The "Magic Bomb" Theory
by Mark Faulk | 24.07.2005 07:33 | Analysis | World
The "Magic Bomb" Theory
by Mark Faulk
This is a story about disappearing terrorists, nonexistent bags, and botched investigations, but most of all, this is a story about magic bombs.
It's Crime Scene Investigation 101. It's the basic law of physics. It's so elementary, my dear Watson, that even a dancer who was dazed from the shock of being seated directly over the spot where one of the bombs was planted in the London tube carriage two weeks ago could figure it out.
In a seemingly innocuous article in the British newspaper Cambridge Evening News, 32 year-old dance instructor Bruce Lait, in an interview from his hospital bed, said that "The policeman said 'mind that hole, that's where the bomb was'. The metal was pushed upwards as if the bomb was underneath the train. 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."
Read that last part again, very slowly, and let it sink in. "The metal was pushed upwards as if the bomb was underneath the train." "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."
And the British authorities on the crime scene missed that, and just assumed that it was a carry-on bomb? C'mon, how many times have you seen that bad TV show where the eccentric detective figures out that the crime was an "inside job" because the glass was outside the broken window, not inside where it should have been. I repeat: Crime Scene Investigation 101. Basic physics.
While describing the scene, Lait said about he and his dance partner Crystal Main, "Out of that whole carriage, I think Crystal and I were the only ones who were not seriously injured, and I think we were nearest the bomb."
He went on to describe those sitting closest to him and Main when the bomb went off. "I remember an Asian guy, there was a white guy with tracksuit trousers and a baseball cap, and there were two old ladies sitting opposite me." He described the woman whose body was lying on top of him when he regained consciousness as a "middle-aged woman who had blonde curly hair, was dressed in black, and could have been a businesswoman."
Again, play close attention here. "We were nearest the bomb." An Asian guy, a white guy, two old ladies, and a blond businesswoman......and two dancers.
So.....if the bomb was in a bag carried on by the terrorist, how could two dancers be "nearest the bomb"? And why didn't the person who was the closest eyewitness see the bomber, or even ANYONE, sitting where the bomb went off? Why was the metal pushed upwards if the bomb was inside of the train carriage?
Let's put this in perspective, piece by piece:
"The metal was pushed upwards as if the bomb was underneath the train."
"I don't remember anybody being where the bomb was, or any bag."
"We were nearest the bomb."
An Asian guy, a white guy, two old ladies, and a blond businesswoman......and two dancers.
Here we go again. Another terrorist event with more questions than answers, questions that the major media (yet again) aren't even asking.
Hell, I'll even take a stab at answering them:
The metal was pushed upwards because THE BOMB WAS UNDERNEATH THE TRAIN.
Lait didn't remember seeing anyone, or a bag that could be holding a bomb, near the point of detonation because there was no bomber sitting there, there was no bag. THE BOMB WAS UNDERNEATH THE TRAIN.
An Asian guy, a white guy, two old ladies, and a blond businesswoman......and two dancers. There was no Islamic radical, no Mideastern terrorist sitting in that carriage. THE BOMB WAS UNDERNEATH THE TRAIN.
Dance partners Bruce Lait and Crystal Main were nearest the bomb.....again, no Islamic radical, no Mideastern terrorist sitting in that carriage. THE BOMB WAS UNDERNEATH THE TRAIN.
We were praised by some, and criticized by others, for posting an article by Jeff Buckley (entitled "London Calling") the day after the first London bombings two weeks ago that questioned the motives behind the bombings, and that asked readers to view the inevitable "official government response" with a healthy grain of skepticism.
Here's how Jeff so aptly put it:
"So, when you see the headlines dominated by this story and the mounting evidence of lies, deception, and treason being forever pushed to the back burner, be sure to ask yourself, 'Who benefits from this?' Before you throw your support behind administrations that only have doublespeak, deceit, and death to show for their efforts, be sure to ask yourself, 'Who benefits from this?' And, before you allow yourself to be steamrolled and swept away by the inevitable surge of jingoistic retaliatory euphoria, be sure to ask yourself, 'Who benefits from this?'"
"Who benefits from this?"
So here we are, barely two weeks (and another "symbolic" bombing episode) later, and the voices of the Far Right are busy spinning this as yet another excuse for the war in Iraq.....even though the suspected terrorists are Pakistanis. (Sound familiar? The 9/11 terrorists were mostly from Saudi Arabia, so...."Let's bomb Iraq!")
