Forums

 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages 
London Bombings: Conspiracies
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 118, 119, 120, 121  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Fortean Times Message Board Forum Index -> Conspiracy - The War on Terror
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Bigfoot73Offline
Great Old One
Joined: 19 May 2009
Total posts: 1109
Location: Leeds
Gender: Male
PostPosted: 04-02-2011 15:14    Post subject: Reply with quote

You might have a point there BRF - the way I read it was that there was something of the pelvis left attached around the spine. The lower half of both legs were almost completely missing but the upper halves are not listed as completely missing. If the explosion came from the floor then the upper legs could have been left attached. the left knee is still there and it must have been attached to something.
Back to top
View user's profile 
Bigfoot73Offline
Great Old One
Joined: 19 May 2009
Total posts: 1109
Location: Leeds
Gender: Male
PostPosted: 04-02-2011 15:20    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Something went bang and killed lots of people at Russell Square. Given the known evidence, it would seem likely it was the same stuff that exploded at the other three sites.


Which is more or less what DC Reynolds argued. We are talking nanograms here.
Back to top
View user's profile 
Dr_Baltar
PostPosted: 04-02-2011 15:29    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bigfoot73 wrote:

Which is more or less what DC Reynolds argued. We are talking nanograms here.


The way I read your comments indicated to me you thought the lack of explosive residue was evidence of something suspicious. Apologies if I was wrong.
Back to top
View user's profile 
Dr_Baltar
PostPosted: 04-02-2011 15:35    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bigfoot73 wrote:
You might have a point there BRF - the way I read it was that there was something of the pelvis left attached around the spine. The lower half of both legs were almost completely missing but the upper halves are not listed as completely missing. If the explosion came from the floor then the upper legs could have been left attached. the left knee is still there and it must have been attached to something.


It states the left knee is almost entirely missing. And after such an explosion, I'm not sure what was left of it would necessarily be attached to anything. Likewise the upper legs may have survived the blast but not be attached to anything.
Back to top
View user's profile 
Bigfoot73Offline
Great Old One
Joined: 19 May 2009
Total posts: 1109
Location: Leeds
Gender: Male
PostPosted: 04-02-2011 15:55    Post subject: Reply with quote

I do indeed find the lack of any trace of explosives, and detonator, suspicious, especially when such minute amounts can be found nowadays. The Russell Square explosion was supposed to be Germaine Lindsay, who had fallen asleep in his car at Luton station while waiting for the other three, who had urgently wanted to speak to a duty manager at the ticket barrier, and I still maintain this is not the behaviour of a suicide bomber.
It doesn't help matters that there is no specific mention of the upper legs, but how they could have survived the blast at all, attached or not , when there was a 5-10 kilo bomb sat on them defeats me.
The point is they should not have been if the bomb was in the rucksack on Khan's lap - which is where the official story has it.
Back to top
View user's profile 
Dr_Baltar
PostPosted: 04-02-2011 16:24    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bigfoot73 wrote:
I do indeed find the lack of any trace of explosives, and detonator, suspicious, especially when such minute amounts can be found nowadays. The Russell Square explosion was supposed to be Germaine Lindsay, who had fallen asleep in his car at Luton station while waiting for the other three, who had urgently wanted to speak to a duty manager at the ticket barrier, and I still maintain this is not the behaviour of a suicide bomber.


I think the extract you posted is pretty clear; these type of explosives generally leave traceable amounts, but not always.


Quote:
It doesn't help matters that there is no specific mention of the upper legs, but how they could have survived the blast at all, attached or not , when there was a 5-10 kilo bomb sat on them defeats me.


The fact that it defeats you is neither here nor there, unless you happen to be an expert in such matters. I'm no expert either but, as far as I'm aware, explosives like this can be unpredictable in their results. Depending how they are packed, the force of the explosion can be directed quite randomly. Personally, I'm surprised that they managed to recover as much of his body as they did, but there you have it.


Quote:
The point is they should not have been if the bomb was in the rucksack on Khan's lap - which is where the official story has it.


But that isn't the official story, is it? Is it not one eye-witness's testimony, a testimony that has proved inconsistent (unsurprisingly, after suffering such a traumatic event)?
Back to top
View user's profile 
Bigfoot73Offline
Great Old One
Joined: 19 May 2009
Total posts: 1109
Location: Leeds
Gender: Male
PostPosted: 04-02-2011 16:42    Post subject: Reply with quote

There wasn't just absolutely no trace of the explosives, but no detonator either, and surely nanograms of that would be detectable too.

Quote:
I'm no expert either but, as far as I'm aware, explosives like this can be unpredictable in their results.


