London bombings conspiracy theories

[Mid]

There's an interesting article in The Guardian about 7/7 conspiracy theories.

What I found particularly interesting was the insights into how some of these theories are flamed by placing too much emphasis on early news reports. Quote:

Quote:

I asked passengers what they had seen and experienced and was told by two survivors from the bombed train that, at the moment of the blast, the covers on the floor of their carriage had flown up - the phrase they used was "raised up". There was no time to check their statements as moments later the police widened the cordon and I was directed to the opposite pavement, outside the Metropole hotel.

Moments later, Davinia Turrell, the famous "woman in the mask", emerged from M&S together with other injured passengers and I followed them into the hotel. It was from there that at around 11am I phoned a hurried, and what I now know to be flawed, audio report to the Guardian. In the report, broadcast on our website, I said that it "was believed" there had been an explosion "under the carriage of the train". I also said that "some passengers described how the tiles, the covers on the floors of the train, flew up, raised up".

It later became clear from interviewing other passengers who had been closer to the seat of the explosion that the bomb had actually detonated inside the train, not under it, but my comments, disseminated over the internet where they could be replayed ad nauseam, were already taking on a life of their own.

Also interesting is the comments of one of the survivors of the blast who has been targeted by these nuts:

Quote:

"Train timetables rarely bear any relation to real life," says North dismissively. "Where conspiracy theorists go with this is that the train never ran, so the bombers were never on the train, or the bombers were lured to Luton and then taken away and killed and their body parts were placed on the tube later to incriminate Muslims. They just take these small anomalies, which is what you will get in any rolling, multi-sourced news investigation, and make it into evidence of a conspiracy."

Anyway I thought I'd share an interesting piece.

[Kiwiwriter]

Okay, then it must have been done by those same underground people who popped out of the streets of Newark in "War of the Worlds."

[gumboot]

I didn't even know there *was* a London Bombing conspiracy. I've been missing out.

So what are they going to call their compelling video documentary? "Loose Trains" has already been taken...

-Andrew

[Johnny Pixels]

I've seen arguments from people on the Loose Change forum about people's initial reactions, or initial news reports. They don't seem to understand that rolling news channels will report anything they get their hands on that may be remotely true, and then clarify later as they get more information. They also don't seem to understand that first impressions aren't as accurate as careful analysis after the event.

[gumboot]

Originally Posted by Johnny Pixels

They don't seem to understand that rolling news channels will report anything they get their hands on that may be remotely true, and then clarify later as they get more information. They also don't seem to understand that first impressions aren't as accurate as careful analysis after the event.

I honestly wonder if "the truth" is even considered. They seem more like cruise missiles than that "thing" that hit the pentagon. They've got a target and they home right in on it... blinkers locked and loaded...

I bet if I got all my friends together in a room to watch LC I could tell you in advance which ones would buy it and which ones wouldn't.

-Andrew

[Mancman]

The basis of the London bombing conspiracy theory is a grainy CCTV image that apparently has a ton of discrepancies, and the fact that the bombers bought return train tickets, or something. It's not exactly watertight to say the least.

[gumboot]

Originally Posted by Mancman

It's not exactly watertight to say the least.

Conspiracy Theory 101

* Make sure it isn't watertight so you can change it if you need to.

Check!



-Andrew

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Originally Posted by Johnny Pixels

I've seen arguments from people on the Loose Change forum about people's initial reactions, or initial news reports. They don't seem to understand that rolling news channels will report anything they get their hands on that may be remotely true, and then clarify later as they get more information. They also don't seem to understand that first impressions aren't as accurate as careful analysis after the event.

It's the same problem as we see with the release of scientific study results. The results are released for public peer review and the general public takes them as the "new gospel".

A study is released saying "coffee is good for your colon". Other scientists see this and set up other studies to confirm, or disprove, the initial study. Meanwhile, general media takes the original study and runs with it. New "coffee pills" come out, blah blah blah. Then the follow up studies are published, and in some cases, disprove the initial study. People then see it as "science doesn't know anything" rather than seeing the whole thing as part of the scientific process.

[Pardalis]

Originally Posted by gumboot

Conspiracy Theory 101

* Make sure it isn't watertight so you can change it if you need to.

Check!



