The bomb was underneath the train

[Woody Box]

An authentic eyewitness account from 7/7:

"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," he said.

http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/news/region_wide/2005/07/11/83e33146-09af-4421-b2f4-1779a86926f9.lpf

No bag, no backpack, no backpack bomber, but a big hole in the floor and the metal pushed upwards.

Has the suicide bomber been underneath the train?

[oneighty]

1. curious

I am a skeptic concerning the size of the explosive charge supposedly carried by the bombers. Ten pounds just not seem enough to cause the damage shown in the pictures. And I have handled a lot of explosives. Made many go 'BOOM'.

180

[ET Awful]

2. That all depends on what the explosive is.

10 pounds of C4 would make an even bigger hole than that.

[oneighty]

4. C-4

is good. But not that good. I have used plenty of it. Pound for pound there are more powerful less glamorous explosives. C-3 is an example. As a blasting explosive dynamite is better.

180

[ET Awful]

8. That all depends.

For instance, the explosive in many anti-tank missiles is nothing more than a shaped C4 charge.

Also typical M183 or M37 Satchel charges use 20 pounds of C4 and can (when properly placed) breech a 3 foot thick concrete barrier. These aren't shaped charges, merely a bag full of 1.25 pound blocks of C4. I'd say half that weight could cause some pretty significant damage to mere sheet metal.

[oneighty]

12. I will not debate the issue.

I was EOD in the Navy years ago and I realize things change. Our satchel charges were C-3 and pound for pound it was more powerful than C-4. All we used the then new C-4 for was shaped charges. And even there C-3 was better, but much harder to work with.

Bottom line a low explosive such as dynamite, ammonium nitrate and such is better for blasting lets say a train off the tracks and is more easily available.

Enough said.

180

[ET Awful]

15. Mmmhmmm, and I was a TOW gunner, a track commander,

and due to the requirements of those jobs had to learn demolitions in order to clear firing lines. I also went on to train others in the same methods.

Sorry, but your knowledge appears to be somewhat limited.

BTW, ammonium nitrate isn't an explosive, it's a fertilizer. It can be used in conjunction with other substances to create an explosive (as was demonstrated in Oklahoma City using massive quantities of it).

We aren't discussing "blasting a train off the tracks." We're discussing an explosive device that was used to destroy the train.

Sorry, but to claim that 10 pounds of explosives couldn't do the damage that was done to that train is inaccurate at best.

[oneighty]

16. I bow to your vastly

superior intelligence.

180

[ET Awful]

18. You might find this interesting

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/m112-c4.htm

Note that C4 has replaced dynamite for demolitions in military use.

"STATUS: In production to support peacetime losses. C4 will replace current stocks of TNT, PETN, and Military Dynamite."


"The demolition charge M112 is a rectangular block of Composition C-4 approximately 2 inches by 1.5 inches and 11 inches long, weighing 1.25 Lbs. When the charge is detonated, the explosive is converted into compressed gas. The gas exerts pressure in the form of a shock wave, which demolishes the target by cutting, breaching, or cratering."


I don't claim to have "vastly superior intelligence". I claim that your statements that 10 pounds of explosive couldn't produce those results was entirely false. I also claim that your statements regarding C4 are, at least to some degree, incorrect.

Your petulance is duly noted.

[oneighty]

24. Dynamite was removed

from battlefield explosives even in my time as being too unstable and too sensitive to shock. Dynamite however was used by construction crews in safe areas. C-3 was the choice of the frogmen removing beach obstructions for invasions, it was necessary to place it just so.

The largest man made explosion other than Atomic was ammonium nitrate and dynamite used to level a mountain for purposes of mining; that according to "The Blasters Handbook' long ago.

I was at one time familiar with the anti-tank base detonated shaped charge munitions that were used long before C-4 arrived on the scene.

In EOD we had available pre-cast shaped charges. Far superior our hand loaded ones. In EOD school we were allowed one forty pound shaped charge with which we blew a hole through sixteen inch armor plate and far into the ground below the plate. Yes directed charges get a lot of bang per pound.

Any way nice sharing sea stories.

180

[ET Awful]

27. What you're missing though is that to get a comparable

explosive blast from ammonium nitrate (normally combined with fuel oil) you would require many times the weight and volume as would be necessitated using C4 or the like.

To put it very simply, to get the same explosive power as exists in 10 pounds of C4 (or, for that matter, several other plastique type explosives) would require more ammonium nitrate and other components than any individual could carry unassisted.

Knowing what we do about the massive quantities of military grade explosives that are unaccounted for (in Iraq and elsewhere), I'd say it's pretty safe to theorize that such substances played a role in these attacks.

[oneighty]

29. Darn

I am not suggesting the bombs were ammonium nitrate or any thing else.(And no it does not need fuel oil to work.)

I have no idea what explosive was used nor do you, nor do the experts in England. According to what I can find on google right now they appear to be speculating as we are.

I said at the beginning that I am skeptical that only ten pounds of C-4 did the nasty deed. I will remain so until the experts doing the investigating tell me different.

I am ready to be wrong in my opinion. It is of no consequence.

180

[sweetheart]

35. Very funny you guys

That was fun.

If only they had used a shaped C++ charge and blown a hole
in microsoft's code base.

:-)

Or maybe, on the planet, xirxoni, they use timed shape charges of
10 megatonne nukes to create a tidal surface wave of such proportions
that it wiped out an entire continent.

:-)

But, back in my day, on the planet xirxoni, we only used C-3 and not
C-4 because nukes were not available.

:-)

[bennywhale]

30. They used "mother of satan" can't remember what its proper chemical

name is. highly volatile alledgedly

[Woody Box]

3. The story on the explosives changed

First, it was supposed to be military TNT. Later, it was TATP (triacetone triperoxide), much easier to make at home.

Just for the record. I'm no explosives expert.

Your information is interesting, is it possible to attach a parameter to every kind of explosives reflecting its physical force?

[oneighty]

6. Yes it is

It has been fifty years since my training in explosives. And my mind grows feeble. (Perhaps it always was)

But a high explosive such as C-4, TNT are typically not good 'blasting'explosives. TNT is a 'base line' explosive when speaking of military battle field explosives. It is stable, powerful, shock resistant, hard to detonate. There are explosives on both sides of that base line.

Plenty of explosives information on the internet.

180

[Guy_Montag]

7. The media changed the story

as far as I'm aware the police never said anything about military TNT.

Beware media speculation masquerading as fact.

[Woody Box]

11. Is the Financial Times an acceptable source for you?

“The explosive used in the London bomb attacks was almost certainly military TNT originating from former Soviet satellite countries, intelligence sources said yesterday.”

http://news.ft.com/cms/s/bfbf76d8-f33a-11d9-843f-00000e2511c8.html

[Guy_Montag]

14. not an official police statement n/t

[Woody Box]

20. So the "Intelligence Sources" are talking nuts or what? nT

[Guy_Montag]

22. intelligence sources could be anyone

police sources are police & intelligence sources I guess would come from MI?, Army Intel or something similar.

[stickdog]

57. Or they could be the head of Scotland Yard antiterrorism,

namely, Andy Hayman.

