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 Anomalies

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 2 2009 @ 02:40 PM
link   
www.youtube.com...


The first of five parts.

A pretty terrible documentary that I'm not really recommending, more just flagging up in the hope people won't be taken in by it.

A couple of factual issues - the film repeats an old line (from Alex Jones) that the number 30 bus was the only one diverted from its normal route. This is demonstrably untrue - there were other buses in Tavistock at the time which were also diverted. Also, the film suggests that the company for which Peter Power was running a training exercise was Verint systems, and that the BBC said it was 'el shaver' or something like that. It has been widely known for a year or so that the company was Reed Elsevier, so this person clearly hasn't done their research.

Beyond that, most of the section on the bus blast is devoted to the probably irrelevant Kingstar van, and Daniel Obachike, who isn't the most reliable witness. There are repeated sequences of planets circling and a computer game character running which adds a mystical, quasi-epic tone to the visuals, but in a 50 minute film devoted several minutes to such bull# just makes it look like you haven't got enough content to fill the time.

As a fellow 7/7 filmmaker I am insulted by this effort. No doubt plenty of uncritical minds in the conspiracy theory world will lap it up. However, I'm working through hours of material and rejecting far more than I'm leaving in whereas this filmmaker seems to have put in everything he could find, and it is still misleading, tedious crap for conspiratainment junkies.

Rant over. Watch the film, see what you think. But there are better 7/7 movies out there, and soon mine will be too.




posted on Aug, 2 2009 @ 03:58 PM
link   
You're right - the documentary stinks. Fully 1 100 seconds (out of 10 minutes) was devoted to planets moving around and other uninformative (but emotional) irrelevance.

Since I know almost nothing about the London atrocity, I'm in no position to comment on whether any of the facts presented were accurate. I can say that what this video tries to show isn't well supported. It makes claims without support; it dismisses some matters with a handwave - "It's unlikely that...".

They dismiss the possibility that there could have accidentally been anti-terror exercises at the same three stations that were actually hit. True, if there are indeed 270 stations, and if they were all equally likely to be hit, then certainly the odds of choosing the same three for both the exercise *and* the attack are less than 1 in 3,000,000. The thing is, no one's going to blow up some out-of-the-way station that has little traffic. They'll try to hit the busiest, most important ones. Now, I don't know which three stations were hit, but my guess would be that these three were the busy ones, no? If so, then the strange odds are reduced to something far less sinister - almost obvious, in fact.

I would have liked to see far more facts, and far fewer assumption of what those facts might mean. I would have liked to get rid of all the unsupported speculation. The fact that certain events make some speculation possible, isn't the same thing as showing that this speculation actually happened. There's a world of difference between "it might have happened", and "it *must* have happened".



posted on Aug, 2 2009 @ 04:41 PM
link   

They dismiss the possibility that there could have accidentally been anti-terror exercises at the same three stations that were actually hit. True, if there are indeed 270 stations, and if they were all equally likely to be hit, then certainly the odds of choosing the same three for both the exercise *and* the attack are less than 1 in 3,000,000. The thing is, no one's going to blow up some out-of-the-way station that has little traffic. They'll try to hit the busiest, most important ones. Now, I don't know which three stations were hit, but my guess would be that these three were the busy ones, no? If so, then the strange odds are reduced to something far less sinister - almost obvious, in fact.


I'd say you're half right. Don't forget it was at the same time on the same day, so one has to calculate the probability for time and location.

However, you're right that hitting Kings Cross isn't a surprise since it is probably the most important tube station in London. Liverpool Street and Edgware Road less so, but they aren't tiny out of the way stations like Oakwood. It may be a fruitless coincidence, it may be important, but films like this tend to assume it must be something major when in truth there are bigger, better sourced issues to consider.




new topics
 
0

log in

join