-Andrew

* Make sure that whatever the attack, it was self-inflicted

Check

* Make sure not to blame murderous terrorists

Check

[JPK]

Originally Posted by Johnny Pixels

I've seen arguments from people on the Loose Change forum about people's initial reactions, or initial news reports. They don't seem to understand that rolling news channels will report anything they get their hands on that may be remotely true, and then clarify later as they get more information. They also don't seem to understand that first impressions aren't as accurate as careful analysis after the event.

I guess these people never saw any of the hoax phone calls that Howard Stern fans make durring live news reports. Most news stations will put someone on the air "live" if they think they are getting an exclusive. They do not check out who it is. This is the type of evidence that CT'ers cling to.
JPK

[tacodaemon]

Originally Posted by Johnny Pixels

I've seen arguments from people on the Loose Change forum about people's initial reactions, or initial news reports. They don't seem to understand that rolling news channels will report anything they get their hands on that may be remotely true, and then clarify later as they get more information. They also don't seem to understand that first impressions aren't as accurate as careful analysis after the event.

Gerard Holmgren, one of the no-planes-hit-the-WTC people, actively rejects information from more than a day or so after 9/11. Although he does have an explanation for doing so (he thinks that after a couple of days of media coverage, all the people on the scene had been brainwashed into thinking they had seen planes that weren't really there). Lucky for him, this allows him to stick to early phone-in TV reports from people who weren't in the right position to see the planes, or who perhaps didn't notice the second plane because they had been too busy staring at the burning North Tower to notice a 500-mile-an-hour object in their peripheral vision, etc.

[realitybites]

Originally Posted by tacodaemon

Gerard Holmgren, one of the no-planes-hit-the-WTC people, actively rejects information from more than a day or so after 9/11. Although he does have an explanation for doing so (he thinks that after a couple of days of media coverage, all the people on the scene had been brainwashed into thinking they had seen planes that weren't really there). Lucky for him, this allows him to stick to early phone-in TV reports from people who weren't in the right position to see the planes, or who perhaps didn't notice the second plane because they had been too busy staring at the burning North Tower to notice a 500-mile-an-hour object in their peripheral vision, etc.

What I find interesting is that the people that reject the findings from any investigation that was done a week out from the attacks (or later) are normally the same people that want to RE-OPEN 9/11.

If you're gonna claim that anything that wasn't immediately reported that day had been faked in some way, shape or form, then what good would an investigation 5 years after the fact do?

[Johnny Pixels]

And of course the people who change their stories after a while haven't done so because of any form of critical thinking and analysis. They've been bought/threatned by the government. It makes the whole CT adventure into a self-contained, self-preserving bubble. Once the initial plot is hatched, evidence either fits, and is accepted, or disproves and is rejected as disinformation, inaccurate or lies.

Like flight 93. The plot doesn't allow for a plane to go off course, because the whole thing was planned by the government, and so that doesn't fit in with the theory. Therefore the phone calls were faked, evidence was planted, there's something wrong with the crater.

I've had quotes from firefighters on 9/11 posted at me with the word "explosion" highlighted, even though reading through, most of the quotes say, "we thought it was an explosion, but thinking about it, it wasn't".

It's like having a patient come into hospital with a shaving cut and a gunshot wound, and the doctor treating the shaving cut.

[Tanstaafl]

Originally Posted by gumboot

I didn't even know there *was* a London Bombing conspiracy. I've been missing out.

So what are they going to call their compelling video documentary? "Loose Trains" has already been taken...

-Andrew

I vote for "Loose Caboose".

[Mid]

Originally Posted by gumboot

I didn't even know there *was* a London Bombing conspiracy. I've been missing out.

So what are they going to call their compelling video documentary? "Loose Trains" has already been taken...

-Andrew

I didn't realise it was quite so indepth, but then again I shouldn't have been that surprised given some of the strange theories put forward by the 9/11 cranks. I think hanging around here and hearing some of the stories of general wooish is gradually making me despair about humanity.

[The Pig]

Originally Posted by Mancman

The basis of the London bombing conspiracy theory is a grainy CCTV image that apparently has a ton of discrepancies, and the fact that the bombers bought return train tickets, or something. It's not exactly watertight to say the least.

I can't post the link but there's another shot from the same camera at a different time on the BBC website. Comparing both images, the discrepancies explain themselves. The CTs don't seem to have seen it.

All that's left is a blurred face. That'll probably be good enough to keep it afloat though.

[gumboot]

Originally Posted by Johnny Pixels

Once the initial plot is hatched, evidence either fits, and is accepted, or disproves and is rejected as disinformation, inaccurate or lies.