Why are you accusing the media of generating this confusion when they were clearly reporting just what they were being told by often NAMED officials?

[stickdog]

55. I hate disinformation.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,22989-1690391,00.html

“The nature of the explosives appears to be military, which is very worrying,” said Superintendent Christophe Chaboud, the chief of the French anti-terrorist police, who was in London to help Scotland Yard.

http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050713/REPOSITORY/507130364/1037/NEWS04

Many questions remained following yesterday's disclosures. Police had originally reported that explosives in backpacks had been placed on the floor near train doors, suggesting that the people who put them there had intended to escape and not commit suicide.

The police also gave no explanation for where the suspects had obtained the high explosives - 10 pounds in each of the backpacks -that they reportedly used. And they did not explain whether the bombers had used timing devices or set off the explosives by hand.

http://www.iht.com/bin/print_ipub.php?file=/articles/2005/07/12/news/london.php

On Monday, a senior European-based counterterrorism official with access to intelligence reports said the new information on the explosives material indicated that the bombs were "technically advanced."

The official added: "There seems to be a mastery of the method of doing explosions. This was not rudimentary. It required great organization and was well put together."

On Saturday, Andy Hayman, who is in charge of Scotland Yard's antiterrorism unit, announced that the four bombs set off in London each contained less than 4.5 kilograms of explosive material. Hayman said investigators had determined by the shape of the twisted metal that the bombs had most likely been placed on the floor of the trains, near doorways. He said it was unclear whether the bomb on the bus was on the floor or on a seat.

British investigators believe the London bombs were equipped with timers, but they have not determined if the bombs were set off by synchronized alarms on cellphones or some other timing device, officials said.

[Spider Jerusalem]

5. That's pretty questionable, I'd say.

Firstly, eyewitness accounts can't be counted as strictly reliable, particularly after a shocking and traumatic event; the mind can play tricks with memory, and make one remember things that didn't happen, or forget things that did.

And secondly, the floor of a Tube train is, what, maybe eighteen inches or so (perhaps less) above the ground? If much of the explosive force went downwards, there would be some degree of rebound UPWARDS due to energy reflection. There's no reason to think that any of the explosions were caused by anything other than bombs carried onto the trains.

[ET Awful]

9. It seems the best way to determine location of the explosive is

to view the damage to the track under the train at the time of detonation.

If the bomb was outside the train (unless they were using a well designed shaped charge which forced the concussion upwards), there would be a significant crater left.

An explosives expert (or someone with signficant demolitions training) would be able to design a shaped charge, but it would need to be placed on the bottom of the train, not on the track.

[Woody Box]

10. I've heard this answer several times

"missing memories" and "traumatic events", but it never convinced me.

Okay, people often have blackouts after undergoing traumatic events. But not the other way round: they don't hallucinate things that didn't happen. Do you want to say this guy hallucinated the policeman, the hole, and the metal pushed upwards?

Funny thing is there is not ONE witness who has seen a backpack bomber in the train or a lone backpack.

[Spider Jerusalem]

13. Hallucinated? Not necessarily, but whether his memory is accurate...

is a completely different question.

And really, many or even MOST people riding the Tube would be carrying a bag of some sort, probably; it's easier to remember something anomalous than it is to pick out a single detail that's shared in common with several other people in the same carriage...you seem a bit too determined to believe that there's some sinister conspiracy involved here, when the evidence thus far doesn't support that conclusion.

[Woody Box]

19. Not the "C" word again!

The witness was obviously not referring to people with bags but to bags without people. There was none.

And, yes, I find his account pretty credible, I see no reason to think his memory is not accurate, and I definitely don't think the metal of the floor was pushed downwards.

No need to mention the "C" word. Twelve days ago Scotland Yard itself has admitted doubts about the "suicide bombers", and I'm very interested in recent developments as I haven't heard nothing about this since then.

[Spider Jerusalem]

21. I'll be more inclined to believe that...

when there's corroboration from another witness. I see several reasons to doubt his accuracy, although not his veracity, if you see what I mean.

[stickdog]

58. Why were the "suicide" bombers lying on the ground?

http://www.iht.com/bin/print_ipub.php?file=/articles/2005/07/12/news/london.php

On Saturday, Andy Hayman, who is in charge of Scotland Yard's antiterrorism unit, announced that the four bombs set off in London each contained less than 4.5 kilograms of explosive material. Hayman said investigators had determined by the shape of the twisted metal that the bombs had most likely been placed on the floor of the trains, near doorways. He said it was unclear whether the bomb on the bus was on the floor or on a seat.

[Benbow]

17. Forgive me but I am really tired of this speculation

Contrary to all what the conspiracy theorists here seem to want to believe, I think that we will be told, when the investigation is completed.

With respect to the Americans here, in the UK we have a law (of which there is no equivalent in the US) that prohibits discussion of a matter that is sub judice in case that discussion prejudices the outcome of a trial. Hence the unhappiness about certain pictures that have appeared in the US media today. If a British organisation or person did what ABC did, they would be prosecuted for contempt of court.

[Name removed]

23. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[beam me up scottie]

25. Why must you insult

anyone who disagrees with you?

If you cannot handle dissent, perhaps you would be better off not voicing your baseless speculations.

I'm sure there are many on DU who would be happy to be your echo chamber, however, I doubt you'll find them in this forum.

[Woody Box]

26. Criticizing is not insulting

I stay to my word. I didn't attack your confrère personally, by the way. But I don't like his method of keeping himself informed.

[beam me up scottie]

28. I don't like your method of insulting posters who disagree with you.

According to you, everyone who disagrees with you is guilty of "swallowing everything that is presented to (them) on a silver spoon by officials instead of thinking for (themselves)".

If your conspiracy theory was actually anything more than just guesses, I'm sure people would listen to you.

Better luck in the next thread, too bad nobody here seems to be buying whatever it is that you're peddling.

[stickdog]

59. Please. How do you explain this "discussion", then?

http://www.iht.com/bin/print_ipub.php?file=/articles/2005/07/12/news/london.php

On Saturday, Andy Hayman, who is in charge of Scotland Yard's antiterrorism unit, announced that the four bombs set off in London each contained less than 4.5 kilograms of explosive material. Hayman said investigators had determined by the shape of the twisted metal that the bombs had most likely been placed on the floor of the trains, near doorways. He said it was unclear whether the bomb on the bus was on the floor or on a seat.

****

Will Hayman be getting tossed in jail for this?

[Woody Box]

31. UPDATE: Confirmation by the Guardian's Mark Honigsbaum

http://www.officialconfusion.com/

Here's a transcript of the crucial sentences:

"This is Mark Honigsbaum calling from the London Hilton Hotel opposite Edgeware Station where we believe there was an explosion under the carriage of a train."
…
“What seems to have happened is that sometime around 9:30 this morning, passengers in the train travelling from Edgeware road to Paddington had just left Edgeware Road station when suddenly they felt… they had a massive explosion and some passengers described how the tiles… the covers on the floor of the train suddenly flew up... rose up and the next thing they know there was another almighty crash which they now believe was a train travelling in the opposite direction hitting their train, which had been derailed by this explosion.”

and here's the audio of Honigsbaum's report:

http://www.officialconfusion.com/Audio/honigbaum7705.mp3

[Anarcho-Socialist]

32. How is this "confirmed" exactly?

Speculation on the spot by a journalist in a hotel.

