Today's explosive devices all miraculously failed to explode, despite their detonators being triggered. The LYING Bliar Regime says the forensic evidence provided by this stroke of luck will be used to find the culprits.

Funny they didn't care more about forensic evidence when they used military explosives in the apartment one of the men blamed for the 7/7 bombing, thus contaminating the scene. The devices used on 7/7 contained military explosives, but that story was quickly killed, and they've attempted to flush it down the Memory Hole.

It would appear as if today's devices were plants, intended to steer the investigation towards an intended "enemy", my best guess says that this will be traced to Iran, since these Criminals are itching for an excuse to invade that country as well.

Now, we wait ...

where's your proof the 7/7 bombs contained military explosives in contrast to the revised findings? A bunch of links to websites I suppose. LOL!

If links to websites offering evidence and argument as to why they were most likely to have been military explosives don't convince you, then please tell us what would.

Trolls always use this tactic: they demand "Where's your proof?", then reject any evidence given as "tosh", usually without bothering to read it.

Until Magoo clearly defines what he'll accept as "proof", don't bother hunting for evidence to post here- he's only here to waste your time and wind you up.

"The initial theory was that the July 7 blasts were caused by some sort of military or commercial explosives.

It was later suggested that the devices contained a highly volatile home-made acetone peroxide compound, known as TATP and dubbed Mother of Satan.

But Sir Ian said that at a briefing he attended, ``It was made absolutely clear we do not know what this is.''

 http://tinyurl.com/9cnc4

So what are the "revised findings" Magoo? And how come you know about them, whilst poor old Ian Blair doesn't?

Is it cos you is M15?

this time round one of the suicide bombers tossed his rucksack onto a train as it was pulling out, then ran off. Not, mind you, to throw himself in front of said train as one would expect, but off out the station to live again, and be terrifyingly 'on the loose'.
As for proof, mr magoo, where indeed is any proof at all. The first round of bombs are still being reported in speculative language. We have still not seen any CCTV footage beyond where the four youths enter Luton station, never to appear again. Where are the images from Kings Cross(which reputedly cracked the case) of the four together on the concourse? I have had several people tell me that they have seen them, although when pressed could not tell me exactly where, except that they exist in their minds.

Look, Chris Morris, in your attempts to research a satirical piece ripping it out of loony lefty SWP idiots, please don't ruin Indymedia.... There's no need to post such ridiculous posts as this, they'll do it themselves....
I know for a fact that this is Chris Morris. I don't actually have to provide any indisputable evidence, because if I did, you'd all just say it was tosh. So there. I'm going to sit in the corner draped in my Bliar banner rocking until you say I'm right.

Tristan

For goodness' sake... has anyone even heard this recording. I can't decide if it's the crassest, vilest, most offensive thing I've ever heard or just a work of pure comedy genius. Or both. Please, someone sway my opinion one way or another...

perhaps it's early days yet, but it does seem very suspicious not to mention bizarre, that nearly 24 hours after 4 'bombers' ran from the scenes unhurt, the media has not yet put up cctv pictures or eyewitness photofits of these dangerous criminals. don't the police teams work overnight?

very very odd.

The fact that the security forces initially said the explosives used may have been of military origin, then later retracted such an assertion is by no means definitive proof of a cover-up (or even close in my book). The link to Ian Blair's comments likewise do not provide any clear cut evidence either way re the nature of the explosives used, so I think questioning the statement made in earlier comments on this thread that military explosives were definitely used (then such 'evidence' subsequently covered up by the mainstream media) is perfectly valid.

One persons 'skepticism' seems to be another persons credulous conspiranoid shite as far as I can see. Could someone please provide definitive proof (not just assertions drawn from early comments made in the mainstream media) that military explosives were used in the bombings please.

How dare Britons not be frightened shitless of "Islamic" fundamentalism? How dare they even sympathize with the victims of the invasion of Iraq or Palestine, or the Iranians who are next on the list? I'd say those Western securocrats who possibly planted the bombs are working hard to get the reaction they want, but know little of the social mentality of Europeans today (sure, what do Americans know?) They don't realise that European mentality is not like the Israeli mentality, attacks on this land don't justify our unaproved atrocities in the Middle East, specially because we are quite aware at this stage of our Imperialistic past and present, and we are quite aware of the order of events, we are not a racist state who wants arabs out on the basis of a certain religion. When will they see that?