The insane thing is that stuff like changes of opinion aren't just seen as lies and dismissed, they are seen as EVIDENCE of a cover-up. When an expert comes out and says "I made a mistake, the offical version is correct" they think that's conclusive evidence to further support their little reality.

That's what makes their little CT so perfect - they are able to turn anything that doesn't support their theory into additional evidence. I think that's why it feels like CTers have an invisi-crete wall around them.

Because, if you think of it from their insane point of view, IF the government IS behind it, experts suddenly changing their stories days later IS further evidence. In a weird kind of way.

Basically they're a lost cause. All we can hope is we catch the attention of neutral parties before they are sucked into the vortex of CT logic from whence there is no return.

-Andrew

[David Swidler]

It's not a real conspiracy theory unless it involves the Mossad in some way.

[ond_magiker]

Originally Posted by realitybites

What I find interesting is that the people that reject the findings from any investigation that was done a week out from the attacks (or later) are normally the same people that want to RE-OPEN 9/11.

If you're gonna claim that anything that wasn't immediately reported that day had been faked in some way, shape or form, then what good would an investigation 5 years after the fact do?

It may find flaws in the previous investigation, thus proving the conspiracy. Not actually proving anything, of course, except in the mind of the CTist. Dabbling in conspiracy theories is after all as much about disbelieveing the official version than finding an alternative.

[Bandersnatch]

Quote:

I vote for "Loose Caboose".

Seconded.

[Mid]

For those interested the "July 7th truth campaign" (loose caboose would have been a so much better name) website:

http://www.julyseventh.co.uk/

Also their forum:

http://z13.invisionfree.com/julyseventh/

They seem fairly strident that they're not a conspiracy theorist site so I will withhold further judgment until I've read it all (which could be a while as I'm in the middle of house buying.)

ETA: to put in right forum link.

[geoman]

Originally Posted by Tanstaafl

I vote for "Loose Caboose".

Originally Posted by Bandersnatch

Seconded.

Not at all seconded. Most Brits won't have the faintest idea what you mean. And we don't have cabooses (cabeese?) on our trains anyway - especially not underground ones.

I am, unfortunately, unable to offer a better suggestion.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Originally Posted by gumboot

The insane thing is that stuff like changes of opinion aren't just seen as lies and dismissed, they are seen as EVIDENCE of a cover-up. When an expert comes out and says "I made a mistake, the offical version is correct" they think that's conclusive evidence to further support their little reality.

That's what makes their little CT so perfect - they are able to turn anything that doesn't support their theory into additional evidence. I think that's why it feels like CTers have an invisi-crete wall around them.

Because, if you think of it from their insane point of view, IF the government IS behind it, experts suddenly changing their stories days later IS further evidence. In a weird kind of way.

Basically they're a lost cause. All we can hope is we catch the attention of neutral parties before they are sucked into the vortex of CT logic from whence there is no return.

-Andrew

It's the exact same thought processes exhibited by many fundies. If you show them evidence that counters their point, they claim it was the work of Satan, or that God did it to test them, or some other claptrap. It's cognative dissonance at its finest.

[fuelair]

Originally Posted by Johnny Pixels

I've seen arguments from people on the Loose Change forum about people's initial reactions, or initial news reports. They don't seem to understand that rolling news channels will report anything they get their hands on that may be remotely true, and then clarify later as they get more information. They also don't seem to understand that first impressions aren't as accurate as careful analysis after the event.

And this is why I would love to see so-called news organizations report only NEWS (not speculation or unverified statements) and wait until clarification is available and verified to report it. (ie : there has been an explosion in/on X (period).)

[chillzero]

Originally Posted by geoman

Not at all seconded. Most Brits won't have the faintest idea what you mean. And we don't have cabooses (cabeese?) on our trains anyway - especially not underground ones.

I am, unfortunately, unable to offer a better suggestion.

We may not have them on the trains, but I think most will know what a caboose is.

It has a good ring to it.

[XXX]

On this subject, From 911blogger yesterday...

http://www.911blogger.com/2006/06/te...r-working.html


Tuesday, June 27, 2006
Terror Expert: London Bomber Working for MI5

A terror expert has stated that the mastermind of the London bombing was probably an informant for the British MI5.

In case you missed it, one of the leading terrorism experts, a former prosecutor for the Justice Department, previously said that the London bombing "mastermind" was a British intelligence agent (or read the transcript here); see confirming story here.

See also this article on Why the Road to 9/11 Truth Passes Through London.