[Woody Box]

33. So you say he's lying

in saying that several people told him about the tiles flying upwards or what?

And there is still no witness who saw a rucksack bomber, by the way, nor any security footage from London.

[Anarcho-Socialist]

34. He's speculating that there was an explosion underneath the train

He never spoke to anyone who said "yes, there was an explosion from underneath the train". He made a quick assumption. That's nowhere near "confirming" anything.

[Woody Box]

41. Sorry

Mark Honigsbaum original:

"Some passengers described how the tiles¡¦ the covers on the floor of the train suddenly flew up... rose up"

Hongisbaum has spoken with some passengers. All of these passengers saw the tiles flying up. That the bomb was underneath the train, is no speculation and no quick assumption, it is a natural conclusion. Tiles don't fly up when a bomb explodes in a rucksack on the floor. They do if the bomb's underneath the floor. That's elementary physics.

[beam me up scottie]

42. It's not physics, it's hearsay and speculation.

Stop insulting our intelligence by attempting to substitute hearsay for evidence to prove your PCT.

Give me a break.

[Woody Box]

44. You don't like me, do you?

Now accusing me of insulting your "intelligence".

So where's your evidence that the bombers were in the trains (resp. bus)? Why is there no footage from security cameras?

If you qualify a reporter's quoting of witnesses as "hearsay", than forget journalism. Journalism is interviewing people and quoting people.

[beam me up scottie]

46. It has nothing to do with "liking" you.

What's your agenda here?

What do you hope to accomplish by posting anecdotal evidence and baseless speculations?

This is not the Sept.11 Forum, people here usually need a reason to believe PCTs.

And you actually have the nerve to cite a paranoiacs wet-dream website like officialconfusion.com and wonder why I think you're insulting my intelligence ?

People need to be decontaminated after going there.

[Anarcho-Socialist]

43. His report is filled with inaccuracies

The "mysterious" collision with another train travelling in the opposite direction somehow makes it into the story when no such thing happened.

The reports about tiles rising up are not attributed to any particular named passenger and I have not seen it mentioned by any confirmed eyewitness report. I don't really hold much for Honigsbaum's report. The report is prevalent with such items as "we think" and other speculative verbatim.

[Woody Box]

45. Mark Honigsbaum's conclusion IS confirmed

by the gentleman I introduced in the original post.

Still looking for people who saw a bomber dropping his rucksack onto the floor before the explosion.

Do you know one?

[Anarcho-Socialist]

47. It is not confirmed at all

The gentleman in your OP did not say that he saw an explosion from underneath the train, he simply looked at the wreckage afterwards and made an assumption.

"Still looking for people who saw a bomber dropping his rucksack onto the floor before the explosion."

Are all bomb survivors supposed to report to you or something? I am not aware of such an arrangement.

"Do you know one?"

No, I am not taking part in the police investigation so I would not be privy to divulge any such information.

[beam me up scottie]

48. For the last time,

it's HEARSAY.

It is NOT a fact and there is NO evidence to support your conclusion.

And we don't need to prove a negative, it's your PCT, the burden of proof is on you and you have yet to provide anything legitimate to back it up.

Why don't you run along and keep working on it?

[Guy_Montag]

49. Physics of explosions

The explosion on the floor of the train sends out two types of waves. Taking P or primary or pressure waves (depending who you ask) first, these travel out in all directions as longitudinal waves, and would be reflected back from the solid concrete below the train or any other solid structure.

S waves (secondary or shear waves) only travel through solids and are similar to the classic ripple effect as seen on the surface of a pond when you throw a stone in. These would cause the carriage floor to buckle as they ripple along.

I think you will agree that these phenomena will produce the effects seen by the eyewitnesses.

[Woody Box]

50. No, I don't agree

Your explanation is highly speculative. The energy of the pressure wave is dissipated and dispersed when it hits the ground under the train.

And, most important, no eyewitness saw a rucksack guy dropping a bomb, nor a security camera.

[beam me up scottie]

51. How do you know what was seen by eyewitnesses?

Anarcho asked you this yesterday, were all bomb survivors supposed to report to you or something?

[Guy_Montag]

54. Where does the energy go?

You say the energy of the pressure was is dissipated & dispersed, but because energy is always conserved it must go somewhere. Heat & sound only account for a small amount of it.

So you have a certain amount that enters the ground and is refracted in such a way it travels away before eventually being attenuated, but you also have a large amount that is reflected back - just like sonar.

You say my explanation is highly speculative, but in fact the physics I explained are used in all sorts of applications. I work with this sort of thing - in fact my job would not exist if explosions did not reflect a significany amount of power off solid surfaces. I suspect there is nothing I can say that will convince you. You have a fixed idea on this & no explanation not matter how logical or seated in reality will convince you otherwise.

btw. It is unlikely that the police would release cctv footage of the carriages just before or during the explosions. Firstly it would upset the relatives, secondly in may impact on the investigation. As one of my British colleagues explained earlier, the British police are very careful about what they release so they do not prejiduce any future trial.

[vincent_vega_lives]

56. Ahhh no

You obviously don't know the meaning of the word "speculative". the properties he describes are proven, and highly plausible based on known facts about the explosion, and have nothing to do with pressure waves hitting the ground. Basing the claim that there was a bomb under that carriage based on the "tiles" comment is highly speculative.

[Taxloss]

37. This report is riddled with errors.

For a start, it's Edgware, not Edgeware. Secondly, the station is called Edgware Road Station, not Edgeware Station. There is an Edgware Station; it's miles away. And that's not a typo - it's a consistent misspelling. There is a Hilton-owned hotel near Edgware Road station, but it is not the London Hilton, which is a skyscraper on Park Lane - it is the Hilton Metropole.

This man is neither a journalist nor a Londoner. There was no collision of trains.

Here's the interior of the Edgware Road train:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_pictures/4722775.stm

(Picture 3)

Does that look like a floor that was pushed up with panels that flew upwards? Looks like a crater to me.

[philb]

52. Your picture isn't what you said

It doesn't show what you say it does

[Taxloss]

63. The third picture - click the right-hand button twice.

It shows exactly what I said.

[mogster]

36. Here's some pictures, unclear what they suggest

Or maybe not? Seems to be a downwards explosion here to me.

[beam me up scottie]

38. They must be looking at them

upside down. :eyes:

[Anarcho-Socialist]

39. lol

yeah that must have been it.

[Woody Box]

40. I agree

that the pictures are unclear. The second and third picture suggest nothing about the direction of the explosion.

And the hole in the first picture? Impossible to be caused by an underneath bomb? Not for me, sorry.

[vincent_vega_lives]

61. Pretty clear

that the force of the explosion was ABOVE the floor of the train.

[stickdog]

62. It's clear if you WANT it to be.

[Taxloss]

65. It's pretty clear what YOU want it to be, as well.

But the visual evidence supports our case - downwards blast.