"Who benefits from this?"
Here we are barely two weeks later, and the disciples of doublespeak are busy blaming a group of suicide bombers with carry-on bags, even though those who died are the most unlikely group of "suicide bombers" ever to commit an act of terrorism.
"Who benefits from this?"
Here we are barely two weeks later, and Bush and Company is using the London bombings to.....successfully.....push through the renewal of the Patriot Act. "Screw the Constitution, they're bombing us!"
The official spinmeisters are either ignoring the signs that something is just not right here, or dismissing those of us who are questioning the official response as the usual bunch of fringe conspiracy theorists.
Well guess what? If we don't keep asking the hard questions, and demanding honest, straightforward answers to those questions, then no one will. They've deceived us a million times before, and if honest Americans....and Englanders....don't continue to hold our public officials accountable for their actions and demand the truth, then they will continue to spoon feed us lie after lie after lie....until we eventually all suffocate under the weight of mass deception. And THAT'S the Faulking Truth.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Editor's note: A special thanks to http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/ for once again pointing me in the right direction, and to Jeff Buckley for making us ask the "hard questions".)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
by Mark Faulk
This is a story about disappearing terrorists, nonexistent bags, and botched investigations, but most of all, this is a story about magic bombs.
It's Crime Scene Investigation 101. It's the basic law of physics. It's so elementary, my dear Watson, that even a dancer who was dazed from the shock of being seated directly over the spot where one of the bombs was planted in the London tube carriage two weeks ago could figure it out.
In a seemingly innocuous article in the British newspaper Cambridge Evening News, 32 year-old dance instructor Bruce Lait, in an interview from his hospital bed, said that "The policeman said 'mind that hole, that's where the bomb was'. The metal was pushed upwards as if the bomb was underneath the train. 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."
Read that last part again, very slowly, and let it sink in. "The metal was pushed upwards as if the bomb was underneath the train." "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."
And the British authorities on the crime scene missed that, and just assumed that it was a carry-on bomb? C'mon, how many times have you seen that bad TV show where the eccentric detective figures out that the crime was an "inside job" because the glass was outside the broken window, not inside where it should have been. I repeat: Crime Scene Investigation 101. Basic physics.
While describing the scene, Lait said about he and his dance partner Crystal Main, "Out of that whole carriage, I think Crystal and I were the only ones who were not seriously injured, and I think we were nearest the bomb."
He went on to describe those sitting closest to him and Main when the bomb went off. "I remember an Asian guy, there was a white guy with tracksuit trousers and a baseball cap, and there were two old ladies sitting opposite me." He described the woman whose body was lying on top of him when he regained consciousness as a "middle-aged woman who had blonde curly hair, was dressed in black, and could have been a businesswoman."
Again, play close attention here. "We were nearest the bomb." An Asian guy, a white guy, two old ladies, and a blond businesswoman......and two dancers.
So.....if the bomb was in a bag carried on by the terrorist, how could two dancers be "nearest the bomb"? And why didn't the person who was the closest eyewitness see the bomber, or even ANYONE, sitting where the bomb went off? Why was the metal pushed upwards if the bomb was inside of the train carriage?
Let's put this in perspective, piece by piece:
"The metal was pushed upwards as if the bomb was underneath the train."
"I don't remember anybody being where the bomb was, or any bag."
"We were nearest the bomb."
An Asian guy, a white guy, two old ladies, and a blond businesswoman......and two dancers.
Here we go again. Another terrorist event with more questions than answers, questions that the major media (yet again) aren't even asking.
Hell, I'll even take a stab at answering them:
The metal was pushed upwards because THE BOMB WAS UNDERNEATH THE TRAIN.
Lait didn't remember seeing anyone, or a bag that could be holding a bomb, near the point of detonation because there was no bomber sitting there, there was no bag. THE BOMB WAS UNDERNEATH THE TRAIN.
An Asian guy, a white guy, two old ladies, and a blond businesswoman......and two dancers. There was no Islamic radical, no Mideastern terrorist sitting in that carriage. THE BOMB WAS UNDERNEATH THE TRAIN.
Dance partners Bruce Lait and Crystal Main were nearest the bomb.....again, no Islamic radical, no Mideastern terrorist sitting in that carriage. THE BOMB WAS UNDERNEATH THE TRAIN.
