Staging An Attack To Fix The Coverup Of Another
hrm | 24.07.2005 16:11 | Analysis | Repression | London
This latest "attack" is supposed to correct some faults in the first without causing further mayhem.
taging An Attack To
Fix The Coverup
Of Another
From LibertyForum Post By "Impatient"
7-23-5
This latest "attack" is supposed to correct some faults in the first without causing further mayhem.
What has given them the most trouble with the first attack? Their choice of patsies.
They assumed that a loose Muslim connection would be enough to persuade everyone that these lads from Leeds were suicide bombers. But rather than clinch it for the planners, it backfired and the most common and reasonable question that everyone has about the suicide bomber fiction was invoked: How could young men who were not religious fanatics, who were educated, decent fellows, with loving families, and bright futures how could they kill themselves and others?
Another unforeseen problem was the effusive praise coming from Efraim Halevi that described the London bombings as "near-perfect". Too many people could not get a picture in their minds of four young men with rucksacks able to so perfectly execute simultaneous bombings. It caused doubts that have not been quelled. Too many people saw the hand of the Mossad and its affiliates in the earlier bombing because the four "bombers with rucksacks" did not evoke the necessary sophisticated timing, operational capacity, and scope.
The latest "attack" is supposed to reaffirm that young men with rucksacks are perfectly capable of a simultaneous triggering of devices, a demonstrable fearlessness in the face of death, and a disregard for the lives of others, even women with babies.
Because all four bombs malfunctioned this time round, it tells us that the bombers are not the Mossad or any other intelligence agency because 100% malfunction is very unprofessional, it may mean that their first bombing was just good luck, not expertise.
While the rucksacks in the first bombing have not turned up, this new bombing tells us once again that four young men carried bomb-laden packs aboard the trains and [would have] died when they detonated.
The investigation has not proceeded methodically. The whole question of how the bombing was done and who did it was effectively squelched when they began looking for the needle in the haystack the CCTV films. Without knowledge of the type of bombs, their power, placement, and detonation, there could be absolutely no reason to begin looking at CCTV tapes. They could not know what to look for without the certainty that the bombs were carried on, and not placed beforehand.
It is significant that of all the thousands of hours of CCTV tape they have examined, the only tape they seem to have of the young men from Leeds does not come from London at all! In the pictures we have seen the lads are in Luton, 25 minutes away. Unless they can show us the "bombers" going their separate ways and boarding three or four different trains I will not believe that the young men ever made it to London. Seeing them together at Luton means nothing if they cannot be placed getting on the trains at exactly the right time to take them the right distance from King's Cross before they explode.
In the case of the 7/7 bombings, going straightaway to the video tapes was very premature and irrational. It can only mean that they knew what they would find because they had planted the "evidence". It makes no sense to begin looking at thousands of hours of video tape from as far away as Luton without any idea of what you are looking for. What could it be? Rucksacks, packages, briefcases, baby strollers, gym bags? Suspicous looking people of a certain race? And remember that the first story was that at least 24 people had been involved.
What would be the motivation to look at the tapes from Luton? Did they also look at tapes from video cameras at the airports and bus stations? It would seem to be just as reasonable to look at those tapes as looking at Luton. And why is the Luton tape the only tape?
Luton is interesting because an office of ICTS (the Israeli security firm) is about a mile from a Thameslink station. ICTS is actually located in the Luton and Dunstable NHS Hospital. It seems a little odd that this firm that handles security for the Stansted airport would be located at the Hospital.
Just like the problem with 9/11 and Madrid - there were no hijackers and no bombers to film. They tried to get around that on 7/7 by getting some patsies to photograph. They did not leave it to chance, for those picked had to be disposed of as though they had been killed in the blasts. Never Mind the "Evidence," Who Planted it? The "investigation" that led to the Leeds four was not a real investigation because the videotape evidence was "planted" and the investigation was "led" to find it. People seem to overlook this fact and assume that there were real clues that led the "investigators" to check the video cameras in Luton. Luton is distant from London and a real investigation would have no more reason to check those cameras than they would the cameras at Stansted or Heathrow or the bus stations or Thameslink stations in other directions. They vaguely justify looking northward and in Leeds because one mother called about her missing son - one mother out of 120,000 calls!
Just like the 19 photographs of the suicide hijackers, we never ask where those came from and how the FBI got them. The FBI admits there was not a single piece of paper to indicate the planning or knowledge of 9/11 but we are to believe that pictures of 19 hijackers sort of "turn up" very quickly after 9/11.
But people seem to begin their questions too far down the road, away from the initial and thoroughly incriminating points.
Wherever there is "planted" evidence it means the perpetrators have planted it to divert honest investigators. To investigate the planted evidence as though it is real is to miss the opportunity of catching the fix at the beginning. It is those who plant the evidence who are responsible for the crime.
The real perpetrators give themselves away by going directly to Luton to find their video. What are the chances of that? They went to Luton before there was any forensic investigation at the bomb sites. They were off to Luton even before they had removed all the body parts from the blasts - before they had any evidence that rucksacks were used to bring the bombs onto the trains - they were on their way to Luton to find the pictures of the lads carrying rucksacks and they found them.
