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.

 

7/7 London bombings lies

page: 2
3
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 22 2006 @ 10:01 AM
link   
The biggest question regarding 7/7 is the type of explosives we're told were used. Lookup how TATP explodes and then try and match that with injuries recieved and eyewitness reports.

While doing this, remember initial reports from various sources said the type of explosive used was of military grade (C4/semtex). This is far more relfective in the type of injuries recieved and blast patterns described. Detecting an explosive's signature should be a fairly straightforward process so why did the story change?

[edit on 22-9-2006 by uknumpty]




posted on Oct, 29 2006 @ 05:00 AM
link   



posted on Oct, 29 2006 @ 05:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by uknumpty
The biggest question regarding 7/7 is the type of explosives we're told were used. Lookup how TATP explodes and then try and match that with injuries recieved and eyewitness reports.

While doing this, remember initial reports from various sources said the type of explosive used was of military grade (C4/semtex). This is far more relfective in the type of injuries recieved and blast patterns described. Detecting an explosive's signature should be a fairly straightforward process so why did the story change?

[edit on 22-9-2006 by uknumpty]


it seems the electrical power surge that was widely reported that morning was used to detonate the explosives, timers couldn't be used as the trains might not be running on time



posted on Oct, 30 2006 @ 04:05 PM
link   
Again people you're falling for the ranting of conspiracy nuts:

Bomb were detonated by the bombers

Initial reports of explosion under the floor were discredited

Flash burns seen on some of the wounded (and it was only a very small proportion) do not mean it wasn't TATP - these could quite easily be secondary effects from other accelerants.

The power surge was just the initial conclusion of the guys in the control room - a perfectly reasonable conclusion given the evidence they were working with.

No-one has yet to provide any credible evidence to refute the official version of events. Apply a little bit of critical thinking and you'll see plainly that the 'evidence' for the conspiracy is in no way convincing.



posted on Oct, 30 2006 @ 04:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Strangerous
Again people you're falling for the ranting of conspiracy nuts:

Bomb were detonated by the bombers

Initial reports of explosion under the floor were discredited

Flash burns seen on some of the wounded (and it was only a very small proportion) do not mean it wasn't TATP - these could quite easily be secondary effects from other accelerants.

The power surge was just the initial conclusion of the guys in the control room - a perfectly reasonable conclusion given the evidence they were working with.

No-one has yet to provide any credible evidence to refute the official version of events. Apply a little bit of critical thinking and you'll see plainly that the 'evidence' for the conspiracy is in no way convincing.



Did you study all the facts of the case, and from independant sources, not the controlled maninstream media. I have yet to meet anyone who has studied the london bombings who still believes the lies of the police. How do you know the bombs were detonated by the bombers, or are you simply guessing. The nearest eyewitness to one of the bombs says he didn't see anyone or any bag. And you just simply lied when you said there isn't any credible evidence to refute the official version of events . There is LOADS of evidence. Try actually watching some of these clips with an open mind and see what you think, they aren't very long.

video.google.co.uk...

julyseventh.co.uk...

www.thetruthseeker.co.uk...

www.financialoutrage.org.uk...

www.officialconfusion.com...



posted on Oct, 30 2006 @ 06:00 PM
link   
The sites you've posted are very poorly constructed ravings of conspiracy nuts. Search the subject on here and you'll find many instances where this 'evidence' has been completely refuted.

For example the main prop of the nuts' evidence - the timing disparity of the trains / police statements has been explained many times and yet it's still being trawled to catch the gullible.

That apart you have the immediate statements of people who've just been in abombing, hairdressers who are apparent experts in explosion effects etc etc - basically no evidence at all just wish-fulfillment theories.

For example

From www.thetruthseeker.co.uk...




A small high explosive device could have easily been disguised as something innocent.

"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,"

(my bolds)



If, as you suggest, it was an inside job don't you think the many, many excellent investigative journalists / reporters / commentators the UK is blessed with would have blown the whistle by now?

Or are all those people in the pay of the 'shadowy powers' too?

[edit on 30/10/2006 by Strangerous]



posted on Oct, 30 2006 @ 06:42 PM
link   
I don't want to sidetrack the topic too much, but I just wanted to add that the 7/7 bombings certainly haven't been the first time that 'acts of terrorism' have been used as an ulterior motive...

This year marks the 10th aniversary of the Manchester bomb when the IRA detonated a 3000lb ANFO truck-bomb in the heart of the city. However, prior to the attack, there were plans being drawn up for the future redevelopment of the city, with one small problem...how to move businesses from trading-premises and demolish existing buildings to make way for the re-design, and the huge legal and compensation costs involved.
The solution was simple, collude with a 'terrorist' organisation for one huge explosive finale, and at the same time render business and buildings insurance claims as invalid under 'acts of terrorism/war' clauses...the investigation was hushed-up, the city newspaper-The Manchester Evening News threatened with gagging orders when they published CCTV still-images, and to-day, no-one has been brought to trial

Manchester bomb investigation

If the destruction of a major UK city centre can be swept under the carpet in the name of politics and big finance, then they can surely do the same with the London 7/7 bombs



posted on Oct, 31 2006 @ 01:33 AM
link   
While I agree the train times are not any real proof of a conspiracy, there are some very disturbing coincidences between the 7/7 bomings and 9/11.