We were praised by some, and criticized by others, for posting an article by Jeff Buckley (entitled "London Calling") the day after the first London bombings two weeks ago that questioned the motives behind the bombings, and that asked readers to view the inevitable "official government response" with a healthy grain of skepticism.
Here's how Jeff so aptly put it:
"So, when you see the headlines dominated by this story and the mounting evidence of lies, deception, and treason being forever pushed to the back burner, be sure to ask yourself, 'Who benefits from this?' Before you throw your support behind administrations that only have doublespeak, deceit, and death to show for their efforts, be sure to ask yourself, 'Who benefits from this?' And, before you allow yourself to be steamrolled and swept away by the inevitable surge of jingoistic retaliatory euphoria, be sure to ask yourself, 'Who benefits from this?'"
"Who benefits from this?"
So here we are, barely two weeks (and another "symbolic" bombing episode) later, and the voices of the Far Right are busy spinning this as yet another excuse for the war in Iraq.....even though the suspected terrorists are Pakistanis. (Sound familiar? The 9/11 terrorists were mostly from Saudi Arabia, so...."Let's bomb Iraq!")
"Who benefits from this?"
Here we are barely two weeks later, and the disciples of doublespeak are busy blaming a group of suicide bombers with carry-on bags, even though those who died are the most unlikely group of "suicide bombers" ever to commit an act of terrorism.
"Who benefits from this?"
Here we are barely two weeks later, and Bush and Company is using the London bombings to.....successfully.....push through the renewal of the Patriot Act. "Screw the Constitution, they're bombing us!"
The official spinmeisters are either ignoring the signs that something is just not right here, or dismissing those of us who are questioning the official response as the usual bunch of fringe conspiracy theorists.
Well guess what? If we don't keep asking the hard questions, and demanding honest, straightforward answers to those questions, then no one will. They've deceived us a million times before, and if honest Americans....and Englanders....don't continue to hold our public officials accountable for their actions and demand the truth, then they will continue to spoon feed us lie after lie after lie....until we eventually all suffocate under the weight of mass deception. And THAT'S the Faulking Truth.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Editor's note: A special thanks to http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/ for once again pointing me in the right direction, and to Jeff Buckley for making us ask the "hard questions".)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
by Mark Faulk
Homepage:
http://www.faulkingtruth.com/Articles/Commentary/1040.html
Comments
Hide the following 13 comments
Ok, Yeah but can you really come to conclusions
24.07.2005 08:53
But I don't see how you can come up with conclusions without being far more precise with building your story. Like copying the entire article, word for word, from the Cambridge News and publishing it, perhaps also on IMC,
Cambridge, that way if your copying of the article is incorrect someone from cambridge can say so. revealing the whole article and any other articles that you quote.
Don't get me wrong I am right conspiracy theories and I have lived in Italy, a country completely run by the Mafia, for over twenty years. At the time of the 1980 Bologna Station bombing I guess a lot of the good folks on IMC UK would have gone for the conspiracy theorists version. Just read Philipp Willands Strategy of Tension. One of the main suspects Roberto Fiore enjoyed a very happy stay in London for a number of years
until the limit iof statutations was up. Fiore is now back in Italy leading the extreme right wing party Forza Nuova / New Force.
I was very interested to read you posting, I had not heard about this dancer guy and his partner and I certainly didn't know that he had been quoted in a Newspaper, sometimes local newspaper articles can be very intertesting as the national newspapers are less likely to publish a version that criticises the government.
If you want to be taken seriously then you have to limit yourself to reporting facts and not come to any conclusions unless you are 100%, people who want to debunk a conspiracy theory will slag you off if you make a spelling mistake and if you get any slight detail wrong that fucks up your whole story .
But anyway thanx for posting and keep 'em coming .
Val delsa
full cambridge news article
24.07.2005 11:38
http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/news/region_wide/2005/07/11/83e33146-09af-4421-b2f4-1779a86926f9.lpf
rikki
conspiraloon
24.07.2005 20:45
Except for....the Asian guy! (pakistan is in asia you dimwitted conspiraloon).
Seriously, witnesses who are traumatised in incidents often have wildly different memories of what happened. This article is typical conspiranoid - wild speculation first based on whatever morsels they can find, wait for details later.
nonsense spotter
Jumping to Conclusions
25.07.2005 07:06
Long Time Reader
under the train
25.07.2005 09:25
Did the train derail, (I don't know) if so maybe some metal from below pushed upwards towards into the carriage.