Source:
http://rense.com/general67/stage.htm
Fix The Coverup
Of Another
From LibertyForum Post By "Impatient"
7-23-5
This latest "attack" is supposed to correct some faults in the first without causing further mayhem.
What has given them the most trouble with the first attack? Their choice of patsies.
They assumed that a loose Muslim connection would be enough to persuade everyone that these lads from Leeds were suicide bombers. But rather than clinch it for the planners, it backfired and the most common and reasonable question that everyone has about the suicide bomber fiction was invoked: How could young men who were not religious fanatics, who were educated, decent fellows, with loving families, and bright futures how could they kill themselves and others?
Another unforeseen problem was the effusive praise coming from Efraim Halevi that described the London bombings as "near-perfect". Too many people could not get a picture in their minds of four young men with rucksacks able to so perfectly execute simultaneous bombings. It caused doubts that have not been quelled. Too many people saw the hand of the Mossad and its affiliates in the earlier bombing because the four "bombers with rucksacks" did not evoke the necessary sophisticated timing, operational capacity, and scope.
The latest "attack" is supposed to reaffirm that young men with rucksacks are perfectly capable of a simultaneous triggering of devices, a demonstrable fearlessness in the face of death, and a disregard for the lives of others, even women with babies.
Because all four bombs malfunctioned this time round, it tells us that the bombers are not the Mossad or any other intelligence agency because 100% malfunction is very unprofessional, it may mean that their first bombing was just good luck, not expertise.
While the rucksacks in the first bombing have not turned up, this new bombing tells us once again that four young men carried bomb-laden packs aboard the trains and [would have] died when they detonated.
The investigation has not proceeded methodically. The whole question of how the bombing was done and who did it was effectively squelched when they began looking for the needle in the haystack the CCTV films. Without knowledge of the type of bombs, their power, placement, and detonation, there could be absolutely no reason to begin looking at CCTV tapes. They could not know what to look for without the certainty that the bombs were carried on, and not placed beforehand.
It is significant that of all the thousands of hours of CCTV tape they have examined, the only tape they seem to have of the young men from Leeds does not come from London at all! In the pictures we have seen the lads are in Luton, 25 minutes away. Unless they can show us the "bombers" going their separate ways and boarding three or four different trains I will not believe that the young men ever made it to London. Seeing them together at Luton means nothing if they cannot be placed getting on the trains at exactly the right time to take them the right distance from King's Cross before they explode.
In the case of the 7/7 bombings, going straightaway to the video tapes was very premature and irrational. It can only mean that they knew what they would find because they had planted the "evidence". It makes no sense to begin looking at thousands of hours of video tape from as far away as Luton without any idea of what you are looking for. What could it be? Rucksacks, packages, briefcases, baby strollers, gym bags? Suspicous looking people of a certain race? And remember that the first story was that at least 24 people had been involved.
What would be the motivation to look at the tapes from Luton? Did they also look at tapes from video cameras at the airports and bus stations? It would seem to be just as reasonable to look at those tapes as looking at Luton. And why is the Luton tape the only tape?
Luton is interesting because an office of ICTS (the Israeli security firm) is about a mile from a Thameslink station. ICTS is actually located in the Luton and Dunstable NHS Hospital. It seems a little odd that this firm that handles security for the Stansted airport would be located at the Hospital.
Just like the problem with 9/11 and Madrid - there were no hijackers and no bombers to film. They tried to get around that on 7/7 by getting some patsies to photograph. They did not leave it to chance, for those picked had to be disposed of as though they had been killed in the blasts. Never Mind the "Evidence," Who Planted it? The "investigation" that led to the Leeds four was not a real investigation because the videotape evidence was "planted" and the investigation was "led" to find it. People seem to overlook this fact and assume that there were real clues that led the "investigators" to check the video cameras in Luton. Luton is distant from London and a real investigation would have no more reason to check those cameras than they would the cameras at Stansted or Heathrow or the bus stations or Thameslink stations in other directions. They vaguely justify looking northward and in Leeds because one mother called about her missing son - one mother out of 120,000 calls!
Just like the 19 photographs of the suicide hijackers, we never ask where those came from and how the FBI got them. The FBI admits there was not a single piece of paper to indicate the planning or knowledge of 9/11 but we are to believe that pictures of 19 hijackers sort of "turn up" very quickly after 9/11.
But people seem to begin their questions too far down the road, away from the initial and thoroughly incriminating points.
Wherever there is "planted" evidence it means the perpetrators have planted it to divert honest investigators. To investigate the planted evidence as though it is real is to miss the opportunity of catching the fix at the beginning. It is those who plant the evidence who are responsible for the crime.
The real perpetrators give themselves away by going directly to Luton to find their video. What are the chances of that? They went to Luton before there was any forensic investigation at the bomb sites. They were off to Luton even before they had removed all the body parts from the blasts - before they had any evidence that rucksacks were used to bring the bombs onto the trains - they were on their way to Luton to find the pictures of the lads carrying rucksacks and they found them.
Source:
http://rense.com/general67/stage.htm
hrm
Comments
Display the following comment