This is not directly related to 9/11. But the more people become aware of false flag attacks in general, the better they'll understand 9/11

The post itself if you follow the link has several other links to it's "sources". Haven't really looked into it yet. I was talking about the 7/7 bombings on another forum and someone posted this.

[Carnivore]

According to that site,the July seventh bombers are obviously innocent because they were "nice". They are described as "Arabs" hired by the security services to - as they thought - take part in a security exercise to defend London.

I guess their involvement in radical Islam was just a coincidence, and not really relevant to the Truth - Her Majesty's Government murdered a bunch of their own citizens to... er, drum up support for the war in Iraq...

[Johnny Pixels]

I suggest "Loose Tubes" or "Mind the Gaps" or "Bakerloo's Change" or "Got any loose change for a cuppa tea mate"

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Originally Posted by Johnny Pixels

I suggest "Loose Tubes" or "Mind the Gaps" or "Bakerloo's Change" or "Got any loose change for a cuppa tea mate"

How about "Mindless (God of the) Gaps"

[Hellbound]

"Train to Nowhere"

"De-Railed"

"Crazy Train"

"Boob Tube"

[JimTheBrit]

Originally Posted by Johnny Pixels

I suggest [..] "Mind the Gaps" [...]

You get a gold star for that, it's close enough. There's a full page plea in today's (Sat1Jul06) Independent (p29) to 'release the evidence', citing inconsistencies in the stated sequence of events of 7/7 and a plug for showing of Mind The Gap. I wouldn't be surprised if this turns out to be the UK's equivalent of Loose Change.

[sophia8]

Originally Posted by JPK

I guess these people never saw any of the hoax phone calls that Howard Stern fans make durring live news reports. Most news stations will put someone on the air "live" if they think they are getting an exclusive. They do not check out who it is. This is the type of evidence that CT'ers cling to.
JPK

Not just Howard Stern fans, either. A few years ago, there was a horrendous train crash in Germany. The first BBCTV crew on the scene couldn't believe their luck in finding a Brit who had witnessed the whole thing, and described the crash in detail, live on camera. It wasn't until at least the next day that it became obvious that the "eyewitness" hadn't seen anything and had been spouting lies.
Then, of course, there was the shooting of the Brazilian plumber last year, when an "eyewitness" swore blind that De Mendez had been wearing a long bulky hacket with wires sticking out. Until, that is, the photgraphs came out. I'm sure that somebody will eventually come up with the idea that these photos were faked.

[Mid]

Originally Posted by JimTheBrit

You get a gold star for that, it's close enough. There's a full page plea in today's (Sat1Jul06) Independent (p29) to 'release the evidence', citing inconsistencies in the stated sequence of events of 7/7 and a plug for showing of Mind The Gap. I wouldn't be surprised if this turns out to be the UK's equivalent of Loose Change.

I'm not really that surprised that it was picked up by the Indy, it seems to me that that paper has been getting increasingly wooish for a while now

[Ronin]

Originally Posted by Johnny Pixels

I've had quotes from firefighters on 9/11 posted at me with the word "explosion" highlighted, even though reading through, most of the quotes say, "we thought it was an explosion, but thinking about it, it wasn't".

It's like having a patient come into hospital with a shaving cut and a gunshot wound, and the doctor treating the shaving cut.

No explosions than how do you explain this video then?{Add an h to the begining cause i need 15 posts to post a url here} ttp://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1951610169657809939&q=9%2F11+revis ited&pl=true Thats right you cant. Shame you didnt actually look anything up before posting.You coulda saved yourself from looking stupid.Oops to late.
P.S. If i spelled something wrong sue me the check will be in the mail

[Polaris]

Originally Posted by Ronin

No explosions than how do you explain this video then?{Add an h to the begining cause i need 15 posts to post a url here} ttp://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1951610169657809939&q=9%2F11+revis ited&pl=true Thats right you cant. Shame you didnt actually look anything up before posting.You coulda saved yourself from looking stupid.Oops to late.
P.S. If i spelled something wrong sue me the check will be in the mail

Do what I did and post a bunch of short anecdotes and witticisms until you reach the required amount of posts.

If that's the video of the kook with the glasses who videotaped it across the river, we've seen it. Nobody ever said there weren't explosions heard - there were, as that video proves. What is disputed (and IMHO debunked) is that they were caused by explosives. There were lots of things in the WTC that could have exploded with reports of that volume - transformers, fuel tanks, etc.