So unpredictable that they don't damage what they are sat on?

Quote:
Personally, I'm surprised that they managed to recover as much of his body as they did,


Me too.


Quote:
But that isn't the official story, is it? Is it not one eye-witness's testimony, a testimony that has proved inconsistent (unsurprisingly, after suffering such a traumatic event)?


Danny Biddle's testimony was very detailed. What was inconsistent about it?
This is important, because his is the only detailed, confident unambiguous identification of any of the four at any of the bomb scenes.
Back to top
View user's profile 
Dr_Baltar
PostPosted: 04-02-2011 17:00    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bigfoot73 wrote:
There wasn't just absolutely no trace of the explosives, but no detonator either, and surely nanograms of that would be detectable too.


I don't know, do you?

Quote:
So unpredictable that they don't damage what they are sat on?


Is there any evidence that his upper legs remained intact and undamaged? Nothing I've read would lead me to that conclusion.

Quote:
Quote:
Personally, I'm surprised that they managed to recover as much of his body as they did,


Me too.


This is probably because neither of us are skilled or experienced in forensic investigation.


Quote:

Danny Biddle's testimony was very detailed. What was inconsistent about it?
This is important, because his is the only detailed, confident unambiguous identification of any of the four at any of the bomb scenes.


I believe his story (at least as quoted) has changed a number of times re. where and whether he was standing and where or whether Khan was standing and how or whether he was wearing his rucksack. In fact, I don't even know if we can be sure it was Khan he identified as the bomber.
Back to top
View user's profile 
Black River FallsOffline
I wear a fez now.
Joined: 03 Aug 2003
Total posts: 7407
Location: The Attic of Blinky Lights
Age: 45
Gender: Female
PostPosted: 04-02-2011 17:39    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Is there any evidence that his upper legs remained intact and undamaged? Nothing I've read would lead me to that conclusion.


The definition of 'almost entirely missing' in this context seems to mean a bit of bone was left and that was it. The upper legs may not have been 'almost entirely missing' but I don;t think that necessarily implies there was a great deal left of them.

This may just say more about the robustness of the bones in the upper leg than anything else, that the bones failed at the pelvis and knee joints rather than along their length.

This is a very cheerful conversation we're having Exclamation
Back to top
View user's profile Visit poster's website 
ted_bloody_maulOffline
Great Old One
Joined: 23 May 2003
Total posts: 4592
Location: Quester's Psykick Dancehall
Gender: Unknown
PostPosted: 04-02-2011 18:43    Post subject: Reply with quote

As pointed out Biddle's testimony is inconsistent (in fact some conspiracy theorists have noted this). Why is it even considered relevant?

In any case there was a detonation and there was an explosion. What is being posited by citing the lack of evidence for specific detonators and explosives?
Back to top
View user's profile 
Bigfoot73Offline
Great Old One
Joined: 19 May 2009
Total posts: 1109
Location: Leeds
Gender: Male
PostPosted: 04-02-2011 18:51    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
I don't know, do you?


Well ,they didn't have to look for sub-microscopic fragments of the detonators at any of the other sites. DC Reynolds offers no explanation as to how there could be no trace of explosives or detonator, nor does he say there is one but he wants to withhold it from open court lest it provide potential bombers with useful information.

80.18, the list of body parts completely missing, which does not include the upper legs. It would greatly assist anyone wanting to scrutinize the evidence if they released a catalogue of every last item logged.

Quote:
where or whether Khan was standing and how or whether he was wearing his rucksack.

I've seen pre-inquest statements he made where he said Khan was wearing the rucksack on his back, and had another "main" bag on his lap.

Quote:
I don't even know if we can be sure it was Khan he identified as the bomber.

Indeed not, he refers to Khan as a young looking Asian man, although Khan was 4 years older than him -30, and only seems to become sure it was him after watching a TV report naming him. His was the only witness account identifying any of the bombers with any degree of certainty, and now even that now looks dubious.
Back to top
View user's profile 
Bigfoot73Offline
Great Old One
Joined: 19 May 2009
Total posts: 1109
Location: Leeds
Gender: Male
PostPosted: 04-02-2011 18:57    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Why is it even considered relevant?


Because it seemed reliable, except of course that it may not be.

Quote:
What is being posited by citing the lack of evidence for specific detonators and explosives?


That whatever Lindsay was carrying in his rucksack may not have been the source of the explosion.
Back to top
View user's profile 
ted_bloody_maulOffline
Great Old One
Joined: 23 May 2003
Total posts: 4592
Location: Quester's Psykick Dancehall
Gender: Unknown
PostPosted: 04-02-2011 19:45    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bigfoot73 wrote:

Well ,they didn't have to look for sub-microscopic fragments of the detonators at any of the other sites. DC Reynolds offers no explanation as to how there could be no trace of explosives or detonator, nor does he say there is one but he wants to withhold it from open court lest it provide potential bombers with useful information.