Plausible reason for upward break is that as the sides of the carriage, (underside of seating) were pushed outwards, they bent the floor upwards. It would depend entirely on how the various parts of the carriage were reinforced.
Besides if it was an inside job, the lunatic could just as easily have put the bomb inside the carriage and avoided lots of people being incorporated into a grand scheme of lying for the metropolitan police. Even if the police could get that kind of cooperation from 'all' the experts and service personnel who were involved, why wouldn't they just put the bombs in the train and avoid it all that hassle in the first place!
I'm not saying the government isn't capable of this kind of thing, but they didn't do it.
rebound
Too many variables...
25.07.2005 11:09
Presumably someone had to fix the bombs to the train the previous night (or sometime before this). They or someone else had recruited four people as fall-guys. They then managed to arrange it so that all of the four guys arrived in London at the Underground at the correct time, then they managed to get on the correct Underground train (obviously knowing the time the particular train with the bomb on was arriving) and then get each of the people in the correct carriage where the bomb was located and, not only that, on a crowded underground train managed to ensure they were over the spot where the bomb was so that they would be killed (thereby removing the evidence in the form of the recruits). The only alternative I could see would be to attach multiple bombs to multiple trains to remove the possibility of things going wrong but therefore increasing the chance that something would go wrong elsewhere (e.g. in removing the additional bombs without being caught).
All the time the four guys would have to be informed - make sure you get on this particular train, on this particular carriage and make sure you stand in that particular area of the carriage - and you'd have to make sure you'd select four guys who not only could follow these instructions and ensure they arrived in London on time to meet that particular train (not easy if travelling down from Leeds on the day) but not ask any searching questions about these demands. Imagine if one of these bombers had made a very easy mistake to make, got on the train that left a minute earlier, stood in the wrong carriage etc - the whole plan would have begun to fall apart.
Besides, even if I could see how this would work on an Underground train, how would it possibly work on the top-deck of a double-decker? Why wouldn't they have put the bomb on the bottom deck and got the bomber to sit in the correct area there rather than try and plant it on the top deck?
On top of all that you'd then have to take control of the entire physical evidence to ensure that no-one could check the damage to the trains or buses to examine where the blast came from. I know what happened with regards to Bush and the World Trade physical evidence (not that I think that necessarily makes it a conspiracy), but again this is another variable that is hard to control. How would they ensure that the only people who saw the ruined carriages were people under their control - in the World Trade centre there was obviously little that the uninformed spectator could see in the rubble to lead them to suspect it was a conspiracy, but a hole going the wrong way in a train carriage would be pretty easy for the layman to spot. The only possibility would be to ensure that absolutely everyone working on the recovery of the train carriages or who saw the damaged area was carefully vetted.
Query
Focus Is Interesting
26.07.2005 17:50
To those regular critics of the unnofficial Conspiracy Theories, why not set out to prove the Government's Theory, instead of ragging on IMC posters? After all, these are the same LIARS who told us that the dire threat posed by Saddam's vast arsenal of WMD justified military action - all the while knowing the "facts were being fixed", and with their vast resources, have failed to present a compelling Theory themselves, complete with solid evidence.
Give It A Shot
Non-starter
27.07.2005 08:11
I don't trust the government or state but I think their story is an awful lot more plausible than the conspiracy theorys I've seen - its not a question of "ragging on IMC posters" (anyway, it seems to me a lot of IMC posters don't buy the conspiracy theorys either) but of looking at the evidence that's provided in each argument and seeing what makes best sense of the facts that are established while accepting that in this type of event there is bound to be some contradictory evidence.
Query
Focus Still Interesting
27.07.2005 19:00
Yes, and not only because this is what they are trained to do, but that they are also connected directly to the seats of power.
"So it is easier for the intelligence services to plant bombs on the bottom of underground trains"
Yes.
"and then persuade plants travelling from hundreds of miles away to arrive on time to get on the correct place in the correct carriage on the correct train at the correct time so they could be positioned immediately over the bomb"
Yes. If you were being paid a sizeable sum of money to do something, wouldn't you do it? Do you have trouble catching the bus ... ? I don't.
And there is no proof that these men were involved. They could have simply been at the wrong place at the wrong time, and made plausible patsies. We know that forensic evidence was compromised at their residences by police actions, so who knows?