Ok, I watched the opening - it's not the same video that I thought. But it does the same thing Loose Change did: use reporters' statements that day as proof of explosives. One reported even described the collapse of the first tower as an "explosion". What he was hearing was the levels above the impact zone falling into the standing structure - something that I imagine would be loud enough to be confused with a blast.

The reporters were describing the collapse of the WTC to looking like a controlled demolition, which is the best way to describe what happened - since the collapse of the WTC was the first time a skyscraper collapsed, there was nothing else to compare it to. That's not evidence of a controlled demolition - and really, when you look at video of a controlled demo, they fall from the bottom, not collapse from the top down like a peeling banana. I had to stop watching the video because youtoob occasionally does bizarre things to my speakers, but I've seen enough to know it's more misquotes and conjecture. I wouldn't be surprised if Michael Levy is taken out of context.

[Johnny Pixels]

Originally Posted by Ronin

No explosions than how do you explain this video then? http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...isited&pl=true Thats right you cant. Shame you didnt actually look anything up before posting.You coulda saved yourself from looking stupid.Oops to late.
P.S. If i spelled something wrong sue me the check will be in the mail

Shame you didn't actually look anything up before posting.You could've saved yourself from looking stupid. Oops, too late.

Just because something sounds like something else, doesn't mean it is something else. Just because something looks like something else doesn't mean it is something else.

What's more reliable? The statement of someone in a state of shock and surprise, or the words of the same person when in a calm, collected state, with all the facts before them?

[Mid]

Just to keep everyone up to date there's a response by the July 7th Truth Campaign in todays Guardian:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/st...811911,00.html

As a question I'm sure this thing about the train times has been dealt with on here, does anyone have a link/relevant information?

The comments section underneath the article looks like it developing into a nice argument as well.

All in all I can't help but think that this type of thing is hindering the campaign for a public inquiry, which is a shame really.

[brodski]

Originally Posted by Mid

Just to keep everyone up to date there's a response by the July 7th Truth Campaign in todays Guardian:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/st...811911,00.html

As a question I'm sure this thing about the train times has been dealt with on here, does anyone have a link/relevant information?

The comments section underneath the article looks like it developing into a nice argument as well.

All in all I can't help but think that this type of thing is hindering the campaign for a public inquiry, which is a shame really.

I had a quick look at the train times in this post http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...nt=20Basically, it doesn't matter that the 7.40 train was cancelled, it is much more likley that the bombers took the 7.25, which arrived at 8.23.The bombers where caught on CCTV at Luton station at 7.22, and at kings x at 8.26. The 7.40 train is a red herring, but the CTers claim that it would have taken too long for eth bombers to move from eth concourse at 7.22 to the platform by 7.25 (missing eth train by a few seconds), which is rubbish, Luton station isn't that big, the CTers assumed that eth bombers would be walking for eth train and not running, and since when did a train recorded as leaving at 7.25 leave any earlier than 7.25.59? Especially if it was operated by Thameslink?

[Mid]

Thanks brodski, I was reading the article and was thinking that it was a bit of a red herring but couldn't remember the details that countered it

[Mid]

Ok well I've looked at their website on the train times:

http://www.julyseventh.co.uk/july-7-...ain-times.html

They seem to have developed their argument against the 7:25 train a bit. they now claim that:

Quote:

Let us consider an earlier train, which left Luton station at 07.25, and arrived into King’s Cross Thameslink at 08.23 am; thus, its journey took 58 minutes. This scenario would give the four young men barely three minutes to walk up the stairs at Luton, buy their tickets in the morning rush-hour and then get to the platform. Some have suggested that Lindsay German from Aylesbury had arrived early and bought the four tickets in advance (day-returns at 22 pounds each), to make this feasible. But, from King’s Cross Thameslink, it takes a good seven minutes to walk through the long, Underground tube passage which includes a ticket barrier, to reach the main King’s Cross station, in the morning rush-hour with large rucksacks – in no way could they have been captured on the 08.26am alleged CCTV picture.

I'm not familiar with King's Cross, Thameslink or where this 8.26 CCTV picture was taken, but it again seems far too eager to discount that in the about 4 possible minutes between them arriving 8.23.00 and the photo 8.26.59 that they couldn't have possibly hurried to King's Cross. Of course times could have been different e.g. 8.23.59 for the trains arrival, mis recorded etc., but the point is if this is the best they can come up with it pitifully weak.

Edited: to change a word.