If they could find no trace of any explosive whatsoever then this can mean a few things:

There was an explosion and the forensic teams were unable to locate the materials responsible;

There was an explosion and the forensic teams were able to locate the materials responsible but have lied about it;

There was no explosion.

Which of those three options would you propose most likely? If it's the second of those two possibilities then why would they not fabricate the evidence that you claim is absent. Are there any other scenarios you can foresee?

Bigfoot73 wrote:
80.18, the list of body parts completely missing, which does not include the upper legs. It would greatly assist anyone wanting to scrutinize the evidence if they released a catalogue of every last item logged.

I've seen pre-inquest statements he made where he said Khan was wearing the rucksack on his back, and had another "main" bag on his lap.

........................

Indeed not, he refers to Khan as a young looking Asian man, although Khan was 4 years older than him -30, and only seems to become sure it was him after watching a TV report naming him. His was the only witness account identifying any of the bombers with any degree of certainty, and now even that now looks dubious.


With regard to the issue of identifying age - I read that exact point being made on one of the same sites which point out why his testimony is not particularly useful (as evidence presumably of a conspiracy). I thought it was a rather weak point then and I think it is now.

Biddle's age is hardly relevant to how he describes anyone else - following your logic (or rather whoever raised the point initially) an 18 year old couldn't describe a 19 year old as young looking. That's aside from the fact that people can look younger than they actually are not to mention others simply being a bad judge of age (a colleague recently estimated my age to be 12 years younger than I actually am and reckoned another colleague 16 years younger).

I'm quite sure if Biddle had describe Khan as being old or middle aged then his testimony would be seized upon as even less reliable and perhaps more sinister in its inaccuracy. In any case Biddle's testimony is hardly put forward as the official version.
Back to top
View user's profile 
ted_bloody_maulOffline
Great Old One
Joined: 23 May 2003
Total posts: 4592
Location: Quester's Psykick Dancehall
Gender: Unknown
PostPosted: 04-02-2011 19:54    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bigfoot73 wrote:
Quote:
What is being posited by citing the lack of evidence for specific detonators and explosives?


That whatever Lindsay was carrying in his rucksack may not have been the source of the explosion.


I presume you mean Khan.

It's difficult to know what to make of this. If the explosives were not in their possession then where did they come from? One would have to remark that it's an extraordinary coincidence that 4 young men who set off together on a journey which took them in 4 different directions all perished in the only 4 lethal bombings associated with a cause they espoused and were known to have connections with.

Peter Power's spooky coincidence seems somewhat less than spooky by comparison.
Back to top
View user's profile 
Bigfoot73Offline
Great Old One
Joined: 19 May 2009
Total posts: 1109
Location: Leeds
Gender: Male
PostPosted: 04-02-2011 21:35    Post subject: Reply with quote

This number of possible outcomes method you have employed - that's one of David Ray Griffin's favourite ploys. Does this mean, surely not, really Ted, you haven't have you ?
How about, there was an explosion but the forensic team did not test for the substances involved?

Let's not forget they didn't find trace of a detonator either. Which could mean that Germaine Lindsay was not responsible for the explosion.
Perhaps Danny Biddle was a bad judge of age, perhaps he was a bad judge of identity too. Which wouldn't bode well for the notion that the four men were responsible for the explosions (which perhaps I should not refer to as the official version) because there would then be no remotely positive witness identifications of any of the four at the four scenes left.

Quote:
(a colleague recently estimated my age to be 12 years younger than I actually am and reckoned another colleague 16 years younger).


Maybe you've just got a brown-noser on board.


Quote:
I presume you mean Khan.


Lindsay, Russell Square.

I was only suggesting doubts as to Lindsay's bomb - he wanted to speak to the duty manager at the ticket barrier, fell asleep in the car waiting for the others and doesn't seem to have been anything like as closely involved.
I still find it odd that they left no claims of responsibility, or indeed felt it necessary to die in the explosions when they only had to leave the bombs and could have escaped. Suicide bombers usually have to make sure the bombs get to their intended targets , and that would not have been a problem here.


Quote:
Peter Power's spooky coincidence seems somewhat less than spooky by comparison.

Peter Powers' spooky coincidence looks spooky no matter what else does or does not.
Back to top
View user's profile 
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Fortean Times Message Board Forum Index -> Conspiracy - The War on Terror All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 118, 119, 120, 121  Next
Page 119 of 121

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group