the time he crashed the van too.

18) www.telegraph.co.uk...
“One eyewitness speaking to LBC said the van had hit people on the pavement, but had not collided with a building. "It looked like he had lost control of the van or something," he said.”
Why is that the only place in the media that quote is ever mentioned?

19) www.telegraph.co.uk...
“"There was this white van stopped outside Finsbury Park mosque that seemed to have hit people who were coming out after prayers had finished.”
That is from a woman who “lives opposite the scene”. Finsbury Park mosque is over 500 yards up the road, comparatively nowhere near the incident.

20) www.telegraph.co.uk...
“One person 'stabbed'
A man leapt out of a white van and stabbed at least one person near a North London mosque, the Evening Standard newspaper reported on Monday, citing witnesses.”
“Witnesses” who we now know were LYING through their teeth, because nobody was stabbed...


Just go to Google Street View and follow the route that the van must have taken up Seven Sisters Road (which is a one way street, and has a bus lane all along it). How would anybody driving at speed be able to see their 'target' - a group of muslims, at twenty past midnight, was in the entrance to a side street (Whadcoat Street), and then turn quickly enough to hit them (at high speed), etc.?

I believe this is what happened: the driver was drunk, or recovering from drinking very heavily the night before. He was in London for a reason that had nothing to do with attacking anybody, and as he drove up Seven Sisters Road, he went past two other left turns, then went to turn left into Whadcoat Street, having to cross over the bus lane to his left. Being partially (or completely) drunk, he didn't see the crowd of people who were trying to help the man who was dying from a heart attack, who were all in the middle of the road, in Whadcoat Street, until it was too late, and he drove into some of them. Some of them then dragged him out of the van and started attacking him, as has been well documented by the media, despite their efforts to spin it into 'brave imam saves terrorist from other muslims', etc. If you're going to drive into a group of muslims on purpose, you're going to take knives and/or other weapons so that you can escape alive, and also you're going to drive up a road that isn't a cul de sac, so you don't have to stop after ten yards! The muslim who died was dying of a heart attack, and we have no CCTV footage to show us what actually happened. The front of the van has only one tiny dent in it, you would expect much more if it had driven into nine people.
There is NO description of ANY of the 'injuries' of the nine people who are now in hospital. Why not? I have been searching ever since the incident occurred.
There is NO CCTV footage! Why not?
After breaking the law by physically assaulting the van driver, some of the muslims then decided to do what some of them are known for doing - ambulance chasing (Google 'whiplash fraud Bradford', etc.) and claimed they were injured, when in fact the van had either not hit them, or had hit them so slowly that it caused no real injury. It is entirely possible that some or all of them WERE injured, but the lack of descriptions of injuries from the lying press makes me think the opposite is true, and the lack of CCTV also makes me think the opposite is true.

The muslims then realised they could use this to make out that non-muslims are, in fact, attacking THEM, rather than the other way round, and so they lied about the man saying "I want to kill all muslims" - there is no evidence of this ever happening, only the testimony of a muslim who was assaulting the man, who has every reason to lie. The government then realised it could also use this incident to vilify white people (and other non-muslims) even more, because they can now point at this 'terrorist attack' as if it is anything like the same as the Manchester suicide bombing, etc.

The following is a quote from Youtube, which just about sums up how hypocritical the comments about previous REAL terrorist atrocities have been:
“Unfortunately this is just part and parcel of living in a big city, we need to learn to live with these incidents. Remember the real victims of this incident will be innocent white people who will suffer a backlash of scrutiny and suspicion. We need to condemn any and all anti-white hatred that results from this unfortunate incident. This wasn't an attack on muslims, it was an attack on all of us. The vast majority of white people are peaceful and only want to go about their daily lives #notallwhitepeople. Don't look back in anger, we need to put this behind us as quickly as possible and go on exactly like before.”

Don't hold your breath waiting to hear something like that in the media...
edit on 21-6-2017 by JohnThomas because: Added extra commentary.



posted on Jun, 21 2017 @ 05:54 PM
link   
I know i am way, way late in on this thread as i was at a festival this weekend and then on Monday started a new job. But apparently i know this guy. Haven't seen him for many many years as he moved away to Cardiff a long time ago but he was part of the group of crazy characters that everybody knew as we were growing up.

Haven't got a whole lot to say about the guy to be honest, other than a few days ago a friend came round saying 'remember Darren Osborne? I replied 'yeah'. He said ' i knew he was a total c__t but have a look at this.' and he showed me the video of Darren getting bashed about by a mob of people that had been on the news. It surprised the hell out of me for a split second Ito see someone you know on the news like that.

Crazy ass stuff..



posted on Jun, 22 2017 @ 04:17 AM
link   
a reply to: IAMTAT


Not following your logic there.

No one has blown up the White House, whereas this chap seems to have carried out what he said he was going to do.



posted on Jun, 22 2017 @ 05:02 AM
link   
a reply to: JohnThomas


You do not appear to be aware that there are legal restrictions on the media that prevent them from reporting certain details pertaining to ongoing criminal investigations - the sub judice rule.



posted on Jun, 22 2017 @ 05:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: oldcarpy
a reply to: IAMTAT


whereas this chap seems to have carried out what he said he was going to do.


Or rather, what he is purported to have said.



posted on Jun, 22 2017 @ 05:32 AM
link   
a reply to: teapot

The report on Sky seems pretty clear about what he said.

And what about him blowing kisses to the crowd when he was taken away by Police?

I think we can apply abductive reasoning and the Duck Test here.



posted on Jun, 22 2017 @ 08:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: oldcarpy
a reply to: teapot

The report on Sky seems pretty clear about what he said.


Sky reporters were on the scene at time of the incident and witnessed this themselves?


And what about him blowing kisses to the crowd when he was taken away by Police?


I'll neither speculate nor assume his motivation here. I think the guys behaviour puts him somewhere on the autistism spectrum meaning he may not understand this himself let alone any onlookers or those reading newspaper reports.


I think we can apply abductive reasoning and the Duck Test here.


We? I think I shall continue to apply laymans assumptions only: innocent (of terrorist attack) until proven guilty. I do think he is guilty of dangerous driving, possibly due to being under the influence (alcohol).



posted on Jun, 22 2017 @ 09:47 AM
link   

edit on 22-6-2017 by oldcarpy because: Fat fingers!



posted on Jun, 22 2017 @ 09:56 AM
link   
a reply to: teapot


No, of course the Sky reporter was not there at the time. Should we only believe reports where the reporter(s) were personally present at the time and can directly attest to what happened? News programmes would be pretty short and newspapers very thin indeed if that were so.


I thought you weren't going to speculate? So, you don't believe reports of what he said or didn't say but are quite happy to speculate on the basis of said reports that he was autistic etc? I see.


You can continue to do whatever you like, sunshine!


edit on 22-6-2017 by oldcarpy because: (no reason given)


(post by JohnThomas removed for a manners violation)

posted on Jun, 22 2017 @ 03:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: oldcarpy
a reply to: JohnThomas


You do not appear to be aware that there are legal restrictions on the media that prevent them from reporting certain details pertaining to ongoing criminal investigations - the sub judice rule.






What a brilliant rebuttal of everything I wrote above, the two longest posts in this thread.
Is there a law against posting more than three sentences per post on ATS or something? Why have none of you addressed anything I actually wrote? I explained, with detailed evidence, why it is highly unlikely that this was a 'terrorist' attack.

Which of my points are now irrelevant, oldcarpy, because of the subjudice rule? Could you at least try to explain?



new topics

top topics



 
48
<< 16  17  18    20  21 >>

log in

join