One being the number of anti-terror training exercises occuring in London at the same time. Some were actuall geared towards they very places where the bombs blew up.

Like on 9/11, when half the U.S. forces were engaged in training exercises simulating terrorist attacks and crashed planes

www.prisonplanet.com...
www.prisonplanet.com...



Another being the fact that MI5 was originally investigating Mohammad Sidique Khan, but those agents assigned to him were suddenly called off their investigation and assigned to other things. Sound familiar? It should. The same thing happened to FBI agents who were investigating the 9/11 hijackers. They got called off and pulled away from the investigations of these guys too.


The Bombers

Then there was the foreknowldge by the Israelis. Israeli embassy officals and businessmen recieving warnings right before the attacks. Kinda like Odigo and 9/11.

The FBI warned officals in the UK about terrorist plans to launch a major strike on London facilities, back in November 2004. Kinda like the pre-9/11 warnings the UK gave us.

There are numerous paralells, as well as "coincidences" about 7/7 that have a faint ghostly echo of similar things in 9/11. It is also interesting that London's threat alert was lowered, and that Tony Blair was not anywhere near London, but up in Scotland at the G8. I remember a certain American president being quite well away from some major terror on 9/11.

Coincidences do happen, but when youre talking about this many centered around a single date and event, its no longer coincidence, its conspiracy.



posted on Oct, 31 2006 @ 05:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Strangerous
Bomb were detonated by the bombers


Where's the proof? There isn't even any CCTV of them getting on the tube trains?


Originally posted by Strangerous
Initial reports of explosion under the floor were discredited


Discredited where and by whom? It doesn't help to make blank statements without backing them up.


Originally posted by Strangerous
Flash burns seen on some of the wounded (and it was only a very small proportion) do not mean it wasn't TATP - these could quite easily be secondary effects from other accelerants.


What accelerants? remember they removed fire extinguishers from the tube many years ago due to vandalism?

Explosive signatures can be detected quite quickly and all the initial reports were that it was a military grade explosive. This changed when they found the "TATP bomb factory" in Leeds. They then fitted the evidence around the story.

[edit on 31-10-2006 by uknumpty]



posted on Oct, 31 2006 @ 05:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Strangerous
If, as you suggest, it was an inside job don't you think the many, many excellent investigative journalists / reporters / commentators the UK is blessed with would have blown the whistle by now?

Or are all those people in the pay of the 'shadowy powers' too?

[edit on 30/10/2006 by Strangerous]


Any journalist/broadcaster with half a career won't touch on anything slightly contentious as they'd get shouted down and name called whatever evidence or questions they dug up. They don't want to risk their careers.

It's a similar situation to what exists in the US. Watch Dan Rather's interview with BBC Newsnight after he retired.

Dan Rather interview with BBC Newsnight



posted on Oct, 31 2006 @ 05:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
While I agree the train times are not any real proof of a conspiracy, there are some very disturbing coincidences between the 7/7 bomings and 9/11.

One being the number of anti-terror training exercises occuring in London at the same time. Some were actuall geared towards they very places where the bombs blew up.


But what about all the days over the past 10 years when such exercises have taken place (most London based companies used to carry them out at least once a year - I assume they still do) when no terrorist attacks took place?



posted on Oct, 31 2006 @ 05:40 AM
link   
I think they way Blair and co acted in a similar vain to the Bush admin post 9/11 by not wanting to have a independent commission investigate the attacks also casts suspicions, especially in what we know about 9/11 since.



posted on Oct, 31 2006 @ 05:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Essan
But what about all the days over the past 10 years when such exercises have taken place (most London based companies used to carry them out at least once a year - I assume they still do) when no terrorist attacks took place?


That's a fair point, however what raises suspicion is that of all the stations in London, the attacks took place exactly where the excercise was detailing. This according to the words of Peter Power. To date, the company he was working for is still unknown.



posted on Oct, 31 2006 @ 05:47 AM
link   
I think it means that he doesn't want the security forces and/or himself shown up as incompetent


It's the simplest and most common conspiracy of them all



posted on Oct, 31 2006 @ 05:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by uknumpty

Originally posted by Strangerous
Bomb were detonated by the bombers


Where's the proof? There isn't even any CCTV of them getting on the tube trains?

And what does this prove? That they weren't on the trains? Hardly! all it proves is there was no CCTV or that it hasn't been released


Originally posted by Strangerous
Initial reports of explosion under the floor were discredited


Discredited where and by whom? It doesn't help to make blank statements without backing them up.

If you bother to study the conspiracy nut sites posted in this thread you'll find an article by a Guardian journo who says he originally reported the upturned floor in error. Unless this Guardian journo is an MI5 stooge then you have the source for the initial, incorrect, statements.

www.infowars.net...

I suggest you do some research, read the sites you have so much faith in before you accuse me of making 'blank statements'


Originally posted by Strangerous
Flash burns seen on some of the wounded (and it was only a very small proportion) do not mean it wasn't TATP - these could quite easily be secondary effects from other accelerants.