"If links to websites offering evidence and argument as to why they were most likely to have been military explosives don't convince you, then please tell us what would."

Third or fourth-hand "evidence" is no more credible than anything spouted by the mainstream media.

Indymedia was set up to provide independent and alternative news. In what way does third or fourth-hand information, from both mainstream media websites and other fringe sites - many of which quote the mainstream sites - qualify as independent?

'I'd say those Western securocrats who possibly planted the bombs are working hard to get the reaction they want'

Well, at least the word 'possibly' was used in this particular example which is more restrained than many posting on this site. I have to ask, what real evidence is there to suggest that our own security forces are behind these bombings and not people who hold a grudge against the West for their involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan? - why do people think that the 'official' explanation is so far fetched?

People point to a series of, largely imaginary, 'holes' in the official version of recent events and in its place seem to be putting a whole series of far more ridiculous and far fetched theories. Why do people want so desperately to believe in state conspiracies? Is it out of some misguided belief that any critique of capitalism necessarily involves embracing any and all theories which are critical of the state? If so, this is infantile, credulous crap - what used to be called 'vulgar Marxism' when I was at University.

Trying to portray the the ruling bloc in our present social structure as nothing more than a series of Dick Dastardly villains willing to do anything to buttress their position in power is a staggeringly simplistic reading of the current situation in my opinion. This does not make me an 'agent of the state' or a 'sheep', merely someone who is skeptical of bold assertions being made without any real evidence being offered to support such a view. Can we have some real evidence of these 'alternative explanations' for the London bombings please, ones that do not rely on hearsay and conjecture or taking small, out of context, comments from the mainstream media (which conspiracy theorists only trust when they can extract small pieces of 'fact' to fit their own long pre-determined theory as to who is responsible). Is it that much to ask?

Is it really so implausible that these bombings just were what they appear to be - ie. the work of a bunch of religious-death-cult nuts?

Of course this kind of attack serves a purpose for Bush-Blair but I really don't think they'd need to go to the trouble of arranging it themselves. It's not like our government, or the West, has a monopoly on violence and stupidity. Look at Rwanda, Cambodia, Bosnia and of course Nazi Germany; look at all the wars still going on around the world - check out this kind of thing:  http://www.agathonrwasa.blogspot.com

There's never been a lack of people willing to kill and maim others for one reason or another. It's not all that hard to make a homemade bomb. I meet people all the time who I could believe capable of killing others if they thought they had a good reason. Over the last few years I've met a couple of people who've openly said that they thought attacking London would be justified. I'm sorry but I don't buy into all this conspiracy-theory stuff.

spot on. when the nazi bomber of the 'Admiral Duncan' in London was 'nailed', the CCTV shots of Copeland were up all over the place. By latest news broadcasts last night we had small skinny asians, six foot man and a black guy jumping over fences. Not one coherent description has been offered of any of the four perps. Regarding the shooting at point blank range today of an 'Asian' man at Stockwell,...well 'dead men tell no...' do they?

Miltary grade plastics? Bollocks!

 http://news.ft.com/cms/s/b312e2e4-f556-11d9-8ffc-00000e2511c8.html

What is happening here is very simple. There is a conflict of interests. The Police & secutiy services just want to get on with their job. To an politicial they want to be seen to be doing something. A news editor wants something sensational to sell advertising space with.

So as any big investigation kicks off you end up with a load of bollocks in the public domain. As time goes by and the investigation gain ground, the information becomes more precise and conclusive.

A different conspiracy happened right under your noses and it seems no-one posting here even noticed, despite the fact it was covered here on IMUK. The reason you didn't notice it was because the story was d-noticed. So, for people so disdainful of the mainstream, a real live cover up passed unnoticed because you didn't see it spelled out in the mainstream. Albeit if you read between lines it was obvious Downing Street were caught with their pants down.

The nature of proof: where are the quotes (plaural: i.e. not sourced from the same story) from the police saying that the explosives were DEFINITELY Eastern European military grade? I couldn't find any... and infotosh.com and paranoidplanet.con don't count.