[stickdog]

69. Really? Because I have no opinion on the pictures.

Only one picture shows the floor and it's ambiguous, AFAICT. It certainly doesn't look like a suicide bombing, but I'm not an expert in tracking damage to source explosions. I don't see anything that proves anything in these photos. Nor does it suit my agenda to believe one thing over another concerning these pictures.

[vincent_vega_lives]

66. Either

1. You didn't look at the photo

2. You looked at the photo but haven't the intellectual ability to interpret it.

3. You looked at the photo and have the intellectual ability to interpret it but choose consciously or unconsciously to delude your self to it's meaning.

I choose 3.

[stickdog]

70. What photo are you on about?

I saw three. Only one showed the floor. It was ambiguous.

[vincent_vega_lives]

74. AMBIGUOUS?

Ok, I change my answer to #2.

If you can't see that the metal around the hole is all bent downward, and not upward, then I can't help you.

[stickdog]

75. That's about as obvious as plane pods to me. Congratulations

to you on your seemingly superior eyesight.

[John Doe II]

60. Now this is creating confusion

Your three photos are from three different trains.
And the first one, the only one showing the ground, is NOT the train Bruce Lait was on. So what are you talking about? What are youyr photos supposed to prove?

[Taxloss]

64. The first picture is from Edgware road and clearly shows a downwards blast

[stickdog]

71. So you think the suicide bomber was lying on the floor? (nt)

[Taxloss]

76. No, I think his backpack was on the floor.

Just because it's a backpack doesn't mean it has to be on the back.

[Woody Box]

77. Ah - the backpack-dropping bomber theory

but it doesn't work.

Tell me: Did the bomb explode immediately after the bomber dropped it?

1) Yes? Sorry, such a person and his action would have been reported by many witnesses and particularly surviving victims.

2) No? The bomber put the backpack down and left the area inconspicuously? Then we have no suicide bomber, but a bomber still walking around.

[beam me up scottie]

79. He doesn't HAVE a theory.

That's your hobby.
You couldn't make your case.

Game over.

[stickdog]

81. Nobody else has "made a case" either. The eyewitness

testimony was interesting, thought provoking and almost completely unknown. Meanwhile, we've had literally thousands of media hacks and yuckety yucks chorusing in unison that four poor probable patsies were definitely SUICIDE BOMBERS.

How does that jibe with bombs set on the floor?

[beam me up scottie]

82. Sorry, making up theories isn't my hobby either.

If you want to indulge in shoehorning outside of this forum, present your speculations when you have evidence to back them up and people will listen.

Anecdotal evidence is not evidence and communal reinforcement only works in this forum.

[stickdog]

83. I don't have theories. I have very legitimate questions.

Why don't you?

[beam me up scottie]

84. Nice false dilemma.

But I'm not exactly new at this.

So, how long ago did you stop beating your wife?

[seatnineb]

88. Solve this dilema.

In this photo:



The hole in the floor is near the window.

The glass of the window is no longer there.

Yet the wall of the tunnel(seen through the window) appears to be undamaged.

Any explanations?

[beam me up scottie]

92. See posts 48, 54

and while you're at it, 88 and 92.

When you find that clue, hang on to it, cuz you're going to need it.

[Name removed]

95. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Taxloss]

98. See post 112.

[seatnineb]

108. Post 112 is wrong.The tube was in the tunnel.....not at the station.

[Taxloss]

114. Not at Edgware road it wasn't. nt

[seatnineb]

130. Wrong again.The tube that was damaged was in the tunnel.

We had just left the station(Edgeware) and there was a big flash of white light and an explosion, one of those massive big sonic boom explosions," said Ms Pascoe, 23, of Nelson
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/index.cfm?c_id=1500947&ObjectID=10334994

[Taxloss]

131. But the tunnel was open.

It is not a single-line tunnel - three or four lines run in parallel, and the blast would have plenty of space to disperse. Indeed, it damaged an adjacent Circle Line train - damaged its carriagework, I should add, indicating a blast from the adjacent carriage.

[seatnineb]

135. Yeah...........by about 6 to 8 feet.

I was in the Edgware Road train, in the carriage that was alongside the carriage that had the bomb in it. We were in a tunnel passing this train when the explosion happened. Although I was only 6 to 8 feet away our carriage held intact and that is what saved us all. The windows did not break or even shatter. I think a great testament to the people who build these carriages/windows.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/4659237.stm.

Yet the bombed tube itself had at least 3 damaged carriages.

[Taxloss]

136. You know, that adds strength to my case, not yours.

The explosion would have had more space to disperse if the bomb was in the train. High roof clearance - the roof of the train was blown off, remember? And only one carriage of the bombed train was seriously damaged.

[seatnineb]

137. Wrong.

In fact the ceiling collapsed.

This guy was in the carriage with the hole:

The window behind me had exploded in, part of the ceiling was on the floor and there was a large hole in the floor.

He then proceeds to walk through to the next carriage:

We broke through into the next carriage where it was even WORSE. There was a lady on the floor and someone was giving her mouth to mouth, but she had stopped breathing, and another gentleman with a large gash across his leg was screaming for help. We helped where we could.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/4659237.stm

So that is at least 2 carriages worth of damage.

[Taxloss]

142. How does this aid your case?

A bomb inside the train could damage more than one carriage.

[seatnineb]

147. It was the second carriage that had the bomb.

The second bomb exploded on the second carriage of westbound Circle Line sub-surface Underground train number 216 at Edgware Road
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_London_transport_explosions

Yet it was the first carriage that had man holes blown out.

walked me through the first carriage where the manholes in the carriage were blown out
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/4659237.stm.

[Taxloss]

150. Your second link is broken. Good try though, you've convinced me.

The bomb WAS under the train. It must have been placed there in the depot. Extraordinary that three bombs could be placed under trains in separate depots and detonate with such accuracy, and everything else we can write off as "coincidence", "circumstantial", or "misinformation".

But the question now must be - who placed the bombs under the trains? It would have to be someone with access to the underside of the train. One of the Edgware Road witnesses said it sounded like the electric motors were blowing out one by one. So it seems the REAL bomber was an electrician. So it seems clear that the REAL bomber was .... JEAN CHARLES DE MENEZES!

(Twilight Zone music)

:tinfoilhat: :rofl: :tinfoilhat: :rofl: :tinfoilhat: :rofl: :tinfoilhat: :rofl: :tinfoilhat: :rofl: :tinfoilhat: :rofl: :tinfoilhat: :rofl: :tinfoilhat: :rofl: :tinfoilhat: :rofl:

(edit: it is 2.30am in the UK. I am going to bed.)

[seatnineb]

153. Sounds more convincing than a Muslim Asian blowing a bomb up....

....in a heavily populated Muslim area of London.......

Sweet dreams.

[beam me up scottie]

100. Human relations, eh ?

[seatnineb]

109. Still unable to answer how a reflected pressure wave from the track...

.....surface ,managed not to cause the metal of the floor of the carriage to push upwards.

Why am I not surprised.

[beam me up scottie]

115. I'm still waiting for you to show me

where I interpreted what the man said.
You keep babbling about something else entirely.

You're really wearing out #34.
There are others to chose from, you know. This one was amusing the first time you used it, now it's just boring.

