7/7 Mistaken identity?

Emphasis mine

Hold up a min. This kid is still alive so who was on the underground?

~Peace ~

[edit on 25/7/05 by Hunting Veritas]

this is just another prime example of the cracker jack "intelligence" that they are going off on.

you would think, before publishing a person's name, you'd investigate their home/parents for some clues.
i'm no sherlock holmes, but i believe that's a plausible action

surel hasib was one of the 'suicide' bombers...suicide being the main word. so they show a picture of hasib on cctv and say he's one of the suicide bombers...yet he turns up alive and innocent, why then should we believe these latest cctv images? something is going on and most are not yet awake to the idea that our government is molesting us.

More 'mistaken' identity:



by Fintan Dunne, BreakForNews.com:

BUS blast survivor Richard Jones revealed how he came
face-to-face with one of the London 'bombers'. The Scots IT expert got off the doomed double-decker just seconds before it was torn apart in an
explosion that killed 13 passengers.

“This young guy kept diving into this bag or whatever he had in front
of his feet,” he told The Associated Press.

He said the bomber was around 6ft tall, in his mid-twenties,
clean-shaven and smartly dressed. The man was wearing hipster-style fawn checked
trousers, with exposed designer underwear, and a matching jersey-style
top. ‘The pants looked very expensive, they were white with a red band
on top… He was standing with his back to me downstairs at the
driver’s side, which is exactly where the explosion was… The noise was
unbelievable. I served an apprenticeship in an explosives factory in
Ayrshire so I knew what it was.’ [Source]Which doesn’t sound anything like the
blue-jeaned, unshaven, rather drably-dressed Hasib Hussain. But the
tale of a nervous bomber served to add color to a London landscape which
badly needed at least one eyewitness account of the bombers in action.

The bus -like the trains, had a concealed bomb

So it seems that at least one of the train bombing 'suspects' was absent from the scene, and the bus bombing 'suspect' apparently wasn't on the bus.

More on this at: www.theflowingofthedao.com...

Wow, something's not right then. I'd like to see how Blair gets out of this one (if the report is real).

Originally posted by Nventual
I'd like to see how Blair gets out of this one (if the report is real).

Not difficult, really (for the issue raised by the original poster, anyway) -- the picture of the 16-year-old was published by Pakistan, nothing to do with the UK at all. They just found someone with the same name who visited them and said it was the same person, a screwup with their immigration agency. The suspect Hussain is someone entirely different: see news.bbc.co.uk... for the story.

[edit on 28-7-2005 by ashmok]

But it seems that he wasn't on the bus!

Explain that one .

Originally posted by Roy Robinson Stewart
But it seems that he wasn't on the bus!

That's one possibility. Others are that his words weren't reported correctly, or they were but he was mistaken, or he described the person accurately but it wasn't the bomber.

Originally posted by ashmok

Originally posted by Roy Robinson Stewart
But it seems that he wasn't on the bus!

That's one possibility. Others are that his words weren't reported correctly, or they were but he was mistaken, or he described the person accurately but it wasn't the bomber.

It is a long and detailed description. It seems unlikely that it could have been reported so inaccurately that blue jeans turned into white trousers with a red stripe!
As for the idea that the description was accurate, but the bomber was someone else, this also seems unlikely because (according to the eyewitness) "… He was standing with his back to me downstairs at the
driver’s side, which is exactly where the explosion was… "
In fact there has so far been no evidence to support the idea that the bomb was carried on to the bus rather than planted there. To the government, this doesn't matter at all. . . . . they tell the public what to think, and then they obediently think it. If what they are told to think doesn't make sense, the most people just fill in the gaps with faith.
Provided that the 'momentum' is kept up via new and exciting 'developments' in the 'war against terror', most people won't go back and question what they were told previously.

Originally posted by Roy Robinson Stewart

Originally posted by ashmok

Originally posted by Roy Robinson Stewart
But it seems that he wasn't on the bus!

That's one possibility. Others are that his words weren't reported correctly, or they were but he was mistaken, or he described the person accurately but it wasn't the bomber.

It is a long and detailed description. It seems unlikely that it could have been reported so inaccurately that blue jeans turned into white trousers with a red stripe!
As for the idea that the description was accurate, but the bomber was someone else, this also seems unlikely because (according to the eyewitness) "… He was standing with his back to me downstairs at the
driver’s side, which is exactly where the explosion was… "
In fact there has so far been no evidence to support the idea that the bomb was carried on to the bus rather than planted there. To the government, this doesn't matter at all. . . . . they tell the public what to think, and then they obediently think it. If what they are told to think doesn't make sense, the most people just fill in the gaps with faith.
Provided that the 'momentum' is kept up via new and exciting 'developments' in the 'war against terror', most people won't go back and question what they were told previously.

it's called great marketing.

corner the market first, with lies, and watch the truth fail to persuade the initial product they received.

people are very reluctant to change their initial perception of something. some, like us, create a perception once all the marbles are laid flat in-front of us or at least show that a couple have been strategically deformed or concealed for reasons we can only start to question.

we seriously need to start holding all these erroneous reports to the fire and have them shed light on what's going on. error "in such tragic times" only amplify the evil that is supposedly around us.

Originally posted by Roy Robinson Stewart
As for the idea that the description was accurate, but the bomber was someone else, this also seems unlikely because (according to the eyewitness) "… He was standing with his back to me downstairs at the
driver’s side, which is exactly where the explosion was… "

That's where HE says the explosion was. I think that's unlikely, given the wreckage and the fact that the driver survived.

Also, it seems right now that Jones statements are being pulled in both directions to prove whatever people want. You say we trust him and that indicates the official story is bogus. Meanwhile other people say his story is garbage, and therefore that proves the official story is bogus (ie see Jones statements rubbished at www.rense.com...). So it looks to me that if someone's made their mind up that it's a conspiracy then they'll read whatever they want into this.

[edit on 28-7-2005 by ashmok]

Originally posted by shaunybaby
surel hasib was one of the 'suicide' bombers...suicide being the main word. so they show a picture of hasib on cctv and say he's one of the suicide bombers...yet he turns up alive and innocent, why then should we believe these latest cctv images? something is going on and most are not yet awake to the idea that our government is molesting us.

Well said. There is something really strange going on here, and it just reminds me of 9/11 way too much. Like that guy that walked into the US Embsasy and asked what this rubbish was about him dying in 9/11.

Suicide bombers don't just show up alive. The CCTV footage must be BS if one of them isn't who they say he is.

Originally posted by ekul08
Suicide bombers don't just show up alive. The CCTV footage must be BS if one of them isn't who they say he is.

Hussain hasn't shown up alive! The sequence of events was this.

Hussain tells his family he's off for a "religious seminar" in London on the morning of the attacks.

The attacks occur.

That evening, his family become concerned after there's no response on his mobile. They report him missing to the police. (www.guardian.co.uk... ml?=rss)

The police release pictures of him and identify him as a suspected bomber. The family is reported to be inconsolable about what's happened (www.timesonline.co.uk...).

Then Pakistan check their records and find a Hasib Hussain visited them a few months ago, assume it's the same person and report it to the press (nation.com.pk...).

It's a kid a few years younger, though, someone entirely different, as other stories quickly reveal (news.bbc.co.uk...).

So, there are two Hasib Hussains. The one named as the bomber is dead, the one mistakenly named by Pakistan is alive. No mystery, no conspiracy, no story of any significance at all.