"and then cover up the glaring physical evidence that the bombs were on the outside of the trains"
If you're connected to the people leading the investigations, most certainly. (And it wasn't even hidden that well, since witnesses reported as much, contradicting official statements.)
"than for four terrorists to arrange to get on any old train passing through a certain station and explode their bombs at the same time??"
Yes, most certainly.
It's funny how complicated you made the more plausible scenario sound, and how simplistic you made the contrary sound. I believe that's called DISINFORMATION.
All that was needed is for them to be photographed together. Somehow, that seems to be enough for the people who LIED to you about Iraq's WMD ...
"I don't trust the government or state"
Really? You certainly seem willing to give them the benefit of the doubt, even after they knowingly LIED to you about the threat posed to you by Saddam's vast arsenal of WMD ...
"but I think their story is an awful lot more plausible than the conspiracy theorys I've seen"
What you have to understand here is that the official story IS, itself, a Conspiracy Theory.
"but of looking at the evidence that's provided in each argument and seeing what makes best sense of the facts that are established while accepting that in this type of event there is bound to be some contradictory evidence."
And it is the glaring ommission of certain key, hard, independently-verifiable evidence which makes me question their Conspiracy Theory, not to mention the history of the LIARS/War Criminals spoon-feeding it to us, their connections, agenda, and past the pressure they're under, as words such as "IMPEACHMENT, INVESTIGATION, and PROSECUTION" grow in both popularity and volume.
If this is your position, why not address the available evidence, instead of offering up these endless polemics? Try to prove the Theory you're here defending. Go for it. Then comment.
People in positions of power would have no trouble with any of the variables you mentioned, and an intelligence service would have a better chance at navigating those variables than "ze terrorists". Factor in the "terror drill" which just magically ran at the exact locations as the bombings, and we have a compelling case.
To those regular critics of the unnofficial Conspiracy Theories, why not set out to prove the Government's Theory, instead of ragging on IMC posters? After all, these are the same LIARS who told us that the dire threat posed by Saddam's vast arsenal of WMD justified military action - all the while knowing the "facts were being fixed", and with their vast resources, have failed to present a compelling Theory themselves, complete with solid evidence.
Don't Fall for the PsyOps
Query query query
28.07.2005 07:30
To be honest, when you get to the stage of claiming the four men could just have been casually on their way somewhere it all begins to seem very stupid. It doesn't even make any sense from the conspiracy theory point of view - you're implying that the state (or some other actor) would have put the bombs on the train and then just hoped that at each bombsite there would be a victim who could somehow be linked to a victim at each of the other sites in order to make it seem like a plausible (presumably fundamentalist Islamic) conspiracy!
Yeah, the government lied over Iraq's weapons (and I didn't buy it in the first place) and to the extent that you're saying one should keep an open mind about these types of things you are correct. However, given that the official story at present is an awful awful lot more plausible than the ones the conspiracy theorists have come up with who does it make sense for me to believe?
Query
Lies
28.07.2005 11:48
The "lie", if that's what it was, about Iraq and WMD worked because it was plausible. Saddam had used chemical weapons before (bought them from the Us and UK and others, in fact), and would have no moral objection to getting them and using them. He was a nasty man, so it wasn't implausible to suggest he was up to bad things.
Ultimately, though, people who supported the invasion of Iraq did so probably mainly because they thought he was a dictator who ought to be toppled. The UK is not the US, where it was widely believed that Bin Laden and Saddam were best friends.
So far as I know, nobody has mentioned Syria or Iran in relation to these bombings - and they would surely have done so if the aim was to justify invasions of those countries. When Lockerbie got pinned dubiously on Libya, the switch from blaming Syria happened reasonably quickly.
chatterton
false certainties
28.07.2005 12:51
there is no evidence at all that the 4 alleged bombers ever boarded those trains.
regime spam
Were they on the train?
28.07.2005 14:17
Let's presume though, that they weren't on the train or bus. Why would the intelligence services pick four men from those ethnic minorities as the stooges then? For the plan to make sense given the huge number of potential witnesses it would not make sense to choose men who looked like they were from any sort of visible minority. The reason being that perhaps a few survivors from the bus or train would remember that there was no-one who looked remotely like the supposed bombers on their transport at the time of the bomb. When you consider that they'd need to assume that there was, by chance, someone resembling the suspects on each train carriage or bus it would make it all a lot less likely. Yeah, there's a relative possibility that someone vaguely resembling the bomber may be on one of the forms of transport, or even two, but all four???
Query