What accelerants? remember they removed fire extinguishers from the tube many years ago due to vandalism?

Many other acclerants likely to be present; aerosols, perfumes in people's bags, oils and other lubricants within the train systems. Again this is not the proof you claim it is. You'll notice the very few of the wounded who exhibited burns - if, as you suggest, it was C4 etc then the majority of the wounded would exhibit burns

Explosive signatures can be detected quite quickly and all the initial reports were that it was a military grade explosive. This changed when they found the "TATP bomb factory" in Leeds. They then fitted the evidence around the story.

Initial reports were of high explosive, possibly, military grade. This is understandable given the damage, the difficulty of access / contamination of the crime scenes and the need to feed news networks. Again not the proof you claim it provides.

[edit on 31-10-2006 by uknumpty]


Mods sorry the quote thing on here is so messed up but I wanted to answer each point raised and don't know how to do it tidily.



posted on Oct, 31 2006 @ 06:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Essan

Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
While I agree the train times are not any real proof of a conspiracy, there are some very disturbing coincidences between the 7/7 bomings and 9/11.

One being the number of anti-terror training exercises occuring in London at the same time. Some were actuall geared towards they very places where the bombs blew up.


But what about all the days over the past 10 years when such exercises have taken place (most London based companies used to carry them out at least once a year - I assume they still do) when no terrorist attacks took place?


If this planning exercise was part of some big MI5 /CIA / Mossad conspiracy then they're hardly likley to publicise the fact it took place and actually admit that it featured some of the tube lines / stations invloved are they?

A BBC Panorama programme featured an attack scenario on London / the Tube about a year before the attack, parts of which were scarily accurate - but no-one has yet suggested the BBC did it.

All this is partial selection of the facts to fit the conspiracy theory nothing more.



posted on Oct, 31 2006 @ 06:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by uknumpty

Originally posted by Strangerous
If, as you suggest, it was an inside job don't you think the many, many excellent investigative journalists / reporters / commentators the UK is blessed with would have blown the whistle by now?

Or are all those people in the pay of the 'shadowy powers' too?

[edit on 30/10/2006 by Strangerous]


Any journalist/broadcaster with half a career won't touch on anything slightly contentious as they'd get shouted down and name called whatever evidence or questions they dug up. They don't want to risk their careers.

It's a similar situation to what exists in the US. Watch Dan Rather's interview with BBC Newsnight after he retired.

Dan Rather interview with BBC Newsnight


Hmm Mark Thomas launches numerous direct attacks on BAe and its export business, Duncan Campbell breaks into the secret tunnel network in 1982 and cycles around for a night taking photos and then publishes a book about it. They risked careers, their safety and possible jail terms to expose the truth so your argument doesn't stand up.

IF there was any credible evidence of a conspiracy / plot these people and our free press would blow the whistle. Of course it MAY happen in the future but over a year later it still hasn't so, to date, I have to assume there's no conspiracy.

As said on here the most likely explanation is 4 nutters from Leeds, the Anarchists' Cookbook and an MI5 asleep / at lunch.

[edit on 31/10/2006 by Strangerous]



posted on Oct, 31 2006 @ 06:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Essan

But what about all the days over the past 10 years when such exercises have taken place (most London based companies used to carry them out at least once a year - I assume they still do) when no terrorist attacks took place?


What about them?

How many of those exercises had:

1. Investigations of terrorists by law enforcement called off a few months before a major terror attack?
2. Had foreign governemnts, especially Israel, warning of an impending attack shortly before they occurred?
3. Mimiced a terrorist attack disturbing close to the actual terrorist attack that occured?


None.

One coinicidence is just that. But when added with many more coincidences, strange activity, ect, then its alot harder to ignore.



posted on Oct, 31 2006 @ 06:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Strangerous
Hmm Mark Thomas launches numerous direct attacks on BAe and its export business, Duncan Campbell breaks into the secret tunnel network in 1982 and cycles around for a night taking photos and then publishes a book about it. They risked careers, their safety and possible jail terms to expose the truth so your argument doesn't stand up.
[edit on 31/10/2006 by Strangerous]


Those two examples pale into insignificance when you begin to suggest some elements of the UK government and intelligence services had prior knowledge or some level of complicity in the biggest terrorist attack in modern UK history. It's a poison chalice no one will touch.

However, it's one link in the War on Terror chain and as the saying goes, a chain is only as strong as its weakest link, and in the case of 9/11 that link is very weak indeed.

The bottom line is evdience of complicity in either 7/7 or 9/11 would so severely shake the foundations of western society that anyone who has a vested interest in maintaining the status quo will not be stupid enough to rock the boat. This includes alot of the mainstream media.

[edit on 31-10-2006 by uknumpty]



posted on Oct, 31 2006 @ 06:58 AM
link   
In isolation, many would not question the 7/7 terror attacks. However, as I said, they are linked to the fabricated War on Terror and as such cannot be looked upon as an isolated and random incident.

by the way, as an anecdote next year's Tour de France begins in London on...........July 7th. Is that a joke?



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join