34. When debating, remember that the best technique to "proving" your hypothesis is to start with a supposition, and when you get to the third point, refer to the supposition as a "fact". This may cause just enough initial confusion to let you escape with a momentary triumph.

[seatnineb]

126. You are wrong.

"The metal was pushed upwards as if the bomb was underneath the train."

Lait speculates that the bomb was underneath the train.....which may or may not be true.

But he sees that the metal has been pushed upwards.

His observation of the metal having been pushed upwards is not hearsay or gossip.

It is an observation.

And there ain't shit you can do to refute it.

[beam me up scottie]

132. Oh, well, there you have it. It was an OBSERVATION !

:spray:

How ridiculous of me to call it hearsay, an OBSERVATION is completely different.
Why, it's the best form of evidence that exists!
What every lawyer dreams of!
As good as testimony from god himself!

:rofl:

[seatnineb]

133. You bet!

[Taxloss]

96. Any explanations? Yes.

For a start, that train isn't in a tunnel. It's in Edgware Road Station, which is open to the air, so there was no tunnel compression effect. Your eagle eyes failed to spot that not only is the glass (actually perspex) in the window is missing, the entire carriage side is missing. This adds weight to the thesis that the carriage was destroyed from the inside, blowing it out like popping a paper bag. less damage would have been done to the carriagework by a bomb underneath, and more to the chassis - that is not what we see. Once the blast had destroyed the carriage, it did little or no damage to the station because it dispersed into the air. Concrete, brick and cast iron feet thick is a lot more durable than perspex and carriagework. I don't see a paradox.

Note the train's "spine", in the lower right-hand quarter of the picture - a steel I-beam running the length of the carriage. It is clearly bent downwards by the blast. This is prbably the strongest structural element on the train. Until someone can explain how it can be bent downwards by a blast from underneath, I will continue to blieve the blast was from above.

[seatnineb]

106. Wrong.

The train had just left Edgware Road station:

Travelling just past Edgware Road Station the train entered a tunnel. We shook like any usual tube train as it rattled down the tracks. It was then I heard a loud bang.

This would have had the effect of concentrating the blast......not "venting" it.

And I would imagine that chassis took a pounding from this:

The train left the tracks and started to rumble down the tunnel. It was incapable of stopping and just rolled on. A series of explosions followed as if tube electric motor after motor was exploding. Each explosion shook the train in the air and seems to make it land at a lower point.

http://www.ladlass.com/intel/archives/009599.html

Never knew one rucksack could cause A series of explosions".

[Taxloss]

117. I never knew a series of explosions could cause a single crater.

We have train derailments depressingly often in this country, both on mainline rail and on the Tube. What is common between these derailments - not caused by explosions - is that witnesses report a loud bang, or several bangs. So one explosion may cause several bangs as the train derails.

Each explosion (or each bang, rather) shook the train in the air and seems to make it land at a lower point.

Sounds like a derailing train to me. The wheels lift off the tracks and crash down into the clinker. Up, then down at a lower point.

The blast would not have been utterly contained as ventilation was immediately behind it. The seat of the blast would have ended up deeper in the tunnel than the point of the explosion because the train's momentum carried it forwards, as that witness confirms (it would be interesting to know which carriage he was in).

The bomb was on the floor of the Edgware Road train. The pictures confirm this - how could an upwards blast cause a downwards crater, buckling steel I-beams?

There was only one bomb. It was in the second carriage. If there was more than one bomb, then the people being evacuated down the tunnel back to the station would have reported a series of bomb-damaged carriges, not just one. There were no such reports.

This is a theory based on reading of the evidence, not a definitive statement of fact. Yours is also a theory. Having compared their relative merits, I consider this version - which happens to be the official version - to be correct.

[seatnineb]

127. You forgot something.

"The manholes in the carriage were blown out"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/4659237.stm.

[Taxloss]

128. What "manholes"?

You've seen the photos. That blast went downwards.

[seatnineb]

138. That is one photo.

And there were at least 2 carriages that were damaged in the Edgeware blast.

These manholes were blown out in the first carriage.

She came straight to me and helped lift the doors that were on top of me then helped me up, took my hand and walked me through the first carriage where the manholes in the carriage were blown out

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/4659237.stm.


From which carriage was the photo taken that had the blown out hole?

[Taxloss]

143. "Blown out" does not mean "blown upwards".

She probably meant "there was a hole in the floor where an access hatch usually is".

[seatnineb]

148. You could be right.

But the manholes were blown in/out in the first carriage.

The second carriage was where the explosion happened(so we are told).

[Taxloss]

85. Still makes a lot more sense than your suggestion.

As someone who uses the Tube on a regular basis, it is normal practice for backpack-wearers to take off their packs and put them between their feet. I do it with my shoulder bag. These are corawded trains. If you put your bag on the floor, it won't continually bash into people. It would not have been in the least conspicuous.

You're trampling over the most basic principles of Occam's razor in order to discredit the official account.

[seatnineb]

87. Wrong.

This photo:




....is not from the train that this man......




.......was on.


This is the train.........



........where this man:




.....claims this happened:

"The metal was pushed upwards as if the bomb was underneath the train."

And there ain't shit that you can do to refute it.

[beam me up scottie]

89. We don't need to refute it.

It's HEARSAY and it's NOT evidence.

Just like the testimony from people who say they were abducted by aliens, chased by Bigfoot or saw Elvis in the john at Mickey D's.

[seatnineb]

90. I'll take this man's testimony.............

....over YOUR interpretation of what he is saying....

Anytime.

[beam me up scottie]

97. I want you to SHOW ME where I interpreted anything he said.

You can't, because I never referenced anything he said, other than to call it hearsay, that is.

This is great!
:rofl:
Are you sure the other guys in here want your help?

[seatnineb]

110. You are really incriminating yourself.

Keep going!

And whilst you are at it...........

Explain how an explosion from a rucksack inside the tube causes this to happen:

The window behind me had exploded in
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/4659237.stm

[beam me up scottie]

116. sigh... see post #107

And try to refrain from using insults or personal attacks this time.

[seatnineb]

140. "The metal was pushed upward"

You cannot refute this.

Period.

[beam me up scottie]

145. I thought you said that was his OBSERVATION.

Personal OBSERVATIONS are anecdotal evidence and are useless.

I know somebody who OBSERVED Elvis sneaking out the back door of a Kentucky Fried Chicken right down the road.

I work with a person that regularly OBSERVES ghosts.

Worthless OBSERVATIONS.

The fact that he said it may not be refutable but you keep trying to use #34 and it only works on other woo woos.

34. When debating, remember that the best technique to "proving" your hypothesis is to start with a supposition, and when you get to the third point, refer to the supposition as a "fact". This may cause just enough initial confusion to let you escape with a momentary triumph.

[seatnineb]

149. You are wrong

You have to prove that Lait did not see what he claims to have seen.

And this you cannot do.

[beam me up scottie]

154. On what planet?

You really have lost touch with reality.

Lucky for you, you have your pocketbook edition of the credo handy:

6. If you're cornered and asked for proof of something, always tell the person that they "can't disprove" your claims. Many of them will just walk away shaking their heads, which of course means they agree with you. A side-to-side head shake could be the same as a vertical nod. Anything is possible, after all.

I think you may also be using #13:

13. Drink heavily while posting.

[seatnineb]

155. "The metal was pushed upwards" really does get you in a twist.

[beam me up scottie]

156. Yep, about as much as "I swear I was abducted and anally probed!" does.

:rofl:

[seatnineb]

157. Manholes blown out...windows blown out ....and this was in a carriage...

....that was NOT THE CARRIAGEwhere the bomb exploded.

“All the windows blew out"
Travis Banko
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/f4051a8e-eed4-11d9-8b10-00000e2511c8,dwp_uuid=63a158de-21ae-11d9-8c55-00000e2511c8.html

"Walked me through the first carriage where the manholes in the carriage were blown out"
Danny Belstenown

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/4659237.stm.

But I guess that is all a coincidence and hearsay for you.

[beam me up scottie]

158. JEAN CHARLES DE MENEZES!

And Elmo.
Elmo was definitely involved.


:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

[pox americana]

159. Is the death of an innocent tourist really so funny?

Or are some people better dead than alive anyway?

[seatnineb]

161. POX my friend.....I would not worry about beam's

.......fucked up attitude too much:


In the words of beam me up scottie

Sat Aug-13-05 07:09 PM

" Look, I didn't come here to debate. I'm not that stupid and I don't like mental masturbation, as Sammy calls it."

[beam me up scottie]

167. Another personal attack.

And thank you for illustrating my point:

"anyone who disagrees is beaten to death with anecdotes, orphaned facts and propaganda."

I forgot insulted and attacked.
Bad BMUS! :spank:

[seatnineb]

176. "Look, I didn't come here to debate"

If you did not come here to debate.....

Then why are you here?

[beam me up scottie]

168. There is nothing funny about the

frantic and perverted manufacture of paranoid conspiracy theories by people who obsessively proselytise and refuse to allow others to dissent.

Intelligent dialogue is impossible with someone who refuses to read the posts of others and lacks respect for anyone who doesn't buy into their paranoid delusions.

Who used personal attacks, profanity and insults in this thread?
Who had their post deleted because of that?

[stickdog]

103. It's eyewitness testimony, not hearsay. Do you know what hearsay is?

Since when is eyewitness testimony not evidence? It's not the best possible evidence, no doubt, but it's at least one step removed from hearsay.

[beam me up scottie]

105. Definition:

hear•say

Pronunciation: (hēr'sā"),
—n.
1. unverified, unofficial information gained or acquired from another and not part of one's direct knowledge: I pay no attention to hearsay.

Do you know what confirmation bias is?

Even better, do you know what the definition of unerring is?

[petgoat]

169. Hearsay is when someone repeats information heard from others;

Lait may have confused by head injuries, but his reports are his
observations.

It's interesting to me how often the defenders of the official story
have to resort to arguments like "witnesses! Let me tell you about
witnesses! My sister-in-law believes she was probed by aliens!"

So you're not allowed to have witnesses.

We're not allowed to have "reports," we're not allowed to have
"experts," we're not allowed to have "theories," we're not allowed to
have "polls," we're not allowed to have "science." We're not allowed
to have "books" because they are written for the purpose of scamming
money from the witless ones who buy them, and we're not allowed to
have "websites" since they are run by amateurs who don't get paid for
their efforts.

(I put these words in "quotes" because the official story defenders
tend to.)

All we're allowed to have is faith that God has put the right men for
the job in power and that they are doing God's work every day. Amen!

Sorry if I unfairly made you a target of a rant, scottie. So please
share with us your "confuirmation bias" theory about Mr. Lait's
statement. Do you have any evidence that the Cambridge reporter went
in there and said "Do you think the floor plates were bent up?"

[beam me up scottie]

171. Please read my response to philb at the end of this thread.

I refuse to participate in baseless speculation and consider it an insult to my intelligence when I am asked to take on faith something for which there is no evidence.

I also take offense to your use of false dilemmas.
Not everyone who disagrees with PCTs are "defenders of the official story".

Also, I don't believe in gods, which is something else I refuse to take on faith.

I am a skeptic and not a conspiracy theorist.

Thank you for your polite response but you seem to have mistaken my participation in this thread, which originated in another forum, as an indication that I indulge in speculation.

[stickdog]

173. Obviously not.

[Taxloss]

91. You're wrong.

The "Honigsbaum report", relates to the "Edgeware" (sic) Road train. The crater photo is from the Edgware Road train. Absolute fact.

[seatnineb]

93. I am talking about Bruce Lait............not Honigsbaum.

And you know that.

Because this photo:



....is NOT from the train where this man:




...says this happened:

"The metal was pushed upwards as if the bomb was underneath the train."

[Taxloss]

101. You love that man's photo, don't you?

One man's account reported in one local newspaper where one line says that he doesn't remember anyone being near the site of the blast. Against overwhelming counter-evidence.

[seatnineb]

107. His account was given on 11/7/05.

.....before the suicide bomber scenario (on the tube)was confirmed by the authorities.

Got any accounts from witnesses who saw different to Bruce Lait?

Did not think so.

[Taxloss]

119. Well, give me a chance.

Here's a picture and a witness report:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/uk/05/london_blasts/what_happened/html/aldgate.stm

'Another man, Terry O'Shea, said passengers were led down the track past the carriage where the bomb had exploded. "We could see the roof was torn off it, and there were bodies on the track."'

Seems like an explosive force inside the train to me, blowing it out like an over-inflated paper bag.

Bob Ayers seems to confirm this:

'"There is considerable damage there," said Ayers, who analyzed the photographs. "You can see it's blown out the walls, it's blown out the sides, it's blown the roof. That was a good size bomb that that man took down there and set off."'

http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/LondonBlasts/story?id=979905

Sounds like the explosive force came from within the carriage to me.

Michael Henning, a witness who was 10ft from the blast, describes seeing a flash from the bombed carriage:

http://www.itn.co.uk/news/13571.html

How could he have seen that, if the bomb was under the train?

Bob Ayers, a terrorism and explosives expert, seems to confirm this:

'"There is considerable damage there," said Ayers, who analyzed the photographs. "You can see it's blown out the walls, it's blown out the sides, it's blown the roof. That was a good size bomb that that man took down there and set off."'

http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/LondonBlasts/story?id=979905

Sounds like the explosive force came from within the carriage to me.

The bomb at Edgware Road was certainly inside the train, as the pictures clearly show. You would expect that a bomb under the train would damage the tracks and trackbed far more intensely than a bomb inside the train.

Yet Aldgate re-opened before Edgware Road:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/4704031.stm

Doesn't suggest serious track damage to me.

[Woody Box]

123. Seems, sounds, seems, sounds...

"We could see the roof was torn off it, and there were bodies on the track."

"There is considerable damage there," said Ayers, who analyzed the photographs. "You can see it's blown out the walls, it's blown out the sides, it's blown the roof. That was a good size bomb that that man took down there and set off."

"I saw silver travelling through the air - that was the glass - and a yellow flash."

These accounts you take as evidence that the bomb was inside the train? Give me a break.

[Taxloss]

124. Seems, sounds - because we have no PROOF.

You have no proof for your theory. I have no proof for mine. I would have stated the evidence I have as proof if it was proof, but it is not and nothing you have is proof either. What we do have is evidence, and I have a heap of evidence and you have a few scraps.

I could state everything I believe about this as absolute incontrovertible fact, but that would be deceptive. Just as it is if you did the same thing. This is how rational argument works, you see? Thesis, antithesis, synthesis. It's the intellectual underpinning of Western Civilisation.

The evidence of our eyes should be enough - The Aldgate train simply does not appear to have been bombed from underneath. The Honigsbaum report is utterly erroneous as can be simply demonstrated. The blog report about Edgware Road can be easily explained. And the Aldgate bomb witness reports and photographs suggest, to me, that the bomb was inside the train. The outstanding report that does not fit is Mr Lait's opinion of what he saw. Applying Occam's razor, Mr Lait is probably mistaken.

Yes, I take the full and through analysis of the available evidence to indicate that the Aldgate bomb was inside the train, and the Edgware Road bomb was inside the train. I have yet to see any counter-evidence other than ... Mr Lait. And he seems to have been mistaken. That is my belief. Do I have any proof? No. Neither do you. Just evidence. And you have your own belief, as is your right.

But I want more evidence from you. Mr Lait is not enough. And I will not "give you a break" until you can produce more evidence from a reputable source.

[Woody Box]

163. *sigh*

But I want more evidence from you. Mr Lait is not enough. And I will not "give you a break" until you can produce more evidence from a reputable source.

I did already. You probably missed the post, therefore, here's a special for you:

"This is Mark Honigsbaum calling from the London Hilton Hotel opposite Edgeware Station where we believe there was an explosion under the carriage of a train."
…
“What seems to have happened is that sometime around 9:30 this morning, passengers in the train travelling from Edgeware road to Paddington had just left Edgeware Road station when suddenly they felt… they had a massive explosion and some passengers described how the tiles… the covers on the floor of the train suddenly flew up... rose up and the next thing they know there was another almighty crash which they now believe was a train travelling in the opposite direction hitting their train, which had been derailed by this explosion.”

[seatnineb]

165. Thanks for transcribing that Woody!

:yourock:

It is also important to emphasize how the manholes(and the windows) were blown out in the first carriage:

"Took my hand and walked me through the first carriage where the manholes in the carriage were blown out"
Danny Belsten, Manchester

But it was in the second carriage where the actual (official)explosion took place:

"The window behind me had exploded in, part of the ceiling was on the floor and there was a large hole in the floor"
Chris Stones, Whitchurch, UK

[Taxloss]

166. This report is clearly erroneous.

The photo tells a different story. Honigsbaum's account is riddled with errors and should be disregarded.

[seatnineb]

175. The photo only shows the damaged area of what I assume .....

....to be the 2nd carriage where the bomb supposedly detonated.

There was another (the 1st)carriage that was heavily damaged aswell.

Maybe the passengers Honigsbaum was refering to were on that carriage.

[seatnineb]

129. Aldgate probably re-opened before Edgeware...........

........because even though both stations had parallel tracks,Edgeware had 2 trains running in opposite directions having stalled side by side.
Aldgate on the other hand ,had just the one.(If there is a report saying different...then I have not seen it)

Also......some of the victims at Edgeware had fallen underneath the train.....which also slowed down the recovery and repair process.

[Taxloss]

134. A reasonable hypothesis, but it does not cover the issue of

damage to the track and track bed, as well as damage to the electric traction system.

PS It's Edgware, not Edgeware.

[seatnineb]

139. There may have also been a damaged wall to contend with too.

A wall that was damaged in the explosion later collapsed
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_London_transport_explosions

[Taxloss]

141. That does not indicate an explosion under the train, or multiple

explosions.

[seatnineb]

144. Strange.

The wall on one side of the bombed carriage was so badly damaged that it collpased.

But the stalled train travelling in the opposite direction to the bombed carriage was relatively undamaged.

And the wall that collapsed was made of sturdier stuff than the stalled train.

Plus the collapsed wall would have slowed down the repair/recovery operation.

Probably the reason why Edgeware took longer to re-open than Aldgate.

[Taxloss]

146. You don't know where the wall was, how it was damaged, or why it collapsed

You're whistling in the dark.

It certainly wasn't the tunnel wall, that's for sure.

PS it is EDGWARE, not Edgeware.

[seatnineb]

151. And neither do you.

Hopefully the ongoing investigation will resolve this issue.

[Taxloss]

152. Exactly. Let's just agree on that and call it a day. nt

[Woody Box]

120. Ah - we're coming closer

and your theory gets more and more detailed. Thank you.

The bomber took his rucksack off and put it on the floor, but the bomb didn't explode. Then, a few seconds/minutes later, the bomb exploded killing (among other people) the bomber.

Tell me if I misinterpret you. Two problems:

1) Again, Bruce Lait has seen NOTHING at the place where the bomb exploded. To repeat myself, no bag, no backpack, no bomber.

2) Who triggered the explosion when the rucksack was lying on the floor? The bomber himself, manually? This would have been observed, too. Time devices? Why should a suicide bomber carry a time device?

I'm not so sure if Occam's on your side. But let's see how your theory develops.

[Taxloss]

125. Your questions answer themselves.

1. "It was a very powerful bomb", according to Bob Ayers, a terrorism and explosive expert. Given the time available, would Mr Lait have been able to detect shreds of fabric and fragments of timer in a smoke-filled and darkened tunnel while being urged to evacuate and needing urgent medical attention? Of course not. The rucksack was destroyed.

2. Your questions cancel themselves out. Yes, if the bomber had manually detonated the bomb, he would have ben observed. Hence the need for a timer, so a manual detonation would not be needed.

So why did the bomber have to accompany the bomb?

Answer: The IRA. Britain's transport networks have warned against abandoned bags for 30 years. We know the drill. He could not have left the bag unattended on a crowded Tube train without someone saying "you've forgotten your bag". It HAD to be a suicide mission if the Tube was the target. So that's why a suicide bomber would have a time device. Occam's razor.

[Guy_Montag]

174. When sitting on the tube

I normally have my bag on the floor between my legs, like everyone else. When I stand on the tube, I normally have my bag on the floor between my legs, like almost everyone else - saves me knocking over little old ladies when I turn round.

[John Doe II]

122. The photo is from Edgware. Great, but

as I said Bruce Lait, the witness from the original post, was NOT sitting in this tube. So how does a photo of a different tube contradict Bruce Lait's statement who was sitting in the tube that exploded close to Liverpool Street? The one photo that actually shows the tube from Liverpool Street does NOT show the floor.

Show me just one CCTV image that shows the alleged bombers sitting at the place where the bomb went off.

Show me ONE witness who saw them in the tubes or in London that day.

And I show you one witness who is all over the news since July 8 (BBC) and who claims to have seen Hussain but it can easily be proven that Richard Jones couldn't have seen him.

Evidence please.

And no more confusion then as in the analysis of the compounds of the bomb that was used or if they used cell phones or not or if a timing device was found or not.

What everybody needs is what Blair doesn't want: an investigation!

[vincent_vega_lives]

67. I think it's pretty clear

That the dammage in the first pic was caused by an explosion above the floor of the train.

[Woody Box]

78. ???pretty clear???

:crazy:
:silly:
:freak:
:wtf:

[Frederik]

111. Definitely looks like the bomb

was inside the train. And if the Edgware Road bomb was, I think it would be reasonable to assume that the other bombs were as well.

[philb]

53. An alternative possibility

Conjecture of course, but perhaps the bombs were planted underneath the trains when the trains were in the Hammersmith, Cockfosters and Northfields overnight Tube service depots , which serve the Circle and Piccadilly lines on which the blasts took place.

That theory is a re-dux of the late Joe Vialls' supposition for what he says actually happened in the Madrid bombings of March 3, 2004 - where also there were no suicide bombers - the Madrid train bombs were planted under the carriages when the trains were out of service.
http://100777.com/faketerror/london0707/metalpushedupwards

[Name removed]

68. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[stickdog]

72. Yes, they all blew themselves up shouting "Allah Abkar!"

Stop me if you've heard this one before. :eyes:

[vincent_vega_lives]

73. Soooo your saying this was made up?

So was Black September all a fake too? Where does it end with you???

[stickdog]

80. Well, state sponsored terrorism is "all made up" in a sense.

What I'm saying is that you shouldn't attempt to prove a suspicious event is not suspicious by comparing it to another suspicious event.

[Taxloss]

86. Ah, adding detail to aid discrediting. Interesting.

Yes, they almost certainly blew themselves up. Maybe they even shouted or said something when they did it, but your saying the did is simply to attribute a detail to someone else's argument in order to discredit it, a cheap debating tactic.

[stickdog]

94. Funny how all the terraists we catch either blow themselves up or

get secreted away to secure locations for infinite periods of questioning, ain't it?

Just saying ...

[Taxloss]

99. You know, if these men had been arrested for shoplifiting

we wouldn't be allowed to know details of their questioning because it's sub judice, a law that protects the accused. These men have full legal representation and are retained inside London, in the full glare of our courts and dozens of human rights groups. They are not being detained for an "infinite" period of questioning, the very idea is absurd.

[stickdog]

102. What about the rights of the 4 poor departed souls that the

politicos, police and the press have all unerringly branded as crazed Muslim suicide bombers?

[beam me up scottie]

104. So you really think they were

"crazed Muslim suicide bombers" ?

Wow.
Pretty harsh, Dude.

Shouldn't you at least wait for the results of the investigation before calling them that?

[philb]

112. What we see so far seems to imply someone duped them

But isn't that the same pattern seen in a lot of the big terrorist events. Wasn't it reported that events like Oklahoma City, WTC 93 bombing, and others were sting operations "gone wrong" with Gov't people involved in the action.

There are some indications this might have been a possibility in 9/11 as well. Alleged pepetrators were being monitored and not acting like terrorist trying to accomplish a clandestine mission.

[beam me up scottie]

118. Look, I didn't come here to debate.

I'm not that stupid and I don't like mental masturbation, as Sammy calls it.

There's a reason why most posters, even if they are interested in September 11, don't come down here.

I know many people who are actually interested in honest debate about the issues but they would never come here looking for it.

The only reason I'm here is because this god damned thread got moved here from the UK forum and I was tired of seeing your comrades gnaw on it in my absence.

This is an echo chamber, anyone who disagrees is beaten to death with anecdotes, orphaned facts and propaganda.

You appear to be genuinely interested in getting at the truth and engaging other posters in productive dialogue.

It's a shame that many of the others taint every thread with their obsessive proselytizing.

Perhaps if we meet again in the main forums, we can have an actual discussion.

Unfortunately, it is futile to try to do so here.

[philb]

164. Is this a response to my post? Doesn't seem on task.

Authorities said it did not appear the alleged bombers were suicide bombers. Their background also wasn't very consistent. There were more than one witnesses who said it appeared the bombs were under the trains. Even some "authorities" suggested the alleged bombers were duped by someone. So you are saying its clear that they weren't. Make your case. You haven't so far.

[beam me up scottie]

170. It is a reply to one of the few posters who has

actually read the posts of others and respected the opinions those who disagree with him.

I have no case to make. I explained that this is not my thing.

I don't engage in obsessive armchair speculation and second guessing, nor fevered research for factoids and anecdotes that I can manipulate to prove my theory that the BFEE were behind this attack as well as the ones on 9/11.

The op insisted on posting his "theory" in the UK forum and failed to make HIS case. He then personally attacked another poster that didn't agree with his POV.

That is the reason why I posted on this thread and followed it when it was moved to this forum.

Frankly, I'm not interested in the op's faith and beliefs.

If and when someone provides sufficient evidence of MIHOP, then I will listen.

Until then, I regard this exercise as unproductive and any efforts to intelligently discuss it in this forum as delusional.

Dissent is not tolerated here.

Your comrades have seen to that.

And dissenters who do visit do not need to provide an alternative theory any more than I need to provide disproof of god when my atheism is questioned.

Skeptics do not need to prove a negative, the burden of proving the positive falls on the believer.

Thank you for your polite and thoughtful replies to my posts and those of others.

I only wish that others would realize that discussion is not possible when bullying tactics are used to stifle disagreement.

[Taxloss]

113. Well, the politicians are emphatic they were suicide bombers.

And the evidence certainly seems to back them up.

[Woody Box]

121. The politicians should listen to Scotland Yard sometimes

Investigators raising doubts about the suicide assumption have cited plenty of evidence to support the theory. Each of the four men who died in the July 7 attacks purchased round-trip railway tickets from Luton, a city north of the capital, to London. The rented car of one of the bombers, Germaine Lindsay, that was left in Luton had a seven-day parking sticker on the dashboard. A large quantity of explosives were stored in the trunk of that car, perhaps for another attack. Another bomber had just spent a large sum to repair his car.

The men carried driver's licenses and other ID cards with them to their deaths, unusual for suicide bombers. In addition, none left behind a note, videotape or Internet trail as suicide bombers have done in the past. The bombers' families were baffled by what seemed to be their decisions to kill themselves.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/07/27/news/bombers.php

[DemInDistress]

160. I read all your posts and not one

mentions Canadaian security team was running a drill.The exercise was dealing with the potential of tube bombs placed.Is it a coincidence that the Canadaian team chose those particuar tube stops at the exact time,sort of reminds me of 911 when our AirForce was conducting war games,the target--commercial jets hijacked and headed for a skyscraper.Their presence may be chance coincidence dumb luck or deliberately became involved directly of indirectly,both would need cooperation fron MI-6 and blair....was larceny perpetrated on 7/7/05 ???

[Woody Box]

162. I'm well aware of the drill story

but I decided against mentioning it because it is not directly related to the question of the bomb's location.

Personally, I believe this drill played a role in the attacks.

[DemInDistress]

172. thank you woody-b

these coincidental drills happening at the same time terror strikes occur is more than chance,hell 911 was a perfect example of a drill
to mask the real attacks,then 7/7/05 Canadians drilling at the exact stations which were hit...Something's going on i really don